One of the most deeply rooted conventions in American politics is the assumption that the race for the White House is regularly decided domestically, and that social, economic, and welfare issues are always at the center of the thinking of the "electorate" and shape its decision at the ballot box.
Thus, for example, it is clear that the crushing defeat of President Herbert Hoover, who completely failed in the face of the challenge posed by his Democratic opponent Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, was a distilled result of the Great Depression, which broke out in late 1929 and quickly became a rolling snowball, which brought disaster to many millions. There is no doubt that the main reason President Jimmy Carter was defeated in the 1980 election by candidate Ronald Reagan was ostensibly the dismal state of the American economy.
The same is true of George H.W. Bush, who, despite his fame for defeating Iraq in the first Gulf War, was forced to abandon the White House after being defeated, in the 1992 election, by a rather unknown Democratic challenger named Bill Clinton, against the backdrop of a huge economic crisis.
Yet despite what appears at first glance to be the "iron law" of American politics, the actual picture is far more complex. Without breaking the axiom that "the poor of your city come first," in practice the voter votes again and again in light of a whole set of considerations, including the international sphere. In this context, the main generating factor and shaping factor influencing his decision is to what extent any external event involving the United States projects an image of credible and robust presidential leadership.
Less than a month before the opening shot of the Republican primaries (no reputable candidate has so far emerged in the Democratic camp to challenge President Biden), it can be said that at first glance, what is ostensibly the focus of public attention and interest in this camp is an entire cluster of economic issues, immigration, border security, and the right to purchase assault weapons without significant restrictions. However, additional layers are being woven into the stormy discourse in these complexes, which are inherently connected to American foreign and defense policy, and which have direct implications for the quality and quality of the nation's leadership.
Reuters
In the wake of Hamas's brutal and murderous attack on Israel, all three major Republican candidates have recently turned the administration's conduct vis-à-vis the campaign into additional leverage to bash the president and challenge his policies. The fact that the U.S. military airlift continues to operate as usual, and the fact that the administration continues – despite some reservations it has raised – to express strong support for Israel and defend it in international forums, neither raises nor diminishes Republican critics.
Of Trump, Haley and DeSantis, the latter went further when he used his authority as governor of Florida to provide Israel with medical equipment and bulletproof vests, among other things. He also reiterated his demand to restrict the activities of Palestinian organizations on campuses across the continent and to refrain from imposing any conditions on Israel related to the conduct and scope of the war.
The exception of the three is Trump, who can, in light of the polls, apparently deviate from the broad Republican consensus and take independent positions. Thus, for example, he recently did not hesitate to praise Hezbollah, while at the same time mocking Israel's intelligence capabilities and lack of preparedness. At the same time, he expressed hope for the toppling of Hamas, but apparently did so only to do his duty.
Trump retains most of his ammunition for Biden, and it seems that against the backdrop of the war, he has opened another front against his successor, with the primary system providing him with a suitable backdrop for this. Among other things, Trump claims that the incumbent president abandoned the American abductees held captive by Hamas to their fate, and unnecessarily expanded the scope of US intervention in the conflict. True to his traditional neo-isolationist approach, he cynically proposes to allow the sides to fight each other to the fullest, provided that the United States does not sink into a swamp from which there is no way out.
Since his standing among the Republican base is apparently no longer questionable, he is ostensibly willing to sacrifice Israel and its security, provided he accumulates points in his future struggle against Biden. This is, therefore, a bitter struggle for leadership, which has now drained directly into the fighting front in Gaza.
In light of these statements, will at least some decision-makers in Jerusalem still yearn for Trump's return to the White House in 2025? What is clear is that the Iron Sword War has a formative effect, both direct and indirect, on the heated discourse in the Republican Party, and that there is a clear connection between the boiling Gaza front and the vibrant political conflict field in chilly Iowa.
The writer is the recipient of the Israel Prize in the field of political science, management sciences and international relations for 2019/20. Professor Emeritus at the Department of Political Science at the University of Haifa
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us