In November 2000, American hurried to the voting booths to decide who they believed should lead the nation into the twenty-first century. After multiple recounts in the state of Florida, and America seating on the edge of her seat, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the recounting in Florida should end, and George Walker Bush be declared the winner of the election. American foreign policy would be forever changed after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C and the military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Prior to the election, however, American foreign policy did not appear to be a concerning topic for the average American voter. A Gallup poll conducted during the run-up to the election found that foreign affairs was ranked very low on a list of important issues. Yet, during the campaigns and debates of George W. Bush and Al Gore, foreign policy was a contested topic. This essay will examine the most important foreign policy topic that divided the two candidates—the deployment of the military around the world, the positions of the two candidates of the issue, and finally why this issue led to Al Gore’s loss.

The deployment of the United States military was the most dividing foreign policy issue between the two candidates. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States become what the French described as a hyperpower. The United States became the world’s sole superpower with no country that could rival its strength in almost any terms. When Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, Al Gore became the Vice-President. Clinton and Gore were the first administration after the Cold War to experience a near limitless capacity to spread democracy and capitalism across the world because there was no longer a rival to American expansion into any part of the world. President Clinton’s interventionist policies across the globe were a hotly contested topic in the debates between Bush and Gore. Other foreign policy issues were mentioned during the debates and campaigns, but the candidates had similar interventionist views on most foreign policy objectives and topics. The Republicans and Democrats used foreign policy aims and objectives as a political football after the collapse of the Soviet Union to win over voters during congressional races and the 1996 presidential election. Some from both parties argued for interventionist polices while other argued for isolationist polices. Whichever candidate argued for one, the other candidate argued for the other side. Both parties had supporters of isolationist polices and interventionist polices. According to James Lindsay of the Brookings Institute, both presidential candidates were “internationalists at odds with neo-isolationists within their own parties.” In other words, both candidates had similar views on the United States’ role in the world, but they differed on the method to maintain global dominance—the deployment of American troops. To understand why the difference between the two candidates on the issue of troop deployment was so important to the election we must examine key foreign policy highlights from the Clinton administration.

President Clinton used the military as a tool of foreign policy in several key engagements, which affected the 2000 presidential election because of Gore’s proximity to the administration. George Bush attacked Gore on the grounds that he and Clinton were conducting “nation-building” in regions throughout the world, on one hand, while on the other, was not supporting the military in the form of pay and equipment. Clinton used the military, reportedly as peacekeeping missions, in campaigns such as Somalia and Haiti, both of which were seen as foreign policy blunders. For example, Americans were appalled when scenes of an Army Ranger was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu hit their television sets. Somalia, thus, was seen by voters as deadly consequence of a foreign policy blunder by Americans. In Haiti, the Clinton administration failed, after spending billions of dollars, to establish a democracy; a real-world example of the economic consequences of “nation-building.” These flaws were seen as “Clinton’s uncertainty on when and how to use American power—frequently hesitating, then overcommitting, and regularly failing to match means with ends.” Vice-President Gore, leading up to the election, was seen as an extension of Clinton’s foreign policy agenda, even though he attempted to different himself Clinton in the final two years of the administration. During the presidential debates, Gore did not do a very good job of distancing himself further from Clinton, and perhaps even leaned into the Clinton foreign policy objectives. George Bush, on the other hand, was not a Washington, D.C. elite, and was, thus, able to provide a more simple and vague response to foreign policy questions and rebuttals.

George Bush advanced the foreign policy agenda that the military should be strong, technologically advanced, more centralized, and not deployed except under certain circumstances. In the first presidential debate, George Bush claimed that the military was weaker and unready for deployment. He said blamed the Clinton administration of neglecting the military and acting unilaterally instead of creating a coalition, or maintaining a coalition, to accomplish certain foreign policy objectives. He attacked Gore for Clinton’s mishandling of Somalia stating, “it started off as a humanitarian mission and then changed into a nation-building mission. And that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed, and as a result our nation paid a price. And so, I don’t think our troops should be used for what’s called ‘nation-building’. . . Same with Haiti. I would not have supported Haiti”. Nation-building was an important topic to Bush. He believed that the U.S. military should be trained to fight and win wars, not to enter another country and build their nation and forcefully spread democracy. Using the American military to overthrow a dictator, however, was acceptable to Bush as long it was “in our best interest.” Beyond nation-building, Bush strongly believed in a technologically advanced military with projects such as the National Missile Defense (NMD). Richard Armitage, the senior foreign policy and defense advisor the Bush campaign commented that, “Mr. Bush has indicated that he wants to field an effective National Missile Defense as soon as possible.” Armitage continued that he believed that was a large difference between Bush and Gore. A missile defense, Bush believed, could protect the United States and her allies from attacks from foreign adversaries, and presumably attack nations such as Iraq without the need to send in ground soldiers and navy ships. Overall, Bush believed in an interventionist policy that would use technologically advanced systems such as NMD and coalitions to promote American global interests.

