Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jeb’s Foreign Policy Speech Hits the Right Notes
Jeb Bush’s foreign policy speech yesterday aimed at the exact center of the Republican Party, and it was sure to please. I was cheered by his rejection of both Obama’s disastrous withdrawal from U.S. leadership in the world and Rand Paul’s misguided libertarianism. Over the next few months, he will have to show that he has the chops not only to brush aside neo-isolationists, but also to take on Hillary Clinton and a more left-wing opponent.
Perhaps the most heartening takeaway from the speech was his rejection of misguided libertarianism in national security. In a part of the speech that received less attention than others, Bush described the National Security Agency’s metadata collection program as “hugely important.” He said, “For the life of me, I don’t understand the debate” over the program, despite the cries of civil libertarians that the NSA is violating individual privacy rights. Paul, for his part, is suing the NSA to stop the program (an odd approach for someone who sits in the Senate and has available the political process to oppose the program).
Bush’s position on the NSA is reasonable, sensible, and in line with the views of a majority of Americans and, one expects, most Republican primary voters. It suggests that he would take similarly reasonable views in keeping Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals open, using the combination of drones and surveillance to pursue al Qaeda leaders, and redoubling measures to pursue al Qaeda. Bush also probably represented the views of a majority of Republicans in criticizing the Obama Administration’s withdrawal from world leadership, its failures in the Middle East, and its shrinking response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. “The great irony of the Obama presidency is this: Someone who came to office promising greater engagement with the world has left America less influential,” he said. Bush’s call for a reinvigorated American role in world affairs will be popular among Republicans and will hopefully help send Paul and other neo-isolationsts to the margins.
But Bush’s speech also aimed at the low-hanging fruit. He should take the important next step of offering a vision of U.S. foreign policy that will go beyond just reaction to current hot spots. Obama’s foreign policy, and that of Hillary Clinton, suffers not just from its shrinking response to the challenges of world leadership, but its failure to develop and follow a strategy toward world events. President Obama has become a ping-pong ball bouncing from one crisis to the next, trying out policies on the fly, without any broader understanding of central U.S. interests. American foreign policy has ceded the initiative to others because of the White House’s lack of strategic vision.
So what would make sense of Bush’s positions on the wide variety of foreign policy challenges facing the nation? He could begin by returning to the traditional goals of U.S. foreign policy. In order of importance, these have been: 1) defense of the nation’s territory; 2) hegemony in the Western Hemisphere; 3) preventing any single power from controlling Europe or Asia; 4) securing free navigation of the seas and airspace above it; 5) maintaining a liberal world order for our us and our allies that allows free trade and democracy to flourish.
Re-doubling the pursuit of al Qaeda and ISIS — including the NSA programs, drones, Guantanamo Bay, and support for our Middle East allies fighting in Syria and Iraq now — is fundamental because it advances the defense of our homeland. Bush can restore American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere by reversing Obama’s opening to Cuba and pressuring Venezuela to overturn its hostile regime. He can focus our response to Russia’s revanchism and China’s rise in the most effective way by building blocking alliances to balance against their moves toward regional dominance. We must restore spending on the navy, air force, and army because of the importance of maintaining open and free seas and air (secured by American bases and forces in maritime nations), and because free trade helps the American economy and supports friendly democratic regimes. This means renewed spending on defense and, as Bush recognized, reinvigorating economic growth at home to support it.
So let’s give Jeb Bush a B+ for his speech — no grade inflation out here in Berkeley — and consider it a down payment on a deeper vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Published in Foreign Policy, General
This is quite an interesting tangent. My understanding is that the Republican base doesn’t have an issue with a well-documented and well-controlled guest worker program. What has been the state of affairs is that millions of people from Mexico and Central America have poured over the border, yes some of them looking for a better life, but others engaged in criminal activity like the further spread of cartel-controlled drug operations. And there is evidence that still others from the Middle East have crossed the porous border as well, presenting a serious potential national security threat. The lack of will to address the security of the border is what upsets the Republican base. Not some conspiracy theory about how the unions in America are somehow manipulating public opinion and ginning up this topic for their own gain.
