That’s what I wanted to discuss. Never mind if heightened aggressiveness in international relations is good policy; is it good politics in 2015/6?
Everyone understands that politics in a modern democracy happens at two levels: the domestic and the international. Things said at one level may or may not be relevant to the other level, and in fact may not even come to be known at the other level.
Also, notice how vague the wording actually is: “More confrontational” doesn’t imply war, it doesn’t imply preparation for war, it doesn’t imply so much as changing the disposition of a single military unit. It could mean being more hard-driving on trade deals, more vocal in propaganda, or maybe even more aggressive in trying to woo educated people from those countries to immigrate here.
In short, it might not mean anything at all, and to the extent it means something, it certainly doesn’t have to mean war.
So, yes, promises to be “more aggressive” or “more confrontational” can be good politics, especially at home, and they can be good politics abroad, depending on precisely what actions the country takes.
Sounding tough is almost always a good political tactic. Sounding tough while committing oneself to nothing is even better.
However, this cycle appears to be concerned with domestic issues. We’re not at war and people don’t want more war. All real world international relations are messy and involve diplomacy, which Americans hate. Magic solutions, fine. They love those.
Bottom line is that sounding good is a nice bonus, but nothing that will swing votes to any degree. The only issue of importance is to not appear publicly weak.
The problem is the paper tiger factor. There’s no point in talking tough if nobody believes you will back it up. The danger is if somebody who has been talking tough reaches a point where their bluff is called and they either have to back down or fight.
Eh. Only one person will get the nomination so what the rest of them say is irrelevant. That person is also irrelevant if he doesn’t win. And if he does win, none of the tough talk during the campaign will mean a thing. Being President trumps all previous talk.
My guess is that the (roughly) 50% of the population which doesn’t vote tends to be more isolationist and ‘dovish’ than the 50% of the population which does.
Based on what, may I ask?
I think the golden spot is to be as aggressive as possible while not actually implying any action.
So wait, if a candidate says, “if elected, I’ll immediately bomb Iran,” and he gets elected, people who expect him to actually bomb Iran are somehow wrong?
Americans don’t want war, but they want a president who talks tough.
I said sounding tough while making no commitments.
Depends a lot on what the rest of the world thinks about the “tough talk”
Bush’s “Axis of Evil” is rather memorable in how not to do it.
As to whether it’s “good politics” or not - depends on who you are playing to, for the red-neck crowd - it might be.
But what price from the rest of the world if you they start to lose respect for you?
No, and in fact if I were running for president, I’d vow to be less aggressive internationally because things are pretty good right now.