Value Presidential Candidates’ Stance on International Issues
Table of Contents
Author(s)
Share this Publication
- Print This Publication
- Cite This Publication Copy Citation
Richard Stoll, “Value Presidential Candidates’ Stance on International Issues,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, October 16, 2024, https://doi.org/10.25613/EJ75-W521.
The Big Picture
- International issues are paramount for the United States, as U.S. involvement in global conflicts and relations can require significant resources at high economic and domestic costs.
- While these issues should play a significant role in the outcome of the presidential election, voters are paying more attention to domestic issues, while ignoring international concerns that could significantly impact the lives of U.S. citizens.
- It is prudent for voters to understand where candidates stand on international issues and foreign policy, as this greatly shapes U.S. issues domestically.
Summarizing the Issue
In the words of President John F. Kennedy, “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us” — and to this day, many people share his viewpoint. Domestic issues can cause tremendous hardship for individuals. But if international issues become uncontrollable, they can lead to the deaths of millions of Americans, especially given the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Even absent this worst-case scenario, the U.S. could become involved in situations requiring significant resources at a very high cost, both economically and domestically. Even without becoming directly involved in international issues, U.S. allies could also pay a high cost based on the U.S.’ participation.
A close look at the world today reveals a number of international situations that involve — or potentially involve — the United States. The U.S. has strong concerns and some degree of engagement in the following situations, any of which could escalate into a significant war that directly involves America:
- The war between Russia and Ukraine is entering its third year with no apparent end in sight. The U.S. has supported Ukraine, although without directly involving its own military.
- Israel and Hamas continue to engage in combat with one another. The U.S. has aided Israel and provided humanitarian aid to Gaza while actively promoting a ceasefire.
- China continues to act provocatively toward Taiwan and its supporters. The U.S. would like to see this situation resolved, but any solution must allow for the continued independence of Taiwan.
Given these events and their circumstances, it is important for voters to consider where candidates stand on international issues when electing the next U.S. president. These issues should play a significant role in the outcome of the election, and we should expect that voters will support and vote for the candidate that is closest to one’s views on important international issues.
While this seems reasonable, or even obvious, is this what is happening? A closer look at what issues voters feel are the most significant indicates that this is not always the case.
Expert Analysis
To examine the question of which issues American voters are most likely to consider when determining their candidate selections, I studied answers to a survey question that is frequently asked by Gallup: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” It is important to note that Gallup asks survey participants this question without any prompts. In other words, respondents are not given a list of potential answers and are simply asked the question. The latest data available on how voters answered this question is from July 2024.
Gallup categorizes responses into economic problems and noneconomic problems (Figure 1). In analyzing the results of the July survey, I have grouped the answers to the question as follows:
- All international issues have been classified as “International.”
- All domestic issues have been classified as “Domestic.” Although only those issues receiving a response percentage of at least 10% of total responses have been included in Table 1.
- The immigration issue appears in both categories because one could argue that immigration is an international issue concerning people from other countries. However, one could also argue that it is a domestic issue since most U.S. voters are primarily concerned with the national impact of immigration.
Table 1 — Primary Concerns of US Voters Based on Gallup Poll
As evident from survey responses, domestic issues are considered more important than international issues by a higher proportion of the public. Even though I maximized the count for international issues by including immigration in both “International” and “Domestic” categories, domestic issues still emerge as more important to the public than international issues. Note that even if immigration is considered strictly as an international issue and is dropped from the list of domestic concerns, the conclusion remains the same: 52% of voters considered domestic issues as important, while only 25% felt the same way about international concerns.
Policy Outlook
Any policies articulated and implemented by candidates will always reflect the issues most important to voters — whether they are in the best interests of the U.S. or not. Thus, candidates are unlikely to propose or discuss international policies during their campaigns without significant pressure from voters and the media. To avoid electing a candidate with nonexistent or murky policies on issues that could significantly impact the lives of U.S. citizens, it is important that the electorate and media alike demand details on international policies before they make their final voting or endorsement decisions.
The Bottom Line
While voters tend to base their decisions heavily on candidates’ domestic policies, it is very prudent for voters and candidates to pay attention to international issues as well, especially given the high stakes of current global events for U.S. citizens.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.