Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Time for some tough love, Republicans: the GOP is a hot mess on foreign policy, and you can thank Barack Obama.
President Obama's approach has been pretty good at fending off disaster and pretty awful at setting us up for a decade of success to come. But its hodgepodge quality (on drones! on diplomacy! on arrogance! on caution!) has put the Republican party in an awful bind.
With Obama, the GOP has become like Woody Allen’s neurotic diner: the food is horrible, and such small portions! [...] Obama’s foreign policy has paralyzed the GOP by laying bare just how much Republicans collectively refuse to fully commit to one grand, unifying possibility in international affairs — including the possibility of stepping away from sweeping principles and playing it by ear for a while. Republicans’ spasmodic flurry of attacks, complaints, and self-pitying diatribes is so intense that they have succeeded in shuddering themselves into a state of frozen paralysis. Call it the political equivalent of encephalitis lethargica.
Over on Facebook, Ken Masugi suggests that Republicans are struggling so badly because they've failed, on foreign policy, to understand their Lincolnian roots.
That's a whole new can of worms -- but perhaps conservatives had better get into a can-opening kind of mood, before it's too late. Obama may have dealt a deathblow to progressive dreams of a more enlightened foreign policy. But the upshot of his efforts has been to lift the Democratic party out of its generation-long credibility gap on international security -- and to plunge squabbling, exhausted Republicans into political quicksand.
You can find the balance of my thoughts on this over at Forbes.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Did you really write this? "Were he more authentic, Rubio would have chosen not to evade responsibility and simply declared that there are no global problems that will be solved without us. "
Wow.
Mar '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
The GOP and Democrats are in the same hot mess on foreign policy - neither of them understand radical Islam.
Well, some on the Republican side do - for example, John Bolton. We can hope that he is in on Mr Romney's shortlist for Secretary of State. Mr Santorum understands, also, but is maybe still not talking to Mr Romney.
In any case, this election is mostly about domestic policy. A bankrupt USA is not gonna be able to do much in the way of foreign policy, anyway. Mr Ryan's point, I think.
Edited on April 26, 2012 at 7:54pmJul '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
In getting to the article I saw the thought of the day on Forbes and it is a quote that fits here.
“There is no greater lie than a truth misunderstood.” William James
Oct '10
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Republicans have lost their vision in so many ways, not least of which is foreign policy. Ronald Reagan made his own mistakes, but one cannot argue that his foreign policy was incoherent. Even withdrawing the marines from Lebanon was consistent with avoiding foreign entanglements which do not involve defense of America. Sad to say, the monster of Islamism was already loose, but lurking below the surface.
Yesterday's Uncommon Knowledge with Pat Buchanan gets into that fray. Sounds extreme, until you think in terms of the Constitution and the George Washington articulation.
Unfortunately, the Bush's, GWB and GHWB had no coherent understanding of the historic roots of American foreign policy.
Our policy was never isolationism, Marines into Tripoli and Barbary Pirates, nor was it interventionist, until Wilson and FDR, both of which were legitimately in defense of Europe to ultimately protect America. Korea and Vietnam were both marginally to check the USSR. We never directly engaged in Latin America or Europe until Bosnia, and by then progressivism was running the show.
Reagan did go directly into Grenada, but the Monroe Doctrine came directly from the founders, and was consistent with the Constitution.
Afghanistan and Iraq and Desert Storm, meh!
Mar '12
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
I'm not sure I understand what Poulos would have Republicans do. He is right that by the end of the Bush's second term a divide had opened between the conservative cultures of honor and prudence. Obama's political pragmatism has resulted in a foreign policy that has done nothing to close that divide. (Selective intervention, half-surge in Afghanistan, backing off on closing GITMO.)
Romney and his VP pick will have to dance around that divide to keep from alienating either side of the Republican base. But Obama may pay a price too, in the form of an unmotivated antiwar base (young voters particularly). This election will be fought over domestic economic issues, and will offer clear choices there. Republicans don't need to offer a sharply defined alternative to Obama's ad hoc foreign policy to win.
