I noticed that the first GOP debate of the election season is tonight and this report from the Council on Foreign Relations offers a fascinating overview of the traditional GOP view of the U.S. role in the world. Yes, I know that the Foreign Policy Association is not a partisan group and like all of our FPA blog team, I strive to remain neutral in my posts, so I’ll be sure to note any similar report when the Democrats hold their first debate. I don’t think it’s really partisan at all though to note the article and it is interesting to remember that the two primary political parties in the U.S. have different views of the proper U.S. role. According to the article:
The thing to watch for tonight is where the candidates come down on the intervention versus non-intervention spectrum. Republican candidates have for decades staked their flag on interventionism, or if you prefer, robust internationalism. They invoke the name of Ronald Reagan, cite American exceptionalism, and champion America’s ability and obligation to remake the world.
Let’s give the author the benefit of the doubt and skip over any reference to Wilson’s internationalism (the League of Nations and that whole WWI incident), or FDR’s (Lend Lease and that minor little WWII thing), or Truman’s (UN, Berlin Airlift), or JFK’s (Bay of Pigs), or Clinton’s (Bosnia) and leave unchallenged his assumption that “robust internationalism” is the sole province of the Republican Party. After all, it’s clear he is focused on the debate tonight and not the broader historical context. I just wanted to acknowledge for you, our reader, that the assumption is quite debatable. The report goes on to speculate that the GOP field may be turning toward a more isolationist and less internationalist attitude toward foreign affairs driven in part by budget concerns and voter war fatigue. It will be interesting to see if that occurs. Perhaps we are in for a revival of isolationism?
Photo Credit: Fox News