Al Gore believed in an interventionist foreign policy of using the military to promote human rights, peace keeping, and nation-building. In the second presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, the moderator for the presidential debates, asked Gore if he supported the use of U.S. military intervention in the conflicts between 1980 and 2000. The list included Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo, to which, Gore responded that he voted for or supported the military involvement in all, except Lebanon. Furthermore, Gore asserted, “the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn’t be, doesn’t mean we should shy away from going in anywhere.” Presumably, Gore is making the point, similar to “John F. Kennedy’s pledge to ‘pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship’” to pursue human rights missions and nation-building to spread democracy across the world. This is clear evidence that a Gore administration would have been a continuance of the interventionist policies of President Clinton.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States made the ruling to discontinue recounts in Florida which led to George W. Bush defeating Albert A. Gore, Jr. Just a handful of votes in Florida was enough to secure Bush’s electoral college victory. Gore lost support in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and New Hampshire, all of which supported Clinton in the 1996 election. This is important because it showed that Clinton’s policies, both domestic and foreign, lost a lot of popularity among the American voters. Gore was unable to detach himself from the Clinton administration’s foreign policy because the United States was already involved in so many world affairs, and he openly supported the polices, before running for president and during the campaign. When addressing domestic policy, Gore was able to acknowledge Clinton’s successes but proposed policies that did not seem to be a continuation of Clinton. Bush, on the other hand, was Texas’ governor and never held an office in the federal government. He was seen as an outsider that could bring a new perspective to foreign affairs and domestic policy. Additionally, being an oil baron, Bush had contacts in the Middle East and other parts of the world which gave him credibility with the voter. While both men agreed on an interventionist policy, the topic that separated them the most was the deployment of military troops. This one important topic tipped the scales towards Bush because the voter had already experienced Clinton’s use of the military in places where war was not the main objective, such as Haiti. Thus, Gore’s loss was due to his unwillingness to outright state that he would not use the military in peace keeping mission and nation-building. Bush, on other hand, convincingly stated his position of military action where it was needed and winnable and with a coalition of other nations.

In conclusion, the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Albert Gore was one of the most consequential elections in American history. The person that won that election was going to lead the nation into the twenty-first century. That person, the American people felt, needed to have a clear vision of American foreign policy in a world with no rival nations. George Bush defeated Al Gore because Gore was seen as an extension of President Clinton. While Clinton faced impeachment just months before the 2000 campaign started, the likely scenario is that Gore would have lost support regardless of Clinton’s scandals. Clinton’s foreign policy was not able to win over swing voters because it mirrored the policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush—interventionism. In fact, due to Clinton’s unilateralist approaches to foreign policy, he likely doomed the Democratic candidate no matter who it was. Governor Bush stated several times during all three presidential debates that “nation-building” was not the correct strategy. Each circumstance he listed as “nation-building” involved Clinton acting unilaterally and without American allies. Bush proposed entering military conflicts with allies and in a situation that was winnable with clear goals. Finally, while polled Americans reported foreign affairs as a low priority it must be noted that foreign affairs were one of the most debated topics in the presidential debates, was a topic of much agreement between the two candidates, and, most importantly, was one issue that linked Gore most closely to the Clinton administration.

Bibliography

Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Inc, Gallup. “The 2000 Presidential Election -- a Mid-Year Gallup Report.” Gallup.com, June 22, 2000. https://news.gallup.com/poll/9898/2000-presidential-election-midyear-gallup-report.aspx.

Lindsay, James M. “The New Partisanship: The Changed Politics of American Foreign Policy.” U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda 5, no. 2 (September 2000).

PBS Newshour. “Bush vs. Gore: The Second 2000 Presidential Debate.” www.youtube.com, September 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irzSo578gmg&t=4853s.

Zoellick, Robert B. “A Republican Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 79, no. 1 (January 2000): 63–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049614.