The GOP’s Foreign Policy Problem

With the Ukraine crisis highlighting a more dangerous world, global affairs could return as a strong issue — and a Republican weakness — in 2016.

US President Ronald Reagan, commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin, addresses on June 12, 1987 the people of West Berlin at the base of the Brandenburg Gate, near the Berlin wall. Due to the amplification system being used, the President's words could also be heard on the Eastern (Communist-controlled) side of the wall. "Tear down this wall!" was the famous command from United States President Ronald Reagan to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy the Berlin Wall. The address Reagan delivered that day is considered by many to have affirmed the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism. On Nov. 9-11, 1989, the people of a free Berlin tore down that wall. West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl is 2nd-right. 
AFP/Getty Images
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
March 6, 2014, 4 p.m.

In Janu­ary, Rand Paul was in­vited to give a for­eign policy ad­dress to a dis­tin­guished Wash­ing­ton crowd that in­cluded Henry Kis­sing­er and Brent Scow­croft. Paul didn’t em­bar­rass him­self, but for a fairly soph­ist­ic­ated audi­ence ex­pect­ing to hear the views of a pos­sible Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial con­tender, it was un­der­whelm­ing stuff. The sen­at­or from Ken­tucky de­livered what could only be de­scribed as a ba­sic primer on his ideo­lo­gic­al jour­ney from ex­treme liber­tari­an­ism to bal­anced real­ism, an ef­fort at play­ing to the largely tra­di­tion­al­ist GOP audi­ence at the Cen­ter for the Na­tion­al In­terest (or what used to be known as the Nix­on Cen­ter). “It was simplist­ic,” said one former seni­or mem­ber of the Re­agan ad­min­is­tra­tion who at­ten­ded the event. “He didn’t con­nect it up with any­thing ac­tu­ally hap­pen­ing in the world.” Paul’s speech was stocked with fairly ob­vi­ous ob­ser­va­tions, such as “dip­lomacy only is suc­cess­ful when both parties feel that they have won.” And in the end he ap­peared slightly apo­lo­get­ic, say­ing, “I hope I haven’t in­sul­ted any­one — or too many of you — with a phys­i­cian’s thoughts on dip­lomacy.”

For oth­er seni­or GOP for­eign policy ex­perts, Paul’s speech was evid­ence of a more wor­ri­some is­sue, one that no one is talk­ing about now but that is brought in­to re­lief by the on­go­ing crisis in Ukraine, with its Cold War over­tones. Wheth­er you in­clude em­battled New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie in the group or not, the lead­ing Re­pub­lic­an Party names in the pres­id­en­tial sweepstakes pos­sess pre­cious little for­eign policy ex­per­i­ence. As in, vir­tu­ally none. And they may be go­ing up against a Demo­crat­ic op­pon­ent whose last job was sec­ret­ary of State and who has been trav­el­ing the world and giv­ing speeches on for­eign policy for the past 20 years, ever since, as first lady, she de­livered a fam­ous ad­dress on glob­al wo­men’s rights in Beijing. Re­pub­lic­ans may like to go on about Benghazi, but, ac­cord­ing to a new Pew poll, 67 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans ap­prove of Hil­lary Clin­ton’s per­form­ance as sec­ret­ary of State, and 69 per­cent view her as “tough.” An­oth­er lead­ing po­ten­tial Demo­crat­ic con­tender, Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, the long­time chair­man of the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, also has a repu­ta­tion as a for­eign policy ex­pert.

