Iโ€™m often asked, โ€œJack, why do you talk about foreign policy so much?โ€ Thatโ€™s simpleโ€”because foreign policy is unquestionably the most significant divide on the American Right. In fact, until mainstream conservatives rethink this issue, any desire for smaller government will continue to be in vain.

Recent political history highlights this constant obstacle. In the 2008 presidential election, how could so many conservatives hold their noses to vote for John McCain? Thatโ€™s easyโ€”despite McCainโ€™s sponsorship of amnesty for illegal aliens, enacting campaign finance reform, his support for TARP and virtually all of George W. Bushโ€™s big government agenda, the senator was still seen as โ€œstrongโ€ on national defense. How could so many conservatives ignore Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, whose conservative platform was arguably purer than that of any Republican presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater? Thatโ€™s easy tooโ€”by opposing the Iraq war, the congressman was viewed by his party as being โ€œweakโ€ on national defense. At the 2008 Republican National Convention, hawkish liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman was given a prime time speaking role and Paul wasnโ€™t allowed inside the building. Talk host Sean Hannity regularly referred to Lieberman as his โ€œfavorite Democrat,โ€ but usually referred to Paul begrudgingly and disparagingly, if at all.

But this once rigidly enforced division has since become blurred, not-so-coincidentally as Obama continues to pick up where Bush left off. First, Paulโ€™s profile and influence has risen significantly since 2008, within the GOP and beyond. Obamaโ€™s exorbitant spending has helped shift rank-and-file Republicansโ€™ focus from war-at-all-costs to cost-cutting, something reflected most explicitly by the Tea Party. Popular mainstream conservative pundits like George Will and Tony Blankley now openly question the wisdom of carrying on in Afghanistan. When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele dared to challenge Obamaโ€™s โ€œland warโ€ in Afghanistan, the pro-war, any war hardliners who rallied around Bush and McCainโ€”from neoconservative pundits like Bill Kristol to their politician advocates like Senator Lindsey Grahamโ€”publicly excoriated the RNC head. Popular conservative pundit Ann Coulter not only defended Steele but harshly attacked Kristol and the neoconservative agenda of โ€œpermanent war.โ€

Praising Coulter, MSNBC conservative talk host Joe Scarborough noted:

โ€œWhen Ann Coulter comes out criticizing Republican foreign policyโ€ฆ you know a real debateโ€™s about to begin in the Republican Party. The party has been the party of endless wars, now, for the last five, six, seven years, with George W. Bush promising to export democracy across the globeโ€ฆ You know for too long youโ€™ve had John McCain, and youโ€™ve had Bill Kristol, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman define what it meant to be a Republican when it came to foreign policy, when in fact the Republican Party historically has usually been for restraint, accused of being โ€˜isolationistsโ€™ in the past, now it seems like a small group of people want to fight every war in every corner of the planet and itโ€™s just not good for the party.โ€

The MSNBC hostโ€™s assessment is a good synopsis of the foreign policy insanity that has long handicapped any serious chance of conservatism taking root within the GOP, something the โ€œsmall group of people,โ€ or neoconservatives, that Scarborough notes, have always known wellโ€”which is precisely why they worked so hard to redefine conservatism as support for perpetual war. If during the Dubya years, โ€œconservatismโ€ meant support for endless global military adventures then the expansion of government power and spending necessary to sustain such a project was justified in the minds of right-wingers, and usually on โ€œpatrioticโ€ grounds. Does this not aptly describe the last Republican administration and itโ€™s almost singular appeal to conservatives? This narrative was also supposed to carry McCain with GOP voters in 2008, who had planned to run primarily on a โ€œnational defenseโ€ platform until the economy dictated otherwise.

To lose this issue, or to give any ground whatsoever to foreign policy dissenters on the Right, is exactly what the old Republican guard fears mostโ€”and it is also the issue which prevents the GOP from becoming a conservative party in any substantive manner.

Read the entire column


Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.

Help support independent journalism by donating today.

[empowerlocal_ad sponsoredarticles]