Ross Douthat had a nice column in the New York Times yesterday, one that trenchantly observes the lack of consensus within the GOP on foreign policy--specifically, what the US role in the world ought to be.
Using the yin and yang of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio to bookend potential Republican approaches, Douthat seems to be informing us of a new schism within the Republican Party, as if its approach to foreign policy is of late, somewhat fractured. While I enjoy Douthat's writing and find his thinking to be generally spot on, he is mining old territory here. The Republican Party has--for decades-- had American exceptionalist neo-conservatives and America First neo-isolationsists in "the tent". They vie for influence with each other and temper each other's intemperate stands. What Douthat is writing about here is a growing tide within the party that questions the wisdom of some of our foreign policy adventures in the face of an increasingly obvious state of domestic decline. But these folks have been in the party all along--their views are simply now more popular.
Where do I come down on this? Confused, I must admit. I am with Marco Rubio on American exceptionalism--but I'm with Rand Paul that we can't afford it right now. My approach would be one of coming right out and saying that the times demand we focus inward, recognizing that it is a temporary state of affairs while we gather and regain our strength--because the world DOES need us, and we have a great and central place in it.
The good news here: no one sees John McCain as relevant to this question.
Where do I come down on this? Confused, I must admit. I am with Marco Rubio on American exceptionalism--but I'm with Rand Paul that we can't afford it right now. My approach would be one of coming right out and saying that the times demand we focus inward, recognizing that it is a temporary state of affairs while we gather and regain our strength--because the world DOES need us, and we have a great and central place in it. 
Posts
1 comments:
Good point about the long-standing existence of a wide range of foreign policy opinion in the GOP. It seems, though, that if Americans want to continue receiving the advantages of being in America (the reserve currency, ability to finance national debt, unparalleled influence diplomatically and economically, a lack of threats), the U.S. will need to be involved in the world. Isolationism is a road to second place or lower.
While the U.S. may not be able to get involved militarily in every potential conflict that arises, our strategy must aspire to pursue our national interests - including the promotion of American values. As a result, the U.S. will remain engaged abroad as much as resources allow, and accept the fact our actions will fall short of our aspirations, as they always have.
Post a Comment