The issue discuss: Prof. Allan J. Lichtman, American University in Washington, D.C., Prof. James Tracy, Florida Atlantic University, and Dr. Fyodor Voitolovskiy, World Economy and International Relations, Russia.
Opinions differ. The GOP Congress will not have a major effect on the White House handling of its foreign policy, Jeffrey Mankoff, deputy director and fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and former adviser on US-Russian relations at the US Department of State, told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
Yet, Mr. Obama’s statements already hit a more bellicose note. He already said he wanted to work with Congress on an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) in connection with the effort to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Says Allan J. Lichtman, professor of history in the College of Arts and Sciences at American University in Washington, D.C.:
This was an absolutely extraordinary election. You’d have to call it a wave election, a landslide election for the Republicans. Going into this election there were numerous races for the US’s Senate and governorships that were absolutely too close to call.
The Senate races, for example, were considered too close to call in the states such as Iowa and North Carolina, and Kansas. And the Republicans won them all. They also won the races that were too close to call in gubernatorial elections in places like Illinois and Wisconsin, and Massachusetts.
And perhaps the biggest upset of the evening – the Republicans won the governorship in my home state, the state of Maryland where the Democrats had a two to one registration advantage in about 50 years, since 1966. Before yesterday the state of Maryland elected precisely one Republican governor and the Republicans won by some nine percentage points in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.
The Republicans also succeeded in expanding their margin in the House. Now they will control both houses of the US Congress and the vast majority of governorships in the nation as well.
What is it that could explain this kind of success of the Republicans? Is it a series of blunders on the part of the current administration or is it that the choice of options was too narrow?
Allan J. Lichtman: It is very difficult to say that you can give the Republicans great credit for this victory, because the Republicans did not exactly campaign on high principle and grand ideas for solving the nation’s problems. This was rather a “no”-vote against the Democrats more than a positive vote for the Republicans.
And you can start at the top. You can start with Barack Obama. He’s not been a strong and decisive leader. He’s had very low approval ratings. Lower ratings than he should have given the fact that the economy is improving, gas prices are at a historic low, yet the President has not come across as a strong and decisive leader.
Then, you can blame the Democratic candidates. They didn’t have a clear message. They didn’t give voters a strong rationale for voting for them. They tried to run away from the President. And you can’t run away from the President of your own party; it just makes you look weak and indecisive yourself.
And I've also read an analysis saying that one of the key winners of this election is… Hillary Clinton.
Allan J. Lichtman: In a sense Hillary Clinton is the winner in that. She had distanced herself a great deal from Barack Obama. And assuming she runs for president, she will not be seen as the Obama candidate, but will be seen as a candidate in her own right also.
If the Republicans decide this is the mandate to turn sharply to the right and be very confrontational, that is going to hurt them in the general election, because the voters in the general elections tend to be rather centrist and rather moderate.
But this election also generally hurts the Democrats in the 2016 election, because the US House results (remember, there are House races in every district and every state in the country) are one of the key factors that can predict the results of the presidential elections. And the Democrats did very poorly in the House, not just in senatorial and gubernatorial elections. So, it is very much of a mixed picture for Hillary Clinton.
Now, we all know that Congress has a considerable say in some of the most crucial foreign policy issues. Do you see any kind of possible change on these issues?
Allan J. Lichtman: I think the Congress will probably push the President in a more aggressive direction in the foreign policy, to take a stronger stand in Europe and in the ME as well. But one should not overestimate the power of the Congress in the foreign policy. The foreign policy is the one area where presidents can still act quite decisively, even in the absence of control over the Congress.
Ronald Reagan, for example, in his last two years confronted the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate, and yet had extraordinary breakthroughs in the foreign policy with his negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. Richard Nixon, of course, faced the opposition Congress and was very successful in his foreign policy endeavors.
So, a president can still act strongly in the foreign policy. But I think the pressure will be on President Obama to more clearly define his vision in the foreign policy and to act more decisively, which may mean more aggressively in the face of the Republican Congress.
So, with the tougher foreign policy of the US, do we face an increased risk of a military confrontation?
Allan J. Lichtman: I don’t think there is an increased risk of military confrontation, although, maybe, ever so slightly there will be a push for a stronger stance in the ME against the ISIS. Beyond that, I certainly don’t believe that the change in the Senate is going to create military confrontations in any other part of the world. I think the Americans are sick of military confrontations, as most people around the world are. I think with the exception of, perhaps, a stepped up campaign against the ISIS, I don’t see that in the future.
Does this vote signal some kind of change in the balance of power among the lobbying groups?
