Restore the bipartisan cooperation in the design and conduct of U.S. foreign policy

Every week brings fresh reminders that we live in dangerous and uncertain times. Thirty-five killed in the Brussels attacks. More than 70 dead in Lahore. North Korea’s ballistic missile launches. The worsening Middle Eastern refugee crisis. EU instability. Chinese anti-ship missiles in the South China Sea. More fighting in Ukraine.

These and other pressing national security problems will confront the next president the moment he or she walks into the Oval Office for the first time. And so will big strategic questions that will determine the security and prosperity of Americans for generations to come.

{mosads}How do we improve homeland security and make ourselves more resilient to terrorist attacks? Is military readiness what it should be? Are our armed services the right size for their missions? Are we gaining an edge or falling behind in cybersecurity?  What can government do to help increase U.S. exports and improve our trade imbalance?  What’s the most effective way to advance our values in the world?

Considering the gravity of these questions, there’s been too little serious debate about them in the presidential campaign to date. As the back and forth between rival candidates plumbs new depths in substance-free personal attacks, the nations of the world who look to America for leadership watch and worry about what has happened to our democracy.

Too often the candidates’ views on national security issues that manage to break through the noise are crude soundbites. The lack of substance in our debates compared to the steady stream of personal invective is undermining confidence abroad in U.S. leadership by spreading doubts about the judgment of our presidential candidates. It’s worrying our allies and encouraging our enemies.

There’s something worse than a world that expects too much of American leadership. And that’s a world that expects too little of us. It’s a world that learns to accommodate aggressors rather than resist them, where nations seek security by attempting to reorder regional power balances on their own rather than relying on strong and stable alliances with the U.S. that are the key to peace. It’s a world where America’s power to protect our security at home and interests abroad, advance the global progress of our values and shape world history is seriously curtailed.

We hope the general election campaign features greater seriousness about the security challenges of our time, and that the parties’ nominees offer smart, forward thinking policies to address them and not limit themselves just to arguing their differences.  We know all campaigns draw distinctions, but the threats facing America and our allies are great and urgent. Overcoming them will require greater cooperation between leaders in both parties, and between the White House and Congress.

At No Labels we’re working with national security experts on proposals that policymakers in both parties can agree are in the national interest. We will publicly present them to members of Congress and representatives of the incoming presidential administration after the November election.

We don’t suggest consensus can always be attained on specific policy recommendations. People with strong views will disagree in good faith about whether we should provide arms to the government of Ukraine, for example, or create a safe haven in Syria.

What we will promote are broadly supported key strategic goals and specific timelines to reach them for our most critical challenges. Among them, improving our ability to prevent and strengthen our resilience to terrorist attacks. Making American intellectual property and information technology more secure from foreign cyber threats. Strengthening our military and improving its readiness. Opening foreign markets to more U.S. exports. Finding smarter, more effective ways to promote the values of peaceful, democratic, free market societies.

To reach such consensus we need to make progress in restoring the bipartisan cooperation that long existed in the design and conduct of U.S. foreign policy.  

Toward that end, we will offer recommendations on how to improve the confirmation process for senior foreign policy and defense appointments, and encourage closer consultation between the executive and legislative branches on key national security policies.

We’re under no illusions that in an era of hyper partisanship, greater statesmanship will be easily achieved. But in the not-so-distant past, both parties prided themselves on setting aside their differences at the water’s edge and working together constructively to protect the American people from foreign threats. 

We believe it possible to recover the emphasis on putting national security before partisan interest and the cooperative working habits it engenders among public officials in both parties. We believe bipartisanship is possible because we’ve seen it before and been part of it ourselves. We believe it most of all because we know there are no Republican or Democratic answers to the most serious threats facing our country. The only solution is an America united in recognition of our challenges and determined to do what must be done to overcome these threats.

Gov. Huntsman and Sen. Lieberman are No Labels National Co-Chairs