It’s an odd state of af­fairs for the party that has tra­di­tion­ally seen for­eign policy as its strength, and which once pro­duced widely ad­mired for­eign-af­fairs gi­ants such as Dwight Eis­en­hower, Richard Nix­on, and Ron­ald Re­agan, who is of­ten cred­ited with win­ning the Cold War and who began de­vel­op­ing fairly soph­ist­ic­ated views about the So­viet Uni­on in the early ‘60s. Today, only Sen. Marco Ru­bio of Flor­ida ap­pears to be mak­ing an ef­fort to get well groun­ded, with fre­quent trips abroad. Most oth­ers are home­bound, and even some of the more im­press­ive po­ten­tial pres­id­en­tial con­tenders — such as Rep. Paul Ry­an and Sen. Ted Cruz, or gov­ernors such as Mike Pence of In­di­ana, Scott Walk­er of Wis­con­sin, and John Kasich of Ohio — have made their repu­ta­tions largely on do­mest­ic is­sues. Even 2012 nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney had some­what more for­eign policy ex­per­i­ence, as an in­ter­na­tion­al busi­ness­man, and he’s be­gun to look fairly pres­ci­ent with his harsh views of Rus­sia as Amer­ica’s “No. 1 geo­pol­it­ic­al foe.”

GOP strategists, of course, are still hop­ing that if she runs, Clin­ton will be tarred by the 2012 at­tack in Benghazi, Libya, that left Am­bas­sad­or Chris Stevens and three oth­er Amer­ic­ans dead. Al­though her crit­ics failed to prove any kind of cov­er-up of in­form­a­tion about the ter­ror­ist groups re­spons­ible for Stevens’s death, an of­fi­cial re­port con­cluded that State was re­miss, and Clin­ton was the first sec­ret­ary of State to lose an am­bas­sad­or in the field since Jimmy Carter’s sec­ret­ary, Cyr­us Vance. And the GOP is already mus­ter­ing its rhet­or­ic­al guns to make the case that Clin­ton was, at best, a fair sec­ret­ary of State who left be­hind no great dip­lo­mat­ic tri­umphs.

De­pend­ing on how the on­go­ing Ukraine crisis plays out, Re­pub­lic­ans can also be ex­pec­ted to paint Clin­ton as na­ive for her 2009 at­tempt to launch a “re­set” of U.S.-Rus­sia re­la­tions, and to re­play again and again the video of the then-sec­ret­ary of State hand­ing a sym­bol­ic red “re­set but­ton” to her smil­ing but wily coun­ter­part, Rus­si­an For­eign Min­is­ter Sergei Lav­rov.

Already the GOP is on the at­tack against Pres­id­ent Obama and, by im­plic­a­tion, his en­tire ad­min­is­tra­tion, in­clud­ing Clin­ton and Biden, claim­ing that Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin’s mil­it­ary seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean Pen­in­sula was a dir­ect re­sponse to what Sen. John Mc­Cain called “a feck­less for­eign policy where nobody be­lieves in Amer­ica’s strength any more.” Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham, who like Mc­Cain is nev­er at a loss for words when it comes to cri­ti­ciz­ing Obama’s for­eign policy, told CNN, “We have a weak and in­de­cis­ive pres­id­ent that in­vites ag­gres­sion.”

But Clin­ton’s sup­port­ers are even now rolling out her de­fense, not­ing that she suc­cess­fully over­saw the START arms-re­duc­tion pact with Mo­scow and en­lis­ted Putin’s help in put­ting pres­sure on Ir­an. In re­cent days, Clin­ton has also po­si­tioned her­self as tough on Rus­sia, harshly cri­ti­ciz­ing Putin as someone who has il­le­git­im­ately seized power in a way “quite re­min­is­cent of the kind of au­thor­ity ex­er­cised in the past by Rus­si­an lead­ers, by the czars and their suc­cessor Com­mun­ist lead­ers.” She also said it was im­per­at­ive for the U.S. to back a “uni­fied Ukraine.”

If Clin­ton and Biden don’t run, of course, the field will look far more equal­ized, since lead­ing po­ten­tial Demo­crat­ic con­tenders such as New York Gov. An­drew Cuomo and Mary­land Gov. Mar­tin O’Mal­ley, as well as Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren, are also lack­ing in for­eign policy ex­per­i­ence. And it’s fair to point out that Obama him­self had little for­eign policy ex­per­i­ence in 2008 after just two years in the Sen­ate. But if Clin­ton and Biden do jump in, both are likely to be for­mid­able in­deed on a top­ic that is al­most cer­tain to play big in the 2016 cam­paign.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4796) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×