Choose Principles Over Polls

We’re about a week in to the coverage of the fall of Afghanistan to Taliban forces. If you missed my post on Tuesday, please check it out. I think you’ll understand a little more clearly the raw nature of my feelings on the topic. But let’s dig into the bigger political picture here.

Just how did we get here, and what can we expect moving forward?

From my perspective, it boils down to polling and allowing statistics to tell us the story we want to hear. A common human trait. And before anyone thinks this is going to be a hit piece on President Biden, I credit President Trump with making the same mistake and I say a pox on both their houses.

Take this observation from a recent, and decent, piece out of POLITICO:

“For months, Biden’s advisers had been downplaying the likely political impact of the U.S. exit, pointing to polls showing that voters were tired of war and just wanted to bring the troops home. And they noted that it was Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who approved the peace agreement with the Taliban in his final year in office.”

Politico, “Clearly botched,” August 15, 20201

This is the danger of polling and leading by statistical analysis. No matter how good your model, there’s a shortcoming in this approach: it ignores the enormous complexity of human, and American, preference.

For instance, take a moment and imagine being asked this question: “do you believe we should end our occupation in Afghanistan and bring American troops home?” Would your answer be a bit more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no”? I’m hopeful that if you’re reading this blog regularly, you’re of the kind who would say: absolutely, it’s much more complex.

The Trump and Biden administrations, from my view, have both neglected the effect of American exceptionalism. Simply put, I believe Americans don’t want to retreat from the world stage. Yet under consecutive administrations, we’ve seen jarring examples of just that approach. From the extremes of both major party bases we see calls for isolationism (proving once again our politics are less of a spectrum and more of a circle).

Under the Trump administration, the stunning successes of trade deals like USMCA and the China Phase 1 deal were preceded by a lengthy trade war punctuated by damaging retaliatory tariffs. And while the Trump administration began its tenure with significant shows of military strength, the long term goals of the administration called for equally significant drawdowns in military missions and a cold shoulder to our NATO allies.

By contrast, Biden’s first two quarters in office will be defined first by the debacle on the ground in Afghanistan, and (a bit more quietly) his complete withdraw from international trade negotiations. That second one, though less visible, holds the potential to be even more damaging to US interests in the long term. For instance, the administration opted to allow Trade Promotion Authority to expire, crippling our ability to even approach the trade table, let alone come out ahead.

For both administrations, this lean into isolationism is dangerous – and I believe a major misreading of the American spirit.

In the modern news cycle our attention span may be short – but our cultural memory is long. We know what happens in a world where modern America takes a step back – and more than a few of us are pretty wary of those prospects. You can neither build back better, nor make America great again by refusing the role of leadership in the free world. And Americans know that.

Unfortunately, I cannot paint a rosy picture for you that we will see a shift in the approach of the administration. Even Vice President Harris, a presumed front runner for a future Democrat nomination, has remained stunningly silent over Afghanistan. We can make assumptions about the strategy here: that allowing time and distance to develop will protect the administration and down-ticket candidates in the long term. After all, most Americans don’t vote primarily based on foreign policy – we are an economy driven electorate.

I’m sure we will, in fact, be talking about something else come the election cycle of 2022, let alone 2024. I expect the trend toward isolationism to continue, despite the clamor and political fallout right now. But sadly, without an existential threat like the Soviet Union serving as a national focal point, it’s difficult for any of us to hold true to the old adage that “politics ends at the water’s edge.”

For advocates, the trend toward isolationism will continue to impact countless NGOs seeking to serve global missions, with the singular exception of those in the global climate policy space. Those seeking to advance environmental causes can reasonably expect to continue capitalizing on the moment in front of them.

I’m, as you’ve surmised by now, frustrated with the state of things. I do hope for a change in the trend line. I believe in a world where America leads actively, and by example. I believe in free trade because it mitigates conflict. I believe in a strong military because it allows us to protect the innocent regardless of national strategic benefit. And I believe in the importance of leading from principle, not the polls, because statesmanship is what our people deserve.