What voters are hearing when politicians talk about foreign policy

The progressive Center for American Progress think tank has released a report on voters' attitudes about foreign policy that provides candidates, the media and voters with a wealth of information. I sent two of the study's authors, Brian Katulis and John Halpin, some questions via email about their findings. Here are their (joint) answers:

1. What was most surprising to you in the focus groups?

The thing that stood out the most was the language barrier and the widespread confusion about America's overall national security goals. The very words and phrases many foreign policy experts use and then sometimes advise candidates or leaders to use don't connect with a lot of people. Foreign policy experts often speak in terms that are unfamiliar with Americans - and that's a contrast to [President] Trump's piercing narrative - that foreigners are taking advantage of America and he's fixing that. Although Trump himself is deeply unpopular on foreign policy, that Trump story line is communicated in a language that people get.

Another theme that was striking was the widespread view across party and generational lines that America doesn't have a plan for competing in the world, especially with China. This points to a broader crisis of purpose about U.S. engagement in the world and the lack of a clear strategic direction and argument from the national security establishment. "What are we doing as a nation?" was the question that lurked over the focus groups. This widespread confusion about our overall national security goals is really important for experts to understand.

Unlike the 20th-century fights against fascism and communism, and the post-9/11 anti-terrorism environment (which still has resonance), many people fundamentally do not get what we are trying to accomplish. Subsequently, they fall back on taking care of the home front and investing in our security and economy.

2. What did you learn about the use of language from the individual interviews?

Given the lack of clarity about our visions and goals, we found that many of the foreign policy debates animating foreign policy experts - discourse about the liberal order and fighting illiberalism, for example - mean little to nothing to voters. Instead, they want to know how these issues relate to their lives and make them feel more secure and prosperous.

Democracy promotion and the fight against authoritarianism are the right policy ideas, in our view, but they are just way down the list of priorities for voters. Security, economics, and then values is the hierarchy we find in this research.

We are doing another round of research in a few weeks to delve more deeply into the arguments and language that might be effective in advancing a balanced internationalist agenda.

3. With a consensus for "skeptical internationalism," what's the best way for a president to make the case, for example, for keeping troops in Syria or Afghanistan?

Proponents of this must first recognize that Americans are weary of Middle East wars and military interventions, and many feel we've been dangerously overextended as a nation.

That said, one important finding from this research is that concerns about terrorism endure and continue to resonate. A top priority of Americans is to protect our country from ISIS [the Islamic State] and al-Qaeda, and Syria and Afghanistan remain plagued with dangerous terrorist networks. If America's military engagement is directly tied to the central idea of protection of the home front and our people, then voters may be open to continuing those operations. But extending these military engagements without a clear end in sight and without a clear sense of a plan to defeat these terrorist threats is not likely to be a winning argument.

Voters are smart and they know when leaders are manipulating them and using scare tactics. The case for continued military intervention needs to be made with a clear sense of purpose and linked to the notion that these wars will end at some point.

But more importantly - there is an argument to be made that nearly 18 years after 9/11, Americans want to see a more effective, integrated strategy to counter and defeat terrorist groups through economic, political and diplomatic means. In our poll, there's pretty strong support for the notion of investing in those other nonmilitary tools in America's overall foreign policy, but the Trump administration has cut investments in those tools.

4. Is there some bipartisan set of principles that would unify members of both parties?

There are two top priorities. First, investing more in our own infrastructure, health care and education systems to better prepare our people and workers for global economic competition. Second, doing more with other nations to handle emerging threats from cyberattacks and drones and other nonconventional threats. People get the value of alliances and partnerships with other countries - they know we can't tackle these new threats alone and need to work with others.

Do Democrats need to pass a commander-in-chief bar with voters, and if so, how do they do it without curtailing future action or chasing off a large segment of voters?

The "commander in chief" test is a vague notion today. Donald Trump is our president after all, so it's clearly not much of a test for many voters. However, voters do expect presidential candidates to understand the job and, more than anything, want leaders who stand up for American interests and do their best not to get us involved in things outside of our control. In the next 18 months, Democrats have an opportunity to take this challenge to heart and offer voters a compelling "strong at home to compete in the world" vision for the country that can serve as a core contrast with Trump.

Jennifer Rubin wrote this for The Washington Post.