Who is donating all the big bucks to his campaign? Do you think this question is a challenge to the claim that Jeb is the most hated person on the right? How much money he raises from very small elements of the GOP (?) does not refute the statement at all. And the answer is: A select number of multi millionaires and billionaires, many of whom may also be donating to Hillary to hedge their bets. Not ordinary Republican voters. Who = a microscopic few who have a lot of money and want in on the game.
Bomb-throwing radicals? Ironic that you are using this kind of rhetoric. Aren’t you moderates supposed to be more sophisticated than that. And I’m going to guess, similar to Obama being unable to name or call out jihadis as Muslim extremists but will quickly and easily judge his “domestic” enemies, or call out Christians of 800 years past,, I bet you reserve the ‘bomb-throwing radical’ phrase for conservatives andwould dare not use it for Obama or other socialists masquerading as “Democrats”.
You know who else tries to fix the problems he causes by giving a speech?
Is Jeb doing the whole “air quote” thing with his fingers?
Most people don’t see me as “conservative”
I may not “smell nice”
I don’t think we should have “borders”
He’d let his supporters stick their necks out in favor of his proposals, such as Social Security reform, and then when the leftwing hate reached white-hot maximum, he’d withdraw in the most abject manner possible, leaving his supporters twisting in the wind.
It is difficult to express just how much I despise his type for that kind of behavior.
First of all, what rage? I have no rage. I get a distaste from demogogues who play to red meat politics 365 days of the year. And I’m a supporter of the tea party, as it was put together back in 2009. It’s morphed in recent years. Nor did it have a huge impact in this last election.
@ Franco, #33:
I’m hardly a moderate and neither is Jeb Bush. Look at his record. There’s a distinction to be made between thinking conservatives and bomb throwers. Compare George Will to Sarah Palin. There is something to be said for disdaining red meat demogoguery. In fact I find such red meat politics to be very UN-conservative. It’s actually quie radical and destabilizing. That’s not conservative.
This is just not accurate. Bush left nobody twisting in the wind over SS reform. He withdrew because he couldn’t get the votes. He couldn’t get the votes because people like imaginary “free” stuff.
They told their Reps and Senators they wanted to keep their imaginary “free” stuff unchanged. The Reps and Senators wanted to get re-elected, so they wouldn’t vote for reform.
Dubya, in contrast, actually had it as part of his campaign platform. That is, he was willing to risk his own election over it.
What is “his type?”
I think I can see what brand of conservatism is spoken of here. Anything that’s already in place, we keep. That doesn’t suit me and I’m not a bomb-thrower. A true conservative will look at two things, minimum, and that would be what things that are in place are worthy to keep and what should be discarded, and what things are in place that are not in accord with our Constitution but are worthy of keeping, then we can amend the Constitution. I’m sure T. Jefferson understood that radical and destabilizing might be needed on occasion, maybe every twenty years.
Isn’t calling talk show hosts and Cruz “bomb-throwing radicals” demagoguery as well? I’m no fan of Palin. I think she’s out of her league and in her own bubble, but I can’t say I disagree with her basic point of view. Neither am I a fan of Hannity for other reasons. But I’m a fan of Mark Levin and VDH and David Horowitz and any number of people who knew exactly what Obama stood for as well as the other socialists in the Democrat party. Is the word socialist offensive to you in this context? Should I say “our esteemed collegues on the other side?”
Jeb Bush, and apparently you, are moderates in your tactics and strategy, which I find to be very UN-conservative. I think it monumentally stupid to think we can convert 20 million new immigrants from a third world country into understanding American exceptionalism and nuanced conservative arguments when they are presented handouts and vitriol and racial arguments from leftists. It takes high levels of willful denial to believe that these people will never be voters.
Interesting that yesterday’s level-headed moderate becomes today’s bomb-thrower. Rudy has just realized Obama. Welcome to the part- it’s almost over now, Mr. Mayor. They realize too late that they have been had by leftists. Us “bomb-throwers” were begging Romney to take Obama on head on, but nooo. He was reasonable and kind, level headed and deferential talking about jobs and his experience turning companies around. Now he knows he took the wrong approach. In 2008 us bomb throwers were screaming not to nominate Mc cain saying the media will turn on him and that he’s a one-trick politician who isn’t conservative – in fact he isn’t ANYTHING, but no, the moderates prevailed. We were the crazies and wacko-birds.
