What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
P.J. O'Rourke asks this question in a well-reported, thoughtful piece in this month's World Affairs Journal. It is not, alas, particularly funny, which I know we all expect from him, but it's good journalism and it raises interesting questions:
Specific, concrete political policy goals were disavowed by almost all of the people I talked to in the Tea Party movement (I use the term in the overly broad public commentator way). Instead, what I heard were arguments against the kind of centralized government power that concocts political policy goals—arguments of the Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman kind, that individuals are the best judges of how to employ their individual energies and resources. Whatever else the Tea Party movement believes, it espouses (and evidences) a firm belief in the self-organizing capacities of free individuals.
Unfortunately, we individuals are rarely free in the face of foreign policy. Foreign policy is highly centralized. And the political power that centralizes foreign policy is—when wielded by foreigners—outside the realm of our political influence no matter how popular the Tea Party becomes.
Nor is the past record of decentralization in foreign policy reassuring. It went well when the Soviet Union lost control of Eastern Europe’s foreign policy. It did not go so well when the European colonial powers lost control of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. And total decentralization of foreign policy meant a nightmare in the former Yugoslavia.
I'm extremely sympathetic to a point raised by one of his interview subjects:
“We have a long way to go,” said the blogger. “Until we can fix the problems in our own backyard we can’t fix things over the pond. How can we have a foreign policy when we don’t have a policy that works for ourselves? It’s not going to happen in one election. It’s not going to happen in two elections. We’re looking at a hundred-year project. It’s going to take fifty years to get back to Reagan.”
I fear he may be right. But the world does not precisely look poised to slumber peaceably and patiently for the next fifty years now, does it?
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Puzzling. Does the tea party need a foreign policy? I mean, certain things follow from its positions. Selling our enormous debt abroad is a bad thing, and a growing economy is a good thing. And the self-esteem of Muslim nations ought not be the foremost concern of NASA.
Edited on October 4, 2010 at 1:25pmSep '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
The tea party's foreign policy is to run off Obama and his ilk. They'll figure out the rest later. Priorities.
Sep '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
The decentralization of foreign policy is still quite a way off even if we do see a shift in the political direction of the country.Just fixing our economic woes could go a long way to shoring up international worries.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Right now, I think we have to focus on the Tea Party's role as the sunniest development we've seen in domestic politics for quite some time. Foreign policy issues don't seem to animate the Tea Party's discussions (to the extent we can give the Tea Party a single identity, which I don't think we can or should). The best we can do is look at politicians identified with the Tea Party. Jim DeMint, for example, is a defense hawk and committed free trader which has earned him some grief here in South Carolina. Sarah Palin's more of a mystery on this point, but she seems to favor free trade an active American presence abroad. Paul pere and Paul fils, however - not so much. Ultimately, though, the folks carrying the Tea Party banner are likely to face a reckoning among their diverse foreign policy views sooner rather than later. Best to begin talking about it now.
Edited on October 4, 2010 at 3:05pmJul '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Foreign policy: "We win, they lose." Not too tough to understand.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
You know, this relates to the question I raised on the podcast post (that went unanswered) about spending. We all agree that the big spending began under Bush, but what spending in particular do folks object to? There was a massive amount of spending on defense, intelligence, etc. The NSA has expanded. The VA has expanded. The Department of Homeland Security was created. DoD employs the largest number of federal employees of any agency, and it has only gotten bigger. The small government supporters need a gut check about how they feel about national defense. And as for getting back to Reagan, he wasn't exactly fiscally conservative when it came to national defense. And he increased the salaries of active duty, which I personally don't mind. They were making peanuts before. But even ricochet contributors have called for reducing federal employee salaries, which when it comes to the defense sector, isn't very Reaganesque.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
This is grossly unfair. The Tea Party is not a political party, it is a movement. Its members do not promise solutions to all our problems; they are mobilizing against a very specific problem. You might as well ask Greenpeace what it proposes to do about the high cost of prescription medication for senior citizens.
I enjoy reading P.J. but this feels like a MSM sideswipe. I can just imagine Thomas Friedman raising his glass to P.J. across a crowded National Press Club bar.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Tracy, my thoughts exactly.
Jul '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
My policy?
It's better to be feared than to be loved.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
You're talking about the Tea movement as an actual third party. It's not. So the foreign policy of the GOP is the default position.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Kenneth: My policy?
It's better to be feared than to be loved. · Oct 4 at 7:04a
OK Kenneth -- but what about foreign policy?
Jul '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Trace Urdan
Kenneth: My policy?
It's better to be feared than to be loved. · Oct 4 at 7:04a
OK Kenneth -- but what about foreign policy? · Oct 4 at 7:14am
Oh...foreign policy? Goes like this:
"Nice little country you got here. Be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it."
