Stratfor Global Intelligence Chairman George
Friedman has written an
interesting article on the American public’s indifference to
current affairs.
Friedman begins his article by highlighting that Americans
seemed indifferent to numerous international stories last week,
each of which has the potential to affect Americans. These stories
included the financial crisis in Kazakhstan, the protests in
Venezuela, the Russian-Egyptian arms deal, and a proposal from
Russian officials to turn Ukraine into a federation.
Friedman makes two points that stand out to me the most, one of
which may be of interest to those who want the GOP to reform its
foreign policy.
Friedman makes a point that is sometimes overlooked when the
American public’s opinion on foreign affairs is discussed. The
United States is geographically isolated and its government is less
involved in the private lives of its citizens compared to many
other governments.
This is worth mentioning because, as Friedman explains,
foreigners who live in less isolated regions are going to be more
interested in foreign affairs when other countries are so close and
they are used to the state being more involved in their lives than
Americans are:
Of course, there are times when Americans are aroused not only
to public affairs but also to foreign affairs. That is shaped by
the degree to which these events are seen as affecting Americans’
own lives. There is nothing particularly American in this. People
everywhere care more about things that affect them than things that
don’t. People in European or Middle Eastern countries, where
another country is just a two-hour drive away, are going to be more
aware of foreign affairs. Still, they will be most concerned about
the things that affect them. The French or Israelis are aware of
public and foreign affairs not because they are more sophisticated
than Americans, but because the state is more important in their
lives, and foreign countries are much nearer to their homes. If
asked about events far away, I find they are as uninterested and
uninformed as Americans.
Another point made by Friedman that is worth noting is that
American interest in foreign affairs is cyclical and “finely
calibrated.” Unsurprisingly, in the wake of 9/11 Americans were
increasingly interested in foreign affairs, but even then the level
of interest changed over time:
American interest is cyclical, heavily influenced by whether
they are affected by what goes on. After 9/11, what happened in the
Islamic world mattered a great deal. But even then, it went in
cycles. The degree to which Americans are interested in Afghanistan
— even if American soldiers are still in harm’s way — is limited.
The war’s outcome is fairly clear, the impact on America seems
somewhat negligible and the issues are arcane.
Of course, the level of American indifference was very different
during the Cold War, during which time Friedman notes that he was
taught in elementary school of the importance of the fight against
communism in the Congo. But, as Friedman notes, things have
changed:
at this moment, public indifference to foreign policy and even
domestic events is strong. The sense that private life matters more
than public is intense, and that means that Americans are concerned
with things that are deemed frivolous by foreigners, academics and
others who make their living in public and foreign policy.
Friedman’s belief that Americans are indifferent to foreign
affairs is reflected in recent polling conducted by Gallup.
According to Gallup,
when asked earlier this month about what they thought was “the most
important problem facing this country today” 2 percent said
“National Security,” 2 percent said “Terrorism,” and 1 percent said
“Wars/War (nonspecific)/Fear of War.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is widely expected to run for president,
and although perhaps not as non-interventionist as his father, he
does advocate for a less involved foreign policy. As was recently
outlined by Jim Antle in
The American Conservative, Paul is against further
involvement in Syria, and is skeptical of passing sanctions on Iran
amid nuclear negotiations. But, as appealing as Paul’s foreign
policy positions are, the fact is that Americans are not thinking
as much about foreign affairs as they once were. This is a shame
given that American soldiers are still fighting a war in
Afghanistan, American
drones have been killing people in Pakistan and Yemen, and the
U.S. military budget dwarfs that of any other country.
A lot could change before the 2016 presidential campaigns begin
in earnest. However, assuming there is no major shift in American
opinion before Paul’s widely expected White House bid begins, it
unfortunately looks like Paul’s positions on foreign policy, which
ought to be taken seriously given the current state of American
foreign affairs, will be mostly overlooked by an American public
that continues to be largely indifferent about foreign affairs.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1cVH1L0
via IFTTT