And it certainly doesn’t help your case that these fools couldn’t get elected against a nobody one-term Senator and a failed President respectively.
Jeb is an elite and he will always be one. That’s not conservatism, that’s statism. One can tell by their approach to politics that they are out of touch with what is happening on the ground, where voters live. That’s not conservative either.
Ignoring or subverting our Constitution ,Patriot Act, is not conservative. Being naive when facing domestic enemies leftists – is not conservative.
He’s an elite statist who happens to be pro-life and wants lower taxes. Whoop-de-do. And what trumps everything is that he can’t win the general. I assume you want someone who can win, right?
So far I can only surmise that to you conservatism is naivete, inability to learn from the past, elitism, royalism and continuation of a very toxic status quo..
Labeling conservatives as “bomb throwers” isn’t exactly measured and thoughtful commentary. It’s hyperbole. Can you expand on how it is that the Tea Party movement “morphed” and what it morphed into – simply a group of rabid obstructionist “bomb throwers” would be my guess as to your answer.
Most of the criticisms of Jeb Bush have been on his domestic policy positions. I think there is general admiration of the man as a decent and well-meaning fellow and as a governor, a competent executive. But one has to ask whether he is the right conservative at this moment in time or whether the Republican Party can do much better.
Frankly, I think the party can, and I think there are least three or four other candidates who would be more adept at reining in runaway spending, securing the border and eliminatng the idiotic Common Core program. I personally have an issue with Jeb’s admiration of Hillary Rodham Clinton and his sometimes condescending tone when speaking of the plight of illegal aliens by glossing over some of the obvious problems of crime that the relatively open border has caused…but, hey that’s just me.
@Franco and Brian Watt
Well, you might be right there, but I was just reaching for a descriptive to make the distinction. If you look at all the Republican candidates I bet there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them, except for Rand Paul, and I would never support him. And when I say that, I include immigration policy. I defy anyone to find real, meaningful distinctions on immigration between any of the Republicans. I’m looking for the most experienced and level headed candidate, and once I got over the Bush name, Jeb turned out to be that guy. If you can’t get over the Bush name, I understand, but I hope it’s because we don’t want a third person from the same family to be president and not because you think Jeb is a moderate.
Anyway, peace. I’m not out to rile you guys up. :)
Peace to you as well, and you are smart to make peace before we start throwing real bombs your way.:)
For me it’s mostly the “third Bush” thing although I have disagreements about his zeal for immigration (he’s the worst in that category). But also the hubris and the willingness to bring all the Bush baggage into the Republican party in 2016. I find that absolutely despicable. It’s hard enough to win without making it easy for them and we do have other good candidates. It’s unbelievable arrogance, and political cluelessness. He can’t win. He will get buried. He doesn’t have support on the right and the left hates him and LIVs will need only his name to vote for Hillary. Also Bush running takes the dynasty issue off the Democrat table and places it squarely on the GOP table He can make a living – a damned good one -in the private sector.
Anyone remember Vic Hitler the narcoleptic comedian from Hill St Blues? He didn’t fail because of his sleeping disorder. Something about the name. Hmmm.
Jindal has been a disaster for Louisiana due his kicking the can down the road on finances. Conservatives here are fed up with him.
He is correct in large and it is not hyperbole, not really.
You accused Breitbart of being a “nutter websites . . . misquoting Jeb and taking anything he has said out of context.”
When you are asked to cite specific examples supporting your allegations, you provide a link to a Breitbart article saying that (a) Bolick stated that Bush would enforce the border and support legal status but not citizenship, and (b) Bush and Bolick said in their book that permanent residency should not lead to citizenship, which was a change from what Bush said earlier to Charlie Rose. The article included a link to another Breitbart article that (a) presented Bolick’s argument that Bush does not support amnesty and (b) linked to Bolick’s own Wall Street Journal op-ed on the same subject.
‘Nuff said.
There are ways to withdraw from a fight in such a way as to stand up for your supporters and their cause so that you are positioned to fight again another day. Bill Clinton was a master of the technique. He did it for evil, but anybody with an ounce of integrity could use the same positioning techniques for good.
A Bush is the last person I want to see in the presidency. I’ll take a Bolshevik before I take another Bush.
Bolsheviks!
I don’t think that’s such a good idea.