How to Win a National Security Election Without Really Trying

When GOP voters tell pollsters that national security has replaced the economy as their biggest concern, and the Democratic frontrunner comes with four years’ experience as secretary of State, it seems prudent to believe campaign strategists who assert that national security will play a larger-than-usual role in the 2016 campaign cycle.

For observers who don’t follow domestic politics full-time – much less follow every whistle-stop utterance of two dozen hopefuls – the idea of tracking national security’s role in the campaign may be daunting. But never fear. Below is your handy guide to the five ways national security permeates presidential campaigns, from the obvious and not-so-important to the subtle and vital.

Here’s what (and who) to watch for in the weeks ahead:

The Foreign Trip

Making a foreign trip has been a rite of passage for recent presidential challengers in the general election; this cycle, with a crowded GOP field and Clinton’s foreign policy chops, the planes began flying much sooner. Jeb Bush toured Europe this spring and it might be briefer to list of candidates who haven’t been to Israel in the last year than those who have (including prominent non-candidate Elizabeth Warren).  Scott Walker took just two trips abroad in his first four years as governor, but four trips in five months this year.

A foreign trip can achieve two things: re-package a parochial candidate as a credible world leader (think Barack Obama in Berlin, 2008); and make a direct appeal to particular demographics of American voters (think Mitt Romney’s 2012 itinerary: UK, Israel, Poland). 

But candidates venturing abroad face two big risks. First: the gaffe. Romney seemed to suggest that his British hosts were unprepared for the London Olympics that summer and fell foul of Arab-Americans by suggesting that “culture” explained the economic disparities between Israelis and Palestinians. A frustrated press aide unleashed a tirade at reporters accompanying Romney to Poland’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made headlines in London for a controversial comment on the mandatory vaccination debate back home – not a way to show voters that he was a world leader.

Second, when trying to look like a world leader, looking too comfortable with foreigners or foreign languages offers up a fat target for attack ads back home during campaign season. John Kerry mercilessly and effectively was mocked for speaking French in 2004. (Though candidates who speak Spanish painfully badly are usually given a pass.) The is-Bernie-Sanders-an-Israeli-citizen kerfuffle demonstrates the temptations of nativist politicking even for the most urbane news outlets.

There are three foreign itineraries to watch for this summer and fall. Will any of the other GOP frontrunners try to duplicate or best Jeb’s graceful Europe trip? Will Clinton’s challengers go abroad to attack her perceived advantage in foreign affairs? (Will we see Martin O’Malley play a concert in Ireland, just for the media coverage?) Will more candidates try something new and venture south of the border with an eye to wooing Latino voters, or across the Pacific to highlight the importance of international economics? Chris Christie has taken a trade trip to Mexico as New Jersey governor in the last year and talked about a South America trip to burnish his international credentials.

The National Security Speech

Giving a national security speech at a prestigious venue is one of the checkmarks of seriousness for a presidential candidate. S/he will choose between a military-related venue outside the BOS-WASH corridor or a think tank venue in a city served by Amtrak’s Acela, depending on whether the primary audience is national press or elite press columnists and donors. See: Hillary Clinton at the Center for a New American Security in 2007. Marco Rubio at Brookings in 2012 and the Council on Foreign Relations in 2015. Rand Paul at the USS Yorktown museum in Charleston, SC in 2015; Mitt Romney at Virginia Military Institute in 2012.

In such a speech, the candidate seeks to win the approval of national pundits. S/he must show familiarity and comfort with other parts of the world.  Pronouncing foreign names, or the word “nuclear,” properly is a must. S/he must demonstrate “resolve” and “firmness,” through some combination of threatening rhetoric (See: every presidential candidate since Bill Clinton, on China) and embrace of American military might. One new idea is good, but more than one will get you mocked for being too wonky (see Hillary Clinton 2008).

But in their speech, the candidate must also connect with low-information voters and party ideologues. The campaign playbook for what base voters take away from national security conversations contains a relatively small number of threadbare constructs:  American greatness and exceptionalism; the sacredness of our word, and our bonds with both our soldiers and our allies; the need to pressure those same sacred allies into contributing more; the need to avoid “stupid” or unnecessary wars; the importance of never appearing weak or feckless. (As a former national security speechwriter, I can confirm that both the Democratic and GOP playbooks contain this sentence: “When in doubt, insert leadership. Criticize opponent for weakness. Repeat.”)

All are fine principles, if mutually contradictory. None provide much guidance for how to deal with actual, complex foreign policy dilemmas. So we get outcomes like Rubio’s recent appearance in New York – a speech full of partisan generalities but followed by an impressive Q & A showcasing his detailed knowledge from serving on Senate Foreign Relations.

National security policy wonks who lament this state of affairs should be required to review the 2000 Bush-Gore national security debate. Gore is brimming with policy specifics and relevant experience. Bush connects with the voter’s concerns, at the voter’s level of knowledge. Bush wins.

Hug-A-Soldier

Candidates must also cozy up to U.S. armed forces, both with the military command and with military culture. Until the Gen X and millennial veterans reach presidential level, we’ll continue to see few candidates who served in uniform. For most, photo ops and stirring rhetoric will be at a premium, with big blocs of retired and active duty military in crucial states like Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. Clinton embraced Defense Secretary Robert Gates at every possible opportunity. Left-wing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders rides on his leadership of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Republicans and Democrats will court a “military vote,” even though troops don’t vote for presidents based on military issues. Their voting allegiances are as complex as any other American’s. We’ll have to wait for exit polls to see if ISIS, cybersecurity or  VA privatization, sways military voters more than the economy, education and healthcare.   

Gotchas And Self-Inflicted Wounds

Clinton’s Benghazi and email “scandals” are in a class of their own here, and House Republicans seem determined to keep them alive through November 2016. Given how little attention recent Congressional hearings received outside the already-obsessed, it seems likely that Clinton’s ratings decline this spring has now fully priced in whatever public fallout she faces. It seems even more likely the GOP will continue to attack and attempt to force her to stumble.

For the rest of the field, though, the fun is only beginning.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got roundly mocked for asserting that his experience facing down unions protesting in Madison had readied him to defeat ISIS. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s attempts to change the perception that he is anti-Israel are not faring well.

Primary debates, which begin Aug. 6, in Cleveland, and at least once a month thereafter, offer proliferating opportunities to misspeak, misremember or just plain not know how to answer national security questions.

Campaign-media relations also have a proud history of the international affairs “gotcha.” Who is smart enough to be ready to parry, and who will wade in and get it wrong?

Donald Trump and his mouth pose a significant challenge for the rest of the field. Trump’s running stream of politically-incorrect commentary transcends the category of gotcha – from Mexican immigrants to Chinese real-estate clients to the “Great Wall.” Other candidates can expect to be asked their views on his outbursts, which is a minefield.

The 3 A.M. Phone Call

Voters aren’t evaluating candidates on their competing plans to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, bring peace to Syria, or scare Vladimir Putin into leaving his neighbors alone. They are evaluating for leadership: Who will deliver on promises, make me feel good about my country, and keep my loved ones safe?

Walker’s explanation of how he thinks about national security policy drove foreign affairs wonks crazy but captured an important truth about politics. “You feel it in your heart and soul. You don’t read about it. National security is something you read about in a newspaper. Safety is something you feel,” he said.

A national security election means anxious voters looking for cues of reassurance. All the specific campaign touchstones are opportunities to build confidence – or raise doubts. That’s the lens through which to understand the way national security plays in elections, and to predict who’s gaining, and who’s losing.

Now, set your scorecard, and remember: never, ever take the word “strategy” in a campaign-season drinking game.