A Cynical View on Foreign Policy and Public Opinion:

            I am a true believer in the American Democratic system, but come election season, it's flaws become abundantly clear. With foreign policy these problems are exacerbated due to a low level of public knowledge and interest. Without high levels of public opinion, the debate is limited to a framing battle over a series of symbolic gestures and slogans.

            To begin, it is necessary to understand that foreign policy is complicated. For example, while somebody can be clearly identified as being for gay marriage, it is harder to say whether someone is “for” a country such as China or Egypt. Foreign policy is based on a complex series of interactions between multiple entities both governmental, organizational, and personal. It’s never simple, general, or easy to explain. And yet, when election season comes around, it gets very black and white. Suddenly, you can become “for China.”

            As an example one can look at how the 2012 candidates have campaigned around this developing country. Mitt Romney has frequently described his plan to take a firm stance against China by stopping a government he has called “cheaters” and “bullies.” He has complained about Obama’s “support” for the country saying that he has stood by and watched while they have manipulated their prices in a harmful way for the United States. The Romney staff has cleverly painted a picture where the emerging superpower is nothing more than an enemy, taking our jobs.

            In response, the Obama administration could have offered a substantive critique by offering it's opposing approach to dealing with China. Unfortunately this is not what has happened. Instead, the administration has used negative attack ads against the governor to try and show that they are more “against China.” In a recent Virginia ad, the administration attacked Romney for sending Bain Capitol jobs to China. Once again, the approach was to simply argue about who was more “against” the country.

            Both candidates fail to offer any real substantive plans for their diplomatic relations with China. Instead they rely on symbols and simple frames. And these candidates have done the same thing with many other countries, whether it’s been  with who can be more “for” Israel or who can be more “against” Iran. Debates have become less about policy, and more about the election.

            This did not start with the 2012 election though. In my opinion, one can find the roots for this type of behavior far earlier in American history: The start. In the years before the 1776 revolution, colonial politicians had a very similar type of behavior towards the British. The political elite of the time would spread hatred to their followers, raising claims of tyrannical cruelty from the king. Just like today, they did so through a small amount of actual policy complaints, focusing more on the cruelty of the current government. The revolution was less of a critique on their policies, and more of a defamation of British character.  

            More than 200 years later, this quality remained during the Cold War. Suddenly Russia was the country to hate, and it once again became a battle of who was more “against” the regime. Rather than focusing on legitimate policy choices that would have major effects in the future, candidates chose to campaign on mere symbols.

            The Cold War conflict in Afghanistan is a prime example of why this simplistic method of framing is a problem. Any American who was alive in 2001, not only knows what the Taliban is, but also has a profound concern over their power and influence. In the 1980s though, there was a very different story. Most Americans had not heard of the military group, and if they had heard of them, they were probably not too concerned over their actions. This was due to the government’s method of framing the issue.

            Rather than explaining the complicated and risky policy of funding and arming a militant group in order to break down the Soviet influence, they chose the simpler route of saying it was a matter of good versus evil. Just as the colonials did with the British, the Bush camp did with “Al Qaeda,” and the Romney-Obama camps are doing with China, the Cold War presidents turned the conflict into one against an “evil empire.” Twenty years later, the result is hundreds of deaths and the toppling of two towers and the Pentagon. The Taliban expanded, alligned with other groups like Al Qaeda, and under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden, brought down iconic buildings in the U.S. And when this occurred, the majority of Americans were flabbergasted by it because they were not fully aware of the policies that lead up to the attack. If Reagan and Bush senior were forced to adequately address the policy at the time, it’s possible public opinion would have denied them the right to fund the Taliban. However, this did not happen because instead, the government disseminated a much simpler policy of anti-communism.

            So does this mean that the 2012 frame of anti-Chinese policies will lead to hundreds of deaths and the destruction of icons? Of course we do not know and we can presume not. But what is clear is that when simple frames are used, people are less aware of the actual policies that define future events. As countries like China and Brazil grow in influence and others like Egypt and Iran grow increasingly uncertain, it becomes clear that the public should be wary of simple frames. These countries will be important for generations, and the policies that are formed behind closed doors could dictate our future.