By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, November 08, 2023
For two blessed hours on Wednesday night, Americans were
treated to a rare glimpse of a Republican Party that is recognizable to GOP
voters who remember a time before Trump.
It was a combative debate, but there was more consensus
on that stage than contention. Among the points of broad agreement: America is
a force for good on the world stage, the American-led geopolitical order is
worth preserving, and America’s geostrategic position vis-à-vis its foreign
adversaries can have dire consequences for the quality of life U.S. citizens
presently enjoy. Only Vivek Ramaswamy dissented against this concurrence, but
he served as the heel in today’s production — a paper tiger whose objections
only emphasize the virtues endorsed by his opponents.
Given the rapid deterioration in the global security
environment since the September 28 debate, NBC News devoted appropriate
attention to foreign policy. On Israel’s war in Gaza, there was broad agreement
around the notion that the Biden administration’s foremost task is to get out
of Jerusalem’s way. Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Tim Scott
endorsed Israel’s war of regime change in the Strip. Indeed, some went further
by highlighting the extent to which the 10/7 attack was an extension of Iran’s
provocations in the region. Given the ongoing attacks on U.S. positions from
Iran’s proxies in the Middle East, Israel’s war is, to some extent, America’s
war, too. Ramaswamy, of course, objected, but only indirectly — insisting that
only those who want to cut Israel off from U.S. material aid really have the
Jewish state’s best interests in mind. But Ramaswamy’s attempt to retail his
parochial foreign-policy preferences as a rare species of hawkishness only
underscored the unpopularity of his vision within the GOP.
There was relatively uniform support for Ukraine’s
efforts to resist Moscow’s campaign of conquest and subjugation, too. Tim Scott
and Christie backed an American program designed to degrade Russia’s military
capability — a narrow and achievable objective. Haley did as well while
emphasizing the extent to which America’s partners are all on one side of the
conflict in Ukraine and America’s adversaries are on the other. She went
further by emphasizing the shared fortunes among the members of the “unholy alliance”
emerging between Iran, Russia, and China. Their strategic objectives are
coupled, and they rise or fall together.
“We need to bring an end to this war,” Ron DeSantis
exclaimed, refusing to join his colleagues’ full-throated support for Ukraine’s
war of national defense. But that, too, is reassuring insofar as there are
only two
ways to bring that outcome about: Arm Ukraine to the teeth and force the
Kremlin to rethink its commitments across its borders, or cut Ukraine off and
strongarm it into surrendering. The abject American humiliation that
accompanies the latter course undermines its viability. Ramaswamy, by contrast,
vented his spleen about the evils perpetrated by the Zelensky regime in a
rambling and morally depraved rant, illustrating once again the extent
to which he has made himself ignorable.
Even when the debate veered into domestic politics, the
candidates and the moderators brought the issues back around to the conduct of
American affairs abroad. When the field was asked if they would ban the
Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok, Christie and DeSantis emphasized the
national-security implications associated with allowing this application to
propagate agitprop. DeSantis went so far as to echo Ronald Reagan on the
subject (his policy toward the Chinese Communist Party is simple: “We win, they
lose”). Regarding energy exploration and the border crisis, the discussion
quickly returned to the realm of international affairs: from Mexico’s internal
cohesion, to the socialist regime in Venezuela, to energy exports as an
instrument of geostrategic utility. Even on inflation and the high cost of
living, the candidates brought it all back around to geopolitics — in
particular, how instability in the Middle East affects energy costs and why
America’s growing debt obligations crowd out the prospect of essential defense
spending.
Of the three GOP debates so far, this was the strongest.
These two hours were devoted to issues Republicans care about, and the
questions were premised on Republican assumptions. The relative seriousness of
the moment was reflected in the candidates’ demeanor. With rare exceptions
(involving, of course, the cloying pharmaceutical billionaire), the candidates
did not try too hard to manufacture a moment for themselves. They treated the
job they were interviewing for like it was the most important position in the
world, and they didn’t talk down to their audiences. In a party that was and
remains dominated by Donald Trump — a figure whose influence supposedly
banished from the GOP the instinct toward a muscular, extroverted American
foreign policy — it was as refreshing as a blast of air conditioning on a
summer sidewalk. But like that unanticipated gust, the relief is sure to be
fleeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment