Politics Past The Water’s Edge

With the protections of the First Amendment and the limited strength of election law, candidates for political office are practically free to say whatever they want.  However, even in the absence of legal limits, some de facto restrictions constrain politicians in their statements, with the punishment being condemnation by the press and public at large.  Sometimes this rebuke is in response to speech that has not been specifically banned, but is simply too weird to allow.  But in other instances, a specific custom is set out to limit politicians in their statements.

One such rule is that “politics stop at the water’s edge.”  The concept was created by renowned Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who secured his legacy by advancing it after World War II, serving as an instrumental player in the creation of NATO.  The rule holds that as a nation we must present a united front on international issues, and therefore politicians should not openly oppose government policy on foreign relations in a manner that will be seen by foreign nations.

Recently, however, the principle that politics stops at the water’s edge has been ignored.  President Obama’s response to the crisis in Libya has been criticized by pseudo-candidate Tim Pawlenty (who from now on I’ll now be referring to as T-Paw in order to maintain the professionalism of our finest political journalists. Oh wait, even his own campaign thinks its presidential to refer to the candidate with a title that sounds like a bad NBA nickname).  Same for Sarah Palin (then again, does it matter what phase of declaration candidates are actually in?).  However, for a variety of reasons, it might be time to abandon this rule, and allow politics to move past the water’s edge.

First, the concept is simply outdated.  When Vandenberg created this rule in the 1940’s, most individuals received information via domestic newspapers and radio.  Now, we have global news networks, a 24 news cycle, and, most importantly, the Internet.  Politicians and elected officials can use social media to send their message directly to the public via profiles, status updates, and video on a network that spans worldwide.  With speech spreading so rapidly, it is not feasible to have political disputes over foreign policy without other nations seeing us squabble.

And since other nations are privy to virtually all speech, adherence to the rule of Politics Stops At The Water’s Edge can be abused as a tool to quash all dissent on foreign policy issues.  This was seen prominently in the 2004 presidential election, when President Bush tried to prevent criticism of his handling of the Iraq War by claiming that any condemnation would “embolden our enemies.”  Using the rationale of Politics Stops At The Water’s Edge, our executive could label all disagreements over foreign policy as antithetical to our national interest.

But this undermines one of the founding principles of democratic government: Criticism, disagreement, and the development of a variety of viewpoints ultimately leads to the most effective policy.  The benefits of presenting a “united front” pale in comparison to the harms of blindly following policy without critiquing it and adjusting it accordingly.  Perhaps we could have averted the colossal setbacks we faced in the Iraq War if Democrats had been less concerned with “standing by the president” and more willing to criticize the war in its early phases.  And perhaps we will be better off in Libya because the President’s rivals have been willing to call for a stronger response.  Ultimately, dissent over policy, whether foreign or domestic, whether at the water’s edge or past it, is something we should always value.

Image provided by Scott Laperruque.