Allan J. Lichtman: Absolutely! You know, lobbyists very much follow the power in Congress. And with the Republicans now in charge of both houses of Congress, that means lobbying is going to focus on the Republicans.
The Republican-oriented lobbying groups are going to have more power, more clout and more influence. And of course, business is going to have more influence in Washington, since the Republicans tend to be the more pro-business party. And the Republican candidates were very heavily financed by business groups in these elections.
So, you are going to see a greatly extended power of business and a diminished power of the unions, not just because of the national results, but because of the results at the state level. For example, in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had taken a very strong stand against the public employee unions and he got pretty handily reelected.
Which business sectors?
Allan J. Lichtman: Finance, energy, development, the pharmaceutical and medical products industry will have a significantly extended clout in the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
And do I get it right that now the Congress is going to push forward with developing the relationship with the EU?
Allan J. Lichtman: This is definitely a free trade Congress. The Republicans used to be, of course, the party of protectionism and high tariffs. That’s changed in the last 35-40 years and we are definitely going to have a free trade Congress.
How about China?
Allan J. Lichtman: Hard to say. Again, that is going to depend upon both the US and China, and probably not going to be decisively influenced by the Republican control of the Congress. I don’t think the policy towards China is going to decisively change one way or another because the Republicans took the Senate.
And the Congress used to be pretty much opposed to the lifting of sanctions against Iran. Any change?
Allan J. Lichtman: I think you will get an even stronger opposition to lifting the sanctions on Iran, given the Republican control of the Senate. There is going to have to be a pretty strong agreement worked out between the US and Iran to get the Congress behind it.
Well, under a Republican George W. Bush the relations with Russia used to be better than under Mr. Obama. Any chance of warming in the US- Russia relations?
Allan J. Lichtman: That is going to depend not just on the US, but also on Russia. I think both sides would greatly benefit from a warming of the relationship. But there are very big issues that have to be resolved before that is possible, particularly what is going on within Ukraine, which is still a major obstacle for better relations between the US and Russia. And until that is resolved warming is going to be tough.
James Tracy, professor at the Florida Atlantic University:
I wish I could say that things might change, but I'm afraid that in terms of foreign policy with regard to Ukraine and Syria, I'm afraid that the Republicans are frequently more hawkish. They are more militaristic, they are more aggressive than the Obama administration which has, in some cases, shown some evidence of restraint.
What does that imply? Are we heading towards a direct confrontation?
James Tracy: I hope that it is not a direct confrontation. I don’t believe that it is. I think that there may have been some degree of direct confrontation, had it not been for the restraint of Vladimir Putin who has been the premier diplomat, really, I think, overall, over the past several months with the potential conflict that could have taken place in Ukraine and in that region.
And what would you identify as the ultimate cause of that anti-Russian sentiment you’ve been mentioning?
James Tracy: I think that it is rooted to a large degree in a certain lack of imagination or understanding about the real objectives of the US foreign policy by our own electorate, and the fact that our own electorate, our own public opinion is frequently misinformed about the real objectives of these types of policies. Ultimately, what the US armed forces, military are used for, is to secure the resources and the like, and the position for the world’s major private cartels and the likes of energy and other sorts of materials.
Fyodor Voitolovskiy, Deputy Director, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences:
I think that the pressure from the Congress, which was very strong during the campaign and before these midterm elections, will seriously influence Obama’s decisions and his attitudes towards Russia, because among the Republicans and among some Democrats also the anti-Russian sentiments are very high.
And this position of many members of Congress, especially of the Senate, can seriously transform Obama’s policy, even if he has the political will to change the attitudes towards Russia and try to find sort of a compromise on the situation with the Ukrainian crisis, or try to involve Russia into some activities concerning some more serious challenges that are now appearing in the US foreign and security policy, such as the ISIS and the international terrorism and the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan especially after the withdrawal of the ISAF troops.
Does that imply that the outcome of this midterm is actually keeping Obama hostage to their anti-Russian sentiment?
Fyodor Voitolovskiy: Probably, partly it is. But, of course, in both parties, not only among the Democrats but also among the Republicans there are a lot of politicians and experts who are much more rational than the advisors of Obama administration are, who pushed him strongly during the last months and tried to involve him into a new anti-Russian campaign. I think that there are pragmatics, there are political realists in both political parties.
And some of them can support the decisions of the administration which could try to move Obama’s Russian policy towards a more pragmatic way. But I don’t think that it will be the majority of the members of the Congress. But you know, usually, the President has more freedom in the foreign policy than in the domestic policy in terms of the relations between the branches of power, and in terms of stability and flexibility of the political system. I think that Obama still has the opportunity to have the foreign policy which will be influenced, of course, by the position of the Congress majority, but his hands are still free on some decisions.