Mar '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
I think you're crediting Obama for something he has no part in: the deep debate that has erupted within the conservative movement over foreign policy. One of the reasons that Ron Paul is beginning to resonate, despite some really bad ideas, is the growing feeling that we shouldn't be trying to save the world. He articulates that badly and with some truly horrid positions, but he does articulate it. And make no mistake, that notion is gaining steam.
Jul '10
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Both the conservatives and liberals have generally failed to understand or be able to articulate the threat posed by Islam and the stealth jihadists who wish to advance Sharia both here and in the Middle East. Since 2001, the mind-numbingly shallow depth of understanding the ancient evil we face has been "They hate us because of our freedom." Actually, jihadists hate us because we're infidels, and that it is their divinely sanctioned calling to conquer and submit us to their 7th century theocracy that will rule the world. Any grand, strategic foreign policy vision that doesn't recognize such rudimentary facts is a fantasy.
You couldn't envison more cartoonish villains, and yet the only politicians in the world who speak candidly about them are John Bolton and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands.
Edited on April 26, 2012 at 9:50pmAug '10
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
The best argument against Obama's foreign policy is that it is often disconnected from U.S. interests.
When Manuel Zelaya attempted to illegally modify the constitution in Honduras, he was legally removed from power. Hugo Chavez was a player in the Zelaya camp, and the Obama administration took Zelaya's side, even though the replacement government was clearly better for U.S. interests (and also morally on the side of the angels).
When the uprising in Iran occurred, it offered an opportunity to destabilize the regime and possibly solve the biggest problem facing the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East - and the Obama administration did nothing. But when an uprising happened in Egypt, threatening the rule of a leader who had made peace with Israel and was supportive of the U.S., Obama took the side of the rebels.
When an uprising happened in Libya, the U.S. went so far as to violate UN agreements and possibly U.S. law to defend the rebels, even though the U.S. national interest in that case was not clear.
Obama made a number of early moves that damaged relationships with traditional allies, while apologizing to America's enemies.
Mar '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
I agree with most of James' points in the article, but one is missing: Obama's foreign policy is every bit as muddled and hodgepodge as the Republicans'.
The root of the problem is simple: our traditional WWII- and Cold War-derived solutions are woefully misplaced to deal with the current threats to our national security. Small groups of stateless actors are positioned well to exploit the weaknesses of a large wealthy state, and neither the left nor the right really has any clue how to adapt.
This paradigm shift wouldn't be such a problem if there wasn't a requirement in today's media market for immediate, knee-jerk condemnations of every action the other side takes. But since there is a "shoot first and determine your own opinion later" rule in effect for all politicians and pundits, we predictably end up in the position of loudly criticizing Obama for military decisions President McCain would have also taken, and looking like hypocrites.
Apr '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
David Williamson: The GOP and Democrats are in the same hot mess on foreign policy - neither of them understand radical Islam.
Well, some on the Republican side do - for example, John Bolton. We can hope that he is in on Mr Romney's shortlist for Secretary of State. Mr Santorum understands, also, but is maybe still not talking to Mr Romney.
In any case, this election is mostly about domestic policy. A bankrupt USA is not gonna be able to do much in the way of foreign policy, anyway. Mr Ryan's point, I think. ·
Mitt's foreign policy spokesman was Bolton's closest colleague, and Bolton endorsed Mitt. Mitt's view of foreign policy involves increased defense spending, increased trade, and an increased partiality to our allies and hostility to our enemies.
The debate James refers to has always divided conservatives, whether over the Quasi-War, the war with Mexico, or whether to vote for Pat Buchanan. Obama is polling well at the moment because the media shields him from the perception of disaster, he has suffered no unshieldable disasters, and he's accepted some tough policies (drone expansion, GITMO etc.) There's no reason to think it permanent.
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Agree. Unfortunately, Team Romney seems to think the opposite. It's all part of the mistaken strategy of going after Obama as too weak -- instead of calling him to account for being too controlling.
Also true. But I wonder how much traction Paul would have gotten had Obama run a different foreign policy...
Apr '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
James Poulos
Agree. Unfortunately, Team Romney seems to think the opposite. It's all part of the mistaken strategy of going after Obama as too weak -- instead of calling him to account for being too controlling.
