Letter from Washington: Why James Talarico may be the future of Democratic foreign policy

An obscure Presbyterian minister from Texas may have just revealed the future of Democratic foreign policy. In beating Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Democratic senate primary election, James Talarico managed something Democrats have struggled to do since 2008: he has folded foreign policy into his emotional pitch to voters.

Let’s be clear: Talarico did not run on foreign policy. He clearly knows, as nearly all American politicians do, that US elections are won or lost on pocketbook issues and cultural flashpoints. In that vein, Talarico had one overriding and decidedly domestic message in his campaign: that elite corruption distorts every aspect of American life and that he will fix the broken and rigged system. But importantly, his positions on foreign policy all served to support that fundamental moral and emotional message. If Talarico becomes the first Democrat to win a statewide race in Texas since 1994, Democrats will adopt his approach en masse. Even if he doesn’t, they would be wise to take note.

Foreign policy is domestic policy

Most campaigns treat foreign policy issues, to the extent that they bother, individually. Each position is argued on its own terms, defended with its own evidence and largely kept apart from the rest. Voters are asked to evaluate a collection of positions rather than a single argument.

But when Talarico talks about foreign policy, he is not switching topics. His foreign policy worldview rests on the same single idea that runs through everything he says about domestic policy: a corrupt, billionaire-captured political system serves those with power instead of ordinary Americans. He brings every issue back to this central message constantly. So, in his view, for example, when American foreign policy serves oil executives or bombs children abroad, it is the same rigged system that has led to defunded schools and unaffordable healthcare at home.

This is not a foreign policy platform. It is a moral framework that his foreign policy positions support. A voter who agrees with him that the system is rigged will see American policy toward Venezuela, Iran and Israel through that lens. His argument runs as follows: Billionaires shape policy through donations and access. Politicians prioritise donor relationships over the communities they serve. Each choice reveals the same truth: power has structured the system to serve itself. Talarico’s message discipline helps the voters see this pattern, which then allows his foreign policy to reinforce his domestic argument.

Many issues, one message

The clearest example is Venezuela. At the Texas AFL-CIO debate in January, Talarico described a transaction: “Trump promised the biggest oil executives in this country a ‘great deal’ if they gave him a billion dollars for his reelection campaign, and then he turned around and gave them a gift. He gave them the nation of Venezuela, home to the largest oil reserves in the world. Billionaires don’t just run our economy. They don’t just run our government. Now they run our foreign policy.” A president coordinates with industry executives, collects their money and delivers policy that serves their interests. Those with power shape outcomes. Corruption is built in by those who benefit the most from it.

When asked about the US war in Iran during a March 9th interview on CBS Mornings, Talarico explained: “Every dollar we spend bombing people in the Middle East is a dollar we’re not spending in San Branch, Texas, or in our communities here at home. We’re always told that we don’t have enough money for schools or for health care or for our veterans, but there’s always enough money to bomb people on the other side of the world.” For Talarico, this is about priorities. The government claims scarcity when addressing community and local needs but finds abundance for war.

Talarico used his domestic political message to voice his opposition to the war.

Talarico used his domestic political message to voice his opposition to the war. He did not use a legal argument or focus on whether President Donald Trump had asked Congress for approval. He did not need to post a thread explaining the War Powers Act to confused constituents. Compare that to Crockett who, in line with much of the Democratic Congressional Caucus, presented a detailed argument about congressional authority: “CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT, but CONGRESS has the EXCLUSIVE authority to declare war!” She was not wrong on the merits. But she was speaking the language of process. By contrast, Talarico made a structural argument about corrupted priorities. Voters do not feel the War Powers Act in their lives, but they do feel the school budget.

When Talarico was asked about his refusal to take money from AIPAC he responded, “I want people to know that my policy positions are driven by my values, not any outside influence.” The issue he highlights is the substantial influence that the donor class, including AIPAC, has over Democratic Party leadership and the ways that corrupts US foreign policy. No matter how many town halls across America revealed that the public was tiring of weapons sales to Israel, party leaders kept them flowing. He asserts this lack of attention to potential voters reveals how the system actually works: donor priorities override public sentiment because the party was built to respond to wealth, not people. The same forces that let pharmaceutical companies shape healthcare policy let billionaire donors shape foreign policy.

The politics of the future

Many Democrats hold similar positions on Venezuela, Iran and Israel. What they have not done is make those positions feel part of an overriding emotional appeal that encompasses their political message.

Talarico built his successful Senate nomination campaign on the argument that the biggest divide in America is not left versus right but top versus bottom. Foreign policy fits that frame perfectly. The powerful shape decisions. Everyone else lives with the consequences.

His message transcends the divides within the Democratic Party. It tells voters who the enemy is, what has been lost and what kind of leader can recover it. If Talarico wins in November, do not be surprised when this message begins popping up all over the country.