It’s not about the economy anymore

The focus of US presidential campaign has shifted from economic growth and tax rates to questions about Muslim immigration and Daesh

Last year, Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) seized control of big chunks of Iraq and Syria. This year it’s hijacking the United States presidential campaign. The biggest concern for most American voters until recently was the sluggish economy and stagnating incomes. But since the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, more and more voters are saying national security is their primary worry.

A CNN Poll among Republican voters in Iowa last week found that 40 per cent listed either terrorism or foreign policy as the top issue they would consider as they choose a candidate for president. Only 29 per cent named the economy. Among Democrats, the effect has been less dramatic. If most Republicans are from Mars, most Democrats are still from Venus. The latter continue to list the economy above terrorism, although the margin has narrowed. As a result, the attacks have changed the presidential campaign in both parties — from a contest focused almost solely on economic growth and tax rates to one that also includes questions about Muslim immigration and Daesh.

The losers have included Senator Rand Paul, whose campaign for a more restrained foreign policy has fallen on increasingly deaf ears, and neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who struck many voters as ill-prepared in recent debates. On the Democratic side, the spotlight on national security hasn’t been kind to Senator Bernie Sanders, who says he wants to keep his focus on economic issues no matter what the polls say.

Among the winners — at least temporarily — has been frontrunner Donald Trump, who used the crisis to seize centre stage last Monday, declaring that no Muslim should be allowed to enter the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”. Trump’s proposal drew denunciations from Senator Marco Rubio (who called it “offensive”), Jeb Bush (“unhinged”) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (“This is not conservatism”), but not Senator Ted Cruz, who said he wanted to “commend” Trump for pointing out “the need to secure our borders”.

Indeed, there is a genuine and intermittently serious debate about foreign policy among Republicans — one that Trump’s outbursts have mostly obscured.

Traditional GOP hawks, including Rubio, have said they favour deploying US ground troops to Iraq and Syria, to serve as the nucleus of a multinational force aimed at defeating Daesh on the ground. Others, including Trump and Cruz, have suggested that unlimited US bombing from the air should be sufficient.

Hillary Clinton has been sounding hawkish as well. “We’re not winning,” she said on ABC News last Sunday. “Clearly, we have to have a much more robust air campaign against [Daesh] targets, against the oil infrastructure, against their leadership... I do believe we have to [increase] our special ops numbers...,” she said.

In most years, a focus on national security and defence bolsters Republicans in a general election. But this year, if the GOP nominates a candidate who’s unconvincing on foreign policy — or downright scary — that historical advantage could erode.

In 2008, when Hillary ran for the Democratic nomination against Obama, her campaign aired a famous television commercial that began with the sound of a ringing telephone. “It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep, but there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing,” a narrator said. “Who do you want answering the phone?”

If Hillary and Trump win their parties’ nominations, you can expect that commercial — or one like it — to make a return appearance.

On the web