How Ukraine might save American foreign policy from polarization

During the recent State of the Union address, President Biden claimed “democracies are rising to the moment” to battle Russian autocracy and that American commitment to NATO and Ukraine is stronger than ever. Large segments on the political right and left appear to be coming together during a critical moment. Yet can it last? How long will it take for the polarization of the past decade to undermine American foreign policy — not just in Ukraine, but in other pressing areas such as balancing China, energy security and migration?

To answer this question, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) used its annual Global Security Forum to explore how domestic political, geographic, racial, socioeconomic and other divisions impact U.S. foreign policy. Held in fall 2021, the forum brought together senior foreign policy experts and conducted a series of crisis simulations linked to rising energy prices, military aggression by states such as Russia, and migration. CSIS complemented these expert-driven plenary sessions with a larger survey of the general public. Although the event preceded the war in Ukraine, it offers hope for believing the unity on display at the State of Union can become a reality and provide a light to guide America out of its recent polarization. 

{mosads}The results indicate there is an enduring pragmatism in both the American public and foreign policy experts on both the left and right. Despite the noise of social media and endless punditry amplifying divisions, Americans demonstrated a willingness to come together to solve hard problems such as the crisis in Ukraine. If parties are willing to address internal factions and the continual use of rhetoric to distort public opinion — in other words, commit to being thought leaders and servants of the republic as opposed to one-upping each other — even the most pressing problems such as Russia’s aggression can be addressed.

According to our results, 54 percent of the American public is optimistic that bipartisan policies will be enacted during an international crisis, as opposed to the 34 percent of Americans who were pessimistic about this possibility. This trend is evident across party lines. Sixty-seven percent of politically conservative participants and 53 percent of politically liberal participants were optimistic that Washington could put aside partisan differences and take meaningful action to resolve international crises. Again, it is important to note that the survey was conducted before Russia started its mobilization and eventual invasion of Ukraine. The results are an indicator that when the United States is confronted with extraordinary crises abroad, we can rise to the challenge and take meaningful action.

Although both experts and the public are optimistic that Congress will overcome polarization at key moments such as the war in Ukraine, the survey and plenary sessions associated with the Global Security Forum also identified the partisan barriers that cause divisiveness during crises. Participants in our survey stated that internal party issues and public opinion were the top barriers to bipartisan consensus during an international crisis. More specifically, politically liberal participants identified internal party issues as the top barrier to bipartisanship, while politically conservative participants believed public opinion was the top barrier. 

—

RELATED OP-EDS FROM THE HILL

• James M. Dubik: Putin’s war exposes the cracks in the world order — can we fix them?
• Dov S. Zakheim: What will it take to end Russia’s war in Ukraine? Creative diplomacy

—

These results suggest there is a need for both major political parties in the United States to bridge internal divides in their own ranks as a means of avoiding polarization that can undermine national strategy. With the world order being tested in Ukraine, Republicans and Democrats need to overcome the noise and division of the past decade, to include addressing fringe groups within their ranks.

Softening sharp divides during a foreign policy crisis is not easy, as demonstrated by America’s response to the Ukraine crisis. Internal party issues delayed America’s response to the Ukrainian crisis when the White House’s $6.4 billion spending package for Ukraine was attached to the omnibus spending bill.  Delivering critical lethal and humanitarian aid to Ukraine was contingent on resolving partisan divides over the omnibus spending bill. Republican disagreements over where the aid to Ukraine should be appropriated from resulted in delays in passing this critical aid package. Eventually, America was able to unite behind a bipartisan agreement, pass the spending package, and continue to deliver essential aid to Ukraine. However, in a crisis such as the war in Ukraine, delays caused by partisanship allow adversaries to take bold actions and even escalate the crisis. 

{mossecondads}These maneuvers reflect that while Americans agree in principle on doing something to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, there is still a tendency to make every issue partisan. According to a Pew Research poll, 48 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans believe that their party should stand up to issues important to their political base, even if it makes it harder to solve critical problems. Internal party issues and overly charged, polarized public discourse present a huge risk to solving the crisis in Ukraine. A failure to provide meaningful military and diplomatic aid to the Ukrainian government gives Russia time to achieve its endgame. 

What the surveys and plenary sessions in the Global Security Forum showed is that the way to overcome this polarization is to decompose issues into short-term crisis responses. During the CSIS survey, experts chose longer-term policy options to solve issues such as Ukraine 33 percent more than did the public. The public had a marked bias towards tangible, actionable responses by choosing short-term options 14 percent more than the experts did. 

To effectively resolve crises, Congress must take swift action and tone down rhetoric while finding issues to solve that all sides can agree on. There is still more that unites than divides Americans.

Benjamin Jensen, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Research assistants Catherine Nzuki and Adrian Bogart at CSIS contributed to this article.