Switch on Internationalism May Hurt Democrats in ’92 : Politics: In retreat from Roosevelt era, they oppose free trade and use of force. Parties have reversed roles.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt raised a chisel against the protectionist high-tariff barriers mortared into law by GOP legislators Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley during the Great Depression, almost all of the opposition to his Reciprocal Trade Act came from Republicans.

And, when he moved to steel the nation for war with Hitler’s Germany and Imperial Japan, it was predominantly Republicans who conducted the trench warfare against the lend-lease lifeline for England and an extension of the military draft in 1941.

But, last January, in the historic congressional debate on the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Democrats cast over 97% of the votes opposing the use of force against Iraq. And, in May, almost 90% of the lawmakers opposing the opening of negotiations for a free trade zone with Mexico were Democrats.

Those votes sketch an extraordinary half-century reversal between the parties. On the most basic questions of America’s role in the world, Republicans and Democrats have virtually switched identities since World War II.

Today, it is primarily the GOP that embraces the internationalist vision of a world bound together under American leadership by open economic markets and military alliances against aggression--and primarily Democrats who are skeptical of both free trade and the use of American force abroad.

This divide is not inviolate. Congressional Republicans often jump as quickly as Democrats when powerful industries demand protection. Conversely, many leading congressional Democrats broke from the party mainstream to support President Bush in the confrontation with Iraq.

Strictly partisan considerations also can influence individual congressional decisions: More Republicans probably would have voted for lend-lease if it had been offered by a GOP President, just as more Democrats probably would have backed military action against Saddam Hussein if one of their own had called the nation to arms.

And, unlike the isolationist Republicans earlier in this century, the anti-intervention Democrats do not question the existence of U.S. national interests abroad, just the use of force to defend them.

But each of these qualifications only shades the edge of the new portrait. If, during Roosevelt’s presidency, the center of skepticism about internationalism was located within the Republican Party, today it is situated among Democrats. “It is a stunning role reversal,” said former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democratic presidential candidate in 1988.

The historic change began after World War II. The GOP’s Midwestern isolationists lost control to the Eastern internationalists as the Cold War consensus on containing communism took hold in both parties.

In the same era, the pull of protectionism loosened on the GOP as American business tore loose from its domestic roots to expand its operations across the globe. That, in turn, led a key component of the Democratic Party--organized labor--to develop a growing appetite for protectionism, as American business shifted jobs abroad.

On foreign policy, Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson still venerated the internationalist vision through the late 1960s. But that consensus among Democrats collapsed when the wreckage of U.S. policy in Vietnam demonstrated that Americans would not “pay any price” to contain communism, as Kennedy had promised.

Taking that lesson, most national Democratic leaders since Vietnam--from George S. McGovern to Michael S. Dukakis--have stressed the limits of America’s ability to shape world events with military force. That theme dominated the party through the 1980s--and was evident again in the Democratic reluctance to sanction force against Iraq.

This shift has established the boundaries of the foreign policy debate between the parties on the eve of the 1992 campaign. On one side are President Bush and the GOP aligning themselves with a tradition that allows them to quote Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy. On the other are Democrats, groping for a new synthesis that redefines America’s global interests in the post-Cold War era.

Americans’ attitudes on these questions of the nation’s role in the world are coiled in ambiguity. In normal times, Americans intuitively resist committing U.S. troops abroad, and, after the disillusionments of World War I and Vietnam, the public rejected an exorbitant definition of U.S. international responsibilities.

In recent years, Americans have grown increasingly insistent that other nations bear their fair share of the military burden. And, particularly when the economy is weak, protectionism rings a powerful note for many Americans.

But, at least since Roosevelt’s era, analysts in both parties agree, voters typically have sought a President who will aggressively assert American diplomatic and economic leadership around the world, particularly at moments of crisis--a point vividly illustrated by the overwhelming public support for President Bush during the Gulf War, despite the hesitation that preceded it.

To some leading Democrats, such as Babbitt, the Republican success in stealing the internationalist mantle over the past generation is one of the hidden pillars of their presidential success.