Ah. You think Romney should be on the Paul/ Buchanan left of Obama and hence that the GOP is doomed because it has generally (but not always) stood in favor of American strength and is certainly likely to do so for the foreseeable future. I don't think any of the 11 Republicans to hold the polling lead at some point in the Primaries disagreed with the Strong America approach, although, intriguingly, a majority of those who never held a lead did disagree.
Apr '12
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
James Poulos
Also true. But I wonder how much traction Paul would have gotten had Obama run a different foreign policy... · 3 hours ago
Paul doesn't really have traction, mostly because he says many of the right things, but for all the wrong reasons.
America is the first estate. She has more responsibilities (to herself and the world) than the average American will likely ever realize.
Paul is "resonating" with those Americans who don't understand why America hasn't had a Congressional Declaration of War since 1941.
Paul says that we should use our military only under such an imprimatur (Obama and Noam Chomsky agree).
But the fact of the matter is, America can never, ever wait until a crisis spirals out of control--certainly not to the point where a Congressional Declaration is necessary. Never again.
Nuclear fission changed all that.
For instance, we've all been at the water cooler, discussing 9/11 or Libya or any crisis in between...when someone inevitably declares "we should just nuke them all."
Certainly, this ubiquitous Curtis LeMay only sits in a cubicle. He doesn't command anything.
But the conversation is never about a real war is it?
Jun '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Missile defense in US foreign policy is huge.
In US foreign policy as in all other matters, President Obama is in over his head. Its easy for everyone to see if they look.
Edited on April 27, 2012 at 3:49amOct '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
James, I found your article to be more assertion than argument. I realize it's a statement of opinion, fair enough. Still, I'd have appreciated more connection between Obama's policies and the lack of GOP unity.
I note your prejudicial choice of words in "two conservative cultures of honor and prudence" - a balanced observer would admit that timely action can be more prudent than passivity.
Who wouldn't prefer "those who reject unlimited defense spending and unlimited latitude in military intervention" over "those who demand that no obstacle ever be raised to muscular leadership"? The latter is a false alternative - no one argues for unlimited anything; there is nothing for the former to reject.
Few worry about the mechanisms of Obama's foreign policy, but rather its aims. Most quietly excuse the hypocrisy of drone strikes after his cavils during the campaign. It's which leaders he cultivates that we object to, not the fact that he strokes any at all.
So, if the GOP should present a unified front, we must settle the debate. Do you argue for a foreign policy of supine Carterian appeasement or one of quiet, measured, responsible strength?
(Two can play this game.)
Nov '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
The best part of this essay: nowhere are the words "Iraq", "Syria", or "Iran". Specifics? Who needs those! Bring on the Oliver Sacks.
Nov '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
Or possibly Egypt:
Sep '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
From missile defense in Central Europe to "neutrality" in the Falklands to the coddling of Chavez (and mini-Chavezes) in our own hemisphere, Obama's statecraft has largely consisted of undercutting our friends (I haven't even gotten to Israel) and kowtowing before adversaries. For all the debate & confusion on the GOP side, it should not be hard to paint Obama as less concerned with national security and more concerned with looking good to the intellectual class, domestically and internationally.
Jul '11
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
There will never be unity among the various factions of the GOP on these and many issues. The answer as to how to proceed is simple. Point out ad nauseum what an abject sniveling fool the president is and the horrific long term damage he has done. Appoint Bolton and let him run the show with frequent discussions with Romney who can pitch this in his debates with zero. This disunity is not a weakness as some think since the left is as confused but rather an opportunity to embarrass Obama with his own idiocy on so many issues.
Re: Rubio's Big Foreign Policy Speech Shows the GOP Is in Deep Trouble
We're probably not as far apart as you seem to think, Barfly. Rather than setting up honor and prudence as binary alternatives, I'd identify them as poles on a spectrum. My concern is that politically active and influential Republicans are gravitating away from the middle portion of the spectrum and toward the poles. The problem I want to draw attention to is that this is really dangerous for the GOP as a political party. From this standpoint, Rubio isn't primarily at fault because caring too much honor is bad (though I think that's true); he's contributing to the problem because he's exacerbating the evacuation of the spectrum's middle. And he's doing so in a way that doesn't cast Obama's failures in clear, convincing terms.