One of the most accepted assumptions in American politics is the assumption that the race for the White House is consistently decided on domestic issues and that voters will always see their socioeconomic well-being as the most important factor in how they vote.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
For example, it is clear that President Herbert Hoover's crushing defeat, having completely failed to meet the challenge posed by his Democratic rival Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, was a direct consequence of the Great Depression that started in late 1929 and quickly became a rolling snowball causing disaster for millions.
There is also no doubt that the main factor in President Jimmy Carter's 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan was the dire straits the American economy was in at the time.
The same goes for George H.W. Bush, who despite the aura of defeating Iraq in the Gulf War, had to leave the White House after being defeated in the 1992 election by a relatively unknown Democratic candidate named Bill Clinton because Americans believed they were less well off then when the Bush took office.
However, despite what appears at first glance to be a law set in stone in American politics, the real picture is much more complex. Because, in practice the voter votes over and over based on a whole range of considerations, which also include the international arena. In this context, the main catalyst and shaper influencing their decision is the extent to which the US projects an image of credible and robust presidential leadership when there is a major event on the world stage.
Less than a month before the opening shot for the Republican primaries (no high-profile candidate has yet stepped up on the Democratic side to challenge President Joe Biden), it appears that the center of public attention and interest in that camp comprises a gamut of issues from the economy and immigration to border security and the right to bear arms.
However, woven into the raging discourse on all these matters are additional building blocks and layers related to American foreign and national security policy, which have direct implications for the characters who could lead the nation.
Recently, following Hamas' murderous and brutal attack on Israel, all three leading Republican candidates have turned the administration's conduct into another lever for bashing the president and challenging his policies. The fact that the American airlift continues to operate normally and that despite some reservations, the administration continues to express firm support for Israel and defend it in international forums, makes no difference in the eyes of Republican critics.
Of Trump, Haley, and DeSantis, the latter has gone the furthest by exploiting his authority as Florida governor to provide Israel with medical equipment and bulletproof vests, among other things. He has also repeatedly demanded restrictions on the activities of Palestinian organizations on campuses across the continent, and abstention from placing any conditions before Israel regarding the conduct and scope of the war.
The exception among the three is Trump, who, given the polls, can probably deviate from the broad Republican consensus and take independent positions. For example, he recently praised Hezbollah, while at the same time mocked Israel's intelligence capabilities and lack of preparedness. At the same time, he expressed hope for the collapse of Hamas, but probably only to pay lip service.
Trump saves most of his ammunition for the general election fight against Biden, and it seems that against the backdrop of the war, he has opened up another front against his successor, with the primaries providing a fitting backdrop.
Among other things, Trump claims that the incumbent president has abandoned the fate of the American hostages held captive by Hamas, and unnecessarily expanded the scale of US intervention in the conflict zone. True to his traditional neo-isolationist approach, he has cynically suggested allowing the sides to fight each other to the death, as long as the US does not get stuck in a quagmire.
Having cemented his stature among the Republican base, he is apparently willing to sacrifice Israel and its security in order to score points in his future fight against Biden.
Will at least some Israeli decision-makers retain their longing for Trump's return to the White House in 2024, in light of these remarks? What is clear is that the Gaza war has already had a seminal effect on the discourse within the Republican Party and that there is a clear link between the intense fighting on the Gaza front and the high-stakes drama in the fields of Iowa.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