Polls underline the point. With the Gulf War victory burnishing the GOP’s image, the public now overwhelmingly prefers it over the Democrats as the party that can best defend America’s interests in the world, and also leans toward Republicans to improve the nation’s international economic competitiveness. Even many Democrats say the best the party can hope for next year on foreign policy issues is to minimize its losses.

“Our objective . . . should be to neutralize foreign policy as a cutting-edge issue,” said Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.). “The Democratic Party cannot win the 1992 elections on foreign policy, but it could very easily lose the 1992 election on foreign policy.”

Finding a Democratic message that projects an internationalist vision without repudiating the widespread skepticism within the party about open trade and the use of force has presented its nominees with an almost insoluble dilemma in recent elections. And, as the party’s 1992 debate begins under the long shadow of the Gulf War, the choices look even more difficult than usual.

On international economics, Democrats today array along a continuum between free and “fair” traders, with the ascendant latter group arguing that the United States must take a tougher line in negotiations with foreign trading partners.

Free traders typically call the fair traders closet protectionists who talk about retaliating against unfair foreign practices only as a cover for closing U.S. markets. In turn, the fair traders argue that free trade orthodoxy amounts to unilateral disarmament in a world bristling with trade barriers--and perhaps inexorably dividing into European, Asian and American trading blocs.

“There is no free trade in the world except as practiced by the U.S. and to some extent Canada,” said Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.V.), who has been actively investigating a presidential bid. “There is no real choice. The only choice is fair trade, reciprocity.”

Several upcoming issues should focus this trade debate. Democrats are likely to divide on a proposal being developed by House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) that would put the concept of reciprocity into law by requiring that all imports from countries competing unfairly be subject to the same restrictions those countries impose on U.S. exports, such as excessive inspections.

Deeper Democratic disarray may result from the Free Trade Agreement that the Administration is negotiating with Mexico. Fear of the protectionist label was evident this spring when Congress granted the Administration expedited authority to begin negotiations; even Gephardt, the leader of the congressional tough-on-trade forces, backed the White House--to the fury of organized-labor leaders, who believe an agreement would encourage U.S. companies to shift manufacturing jobs to Mexico in search of lower wages.

Rockefeller and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. also disappointed the unions by voting with the President.

But, as the Administration negotiates the actual treaty, Democrats are already poised to reopen these issues in the presidential contest. Gephardt, Gore and Rockefeller all have said that they may oppose the final treaty when it is presented to Congress, depending on whether it contains sufficient provisions to protect the environment and American jobs.

No Democrat has criticized the possible Mexico agreement more aggressively than Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who has actively sought labor support while exploring a presidential race. Harkin sees the proposed treaty as an opportunity to sharpen the lines with the Republicans--and within the party.

“The question is who are we fighting for,” he said. “We ought to be insisting that we have a basis for trade agreements that don’t ship our jobs to Mexico . . . .” To underline his point, Harkin has called for the United States to ban all imports from countries that use child labor, including Mexico.

For other Democrats, such notes--similar to those sounded by Gephardt in his 1988 presidential bid--are the overture to electoral disaster. “If the U.S. and the Democratic Party pursue protectionism, we are doomed,” said former Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, who announced his long-shot bid for the presidential nomination in April. “The logic of an American and South American trade zone makes sense.”

On foreign policy, Democrats similarly differ toward military engagement abroad. Most of the potential candidates come from the wing of the party that is skeptical of such involvement--as demonstrated by their reaction to the use of force against Iraq.

Among the possible candidates, Gore voted for the President, and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton indicated that he would have backed Bush. But most potential contenders opposed the use of force, including Gephardt, Harkin, Rockefeller, Tsongas, New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder.

So far, most Democrats on both sides of that divide have shown little interest in debating whether it was appropriate to go to war against Iraq; Gore, for one, has gone out of his way to defend the votes of those who opposed Bush. Any other strategy, some Democratic leaders note, might be dangerous in a party in which many activists still condemn the war.