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Karen, I think you raise a great point. Tea partiers want to cut back on government spending. There is no better place to begin that project than with the DOD which, as you point out, is the largest of the federal bureaucracies. Robert Gates has already started cutting the Pentagon's budget and rearranging funds to prioritize the wars, rather than waste. To Gates, you can still robustly fight the wars while cutting spending.
But our representatives in Congress don't want to touch defense spending since it brings money back to their districts. If the tea partiers are serious about cutting spending, the DOD is a great place to start.
Jul '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Why such a foolish question?
Look at the basic position of the Tea Party.
Constitutionally mandated limited government!
So what is their foreign policy?
Simple!
Put America First! Believe in your country and act accordingly!
George Shultz (sp) Reagan's Secretary of State used to have an interview with new ambassadors in his office. He'd walk over to the globe and ask the person, "Where is your country?"
After the person would walk over to the globe and point to the country to which they had been assigned Mr. Shultz would then turn the globe to the North Americas and point to the United States and say, "Excuse me sonny, but this is your country, and don't you ever forget it."
That is the Tea Party's Foreign Policy.
Edited on October 4, 2010 at 5:04pmMay '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
Trace Urdan: This is grossly unfair. The Tea Party is not a political party, it is a movement. Its members do not promise solutions to all our problems; they are mobilizing against a very specific problem. You might as well ask Greenpeace what it proposes to do about the high cost of prescription medication for senior citizens.
I enjoy reading P.J. but this feels like a MSM sideswipe. I can just imagine Thomas Friedman raising his glass to P.J. across a crowded National Press Club bar. · Oct 4 at 6:43am
I wouldn't call it a hit piece, but clearly O'Rourke doesn't understand what the Tea Parties are. The TPs don't have a foreign policy (except for a very broad notion that America is the shining city on the hill) and it likely will never have one. That's not its job. The TP has always been a movement built toward the specific purpose of reversing the uncontrolled government spending. Once that is accomplished, the TPs will fade away nationally (hopefully to become a force locally).
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
If there's anything consistent about U.S. foreign policy since 1776, it's the proclivity toward being decentralized and reactionary. Therefore, O'Rourke is basically asking the Tea Party to reconfigure 234 years of political culture. I see...
Frankly, I think US foreign policy needs to become smarter and more efficient, not simply more intrusive. This might require being proactive in some cases, but call on detachment in others.
Even with all of its benefits, foreign policy overreach has a proven long-term tendency to lead to bankruptcy. We're already doing a good enough job of achieving that independent of foreign policy. I think the Tea Party's priorities are well in order.
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
I think the foreign policy most consistent with the bundle of dispositions, commitments, and convictions held by the tea party should be one that centers around a basic grand strategic goal: a world in which the U.S. is not the only major power shouldering an order consonant with our national interests. The 'schools' of conservatism (neo-, paleo-, etc.) are often understood as all-encompassing worldviews. From the perspective of this goal, they can be seen instead as offering different tactical packages that can be applied to different grand strategic goals. Though none is totally fungible -- it's hard to see, for instance, how neoconservative isolationism would work -- they are nonetheless adaptable. A neocon or paleocon or tea partier or mainline conservative could all agree or disagree, for different reasons, with the grand strategic goal I describe. Interestingly (to dorks like me), I am not sure that goal does even maps conclusively or exclusively onto a single 'school' of international relations (realist, idealist, etc.), nor onto a position taken in the IR 'polarity' debate (which makes the most stable world: a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar system of powers?).
Jun '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
The Tea Party's not a party. So, what is Brett Favre's position on the designated hitter rule in baseball? Who cares? Not his sport. Foreign policy is not the Tea Party's sport.
Sep '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
I'm halfway thru your Thatcher book. (Great read BTW) What might Maggie say at this point? She won in the Falklands. But we're on the way to losing in Afghanistan. And according to Odierno, maybe even in Iraq.
May '10
Re: What's the Tea Party's Foreign Policy?
I think it is the obligation of every citizen to have an opinion about America's foreign policy. It goes to the very heart, the very purpose, of having a federal government. What do Tea Party supporters want their gov't to look like? As to Emily's statement, I don't think cutting the DoD is the answer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe defense spending is only about 5% of GDP. And I don't believe that Gates is shrinking the DoD as much as moving assets and reducing redundancies. He cuts 5,000 jobs in Norfolk, but creates 2,000 in Charlottesville. I don't think I can disagree with James on the goal of foreign policy- "a world in which the U.S. is not the only major power shouldering an order consonant with our national interests," but I don't see that happening in the near future. The Navy has a saying that an aircraft carrier is 100,000 tons of diplomacy. And we'll do much better in any contact with other nations, if we have the military might and readiness to back us up. cont'd
Edited on October 4, 2010 at 7:03pm