In his final State of the Union address, President Obama hoped to redefine the U.S.’s role in international and global affairs. At the same time, he set a foreign policy position for Democratic candidates to either affirm or eschew in the ongoing primary election.

President Obama’s main message was that although the United States has no limit to its military and diplomatic reach, strategies of confrontation, overwhelming force and military occupation are unsustainable and unsuited to meeting the interests of either this country or the international system. These interests are not only fighting terror, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and competing in Asian-Pacific trade but also limiting global warming and finishing the fight against Ebola, HIV/AIDS and malaria. According to President Obama, U.S. foreign policy should seek to maintain security not through military action but rather by improving human and environmental well-being for a stable, sustainable world.

The most significant implications of President Obama’s section on foreign policy, however, were not its content but its context in the rest of his speech. The first national security threat Obama identified was not terrorism or border control but climate change and he ended the section with a renewed call to close Guantanamo, admitting that U.S. policy “serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies.” By starting his foreign policy section with an issue of global cooperation and mutual benefit and by closing the discussion with calling America’s moral shortcomings security weaknesses, Obama redefined the conception of state interest. 

In the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, the Sanders and Clinton campaigns both seek, in their own ways, to both continue and criticize Obama’s foreign policy. In both Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s platforms, they agree with Obama in focusing on humanitarian efforts and global warming. The Sanders campaign, however, insists on “fair trade” instead of ongoing free trade negotiations in Asia, and the Clinton campaign advocates for stronger interventionism with Russia and the Middle East. Sanders also calls for closing Guantanamo while Clinton has no written stance on the issue. Meanwhile, Clinton specifically addresses the need to combat contagious disease — something Sanders’ platform does not specifically mention. 

Despite their parallels with Obama’s remarks, however, the Clinton and Sanders campaigns differ markedly on a number of substantial matters of foreign policy and national security. 

First, in terms of monetary commitments to the armed forces, Clinton wants to invest heavily to ensure U.S. forces receive the training, equipment and post-service support they need to operate effectively both in the field and at home. Although Sanders calls for greater support for veterans, he also wants to counter the military-industrial complex, arguing that much of military spending only protects defense contractors and Congressmen seeking reelection.

Further, the two disagree on conflict in the Middle East. Sanders openly supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling on one hand for an end to the Gaza blockade and expansion of settlements and on the other for a universal recognition of Israel’s right to exist and an end to terror attacks. Clinton’s platform, however, makes no mention of Palestine and endorses Israel’s security efforts, including the Iron Dome program. Both candidates, however, support the Iran nuclear deal and are willing to take a harsh stance toward Iran should it break its end of the agreement.

The two candidates also have a different conception of protecting rights and freedoms. Clinton proposes to support LGBT rights and open internet policies abroad while Sanders only mentions supporting and defending global religious freedom. Sanders also calls for reigning in the NSA and taking a hard line against torture — issues not covered by Clinton. Finally, while Clinton believes “free peoples and free markets” go hand in hand, Sanders believes that rule of law and democracy, not economic openness, leads to individual freedoms.  

 The most significant difference between the two foreign policy platforms, however, is not a single policy issue but rather the rationale behind them. Clinton makes clear statements on issues such as computer security, competition with Russia and China and expanding market opportunities, but her foreign policy platform does not offer a guiding philosophy. Instead, each policy is promoted as serving an assumed state interest. Sanders, though less substantive in the number of issues covered, clearly articulates a guiding ideology of preferring diplomacy and cooperation over the prospect of military action.

In choosing Clinton or Sanders, then, the Democratic Party will actively shape President Obama’s foreign policy legacy. Picking Clinton would confirm Obama’s shifts in strategic focus, and Hillary’s extensive foreign policy experience would help accomplish many of the tangible goals the President has proposed. Choosing Sanders would instead emphasize Obama’s call for internationalism and moral integrity, and Bernie’s strong, longstanding convictions would ensure these ideals inform America’s responses to security challenges. As Commander in Chief, however, either candidate would have to grapple with the international reality created by both the goals and ideals of President Barack Obama.  

—Connor Wahrman ’17 is the Editor in Chief of Brandeis International Journal.