But it will be difficult for the eventual candidates to get through the primaries without a broad discussion of America’s responsibilities abroad. In recent years, that debate among Democrats has shifted away from the morality of assertive internationalism toward its cost.

The change first appeared during the 1988 presidential campaign, when several candidates developed what might be called the solvency critique of American foreign policy. Building on the arguments of Yale University historian Paul Kennedy, those Democrats argued that the United States, like other dominant nations before it, had assumed so many expensive international military commitments that it risked exhausting its domestic economy--the ultimate foundation of its strength.

From that analysis, a growing number of Democrats have argued that the United States must divert Pentagon spending to investment at home and demand that its allies in Europe and Asia pay more for their own defense--particularly now that the threat from the Soviet Union has receded.

Last fall, for example, Cuomo declared that the world can no longer “ask the United States to go rushing off every time there’s a problem . . . . Frankly, we don’t have the wealth any more to do it.”

Gephardt maintains “the distribution of the burden” of defending Europe and Asia “has to be changed in order to reflect today’s economic realities.” Likewise, Harkin is calling for dramatic reductions “in the amount of money we are spending right now for the defense of South Korea, Japan and Europe.”

Almost all Democrats strike some of those burden-sharing themes. But the party’s clipped internationalist wing puts more emphasis on the remaining U.S. responsibilities, even within a more equitably allocated system. Democrats must “reaffirm that our nation does stand for values throughout the world,” Sen. Gore said. “Just as it’s often true that the risks of doing nothing are greater than the risks of standing up for our principles here at home, it’s true in foreign policy as well.”

Given these divergent notes, it seems likely that one crucial point of division between Democrats will be the degree to which they call for bringing U.S. troops home from around the world. Still, even Gore maintains that Democrats must argue for a broader definition of national security that encompasses “economic power and knowledge power and the power of values.”

Over time, most party strategists agree, the Democrats’ best asset in foreign affairs remains the electorate’s belief that the most profound threat to U.S. security is coming on the economic front--and that, to maintain its primacy in the world, America must renew itself at home.

But, in the short term, the Gulf War has greatly roiled the atmosphere for that solvency message. If nothing else, the war with Iraq has graphically illustrated the continuing importance of military strength in an unpredictable world. And the decisive performance of U.S. forces in the desert has created an imposing political barrier against charges that the last decade’s investment in the military has sapped U.S. strength.

“Right now, you can’t make that critique, it sounds absurd,” Democratic pollster Mark Mellman acknowledged.

To the extent Democrats have developed a critique of Bush’s foreign policy, it is primarily for slighting the idealism that has been a strong tradition of American internationalism since Woodrow Wilson. Although Bush grounded his public appeal during the Gulf War on a clear moral stand against injustice, his actions in the war’s aftermath--like his muted response to the Tian An Men Square massacre in China and the Soviet crackdown in the Baltic nations--have more called to mind the calculating realpolitik associated with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, critics argue.

“Is a cool amoralism to be the foundation of the New World Order?” Sen. Gore asked in a recent speech. “We should speak out for democracy. We should be willing to stand for the principles upon which our nation is based and for which our nation stands throughout the world.”

All Democratic contenders are likely to eventually echo that language. But, with the Gulf War as prologue, the test the voters have for the Democratic class of 1992 may be more elemental; it is the same test that faced Wilson and Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, Johnson and Bush.

“Every President in our lifetime has had to make the decision on whether or not to use force,” said Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council. “And the American people want a President they trust to make that decision. That’s a given.”

Defense: Democrats’ Big Image Problem

As the 1992 elections approach, Democrats face a major task of convincing voters that they can manage America’s global interests. Analysts say voters typically seek a President who can aggressively assert American leadership around the world, particularly at moments of crisis.

Which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you think will do a better job of keeping America strong in the years to come? Republicans: 59% Democrats: 23% No difference: 10% Not sure, no answer: 8% Source: The Times Poll, March 9-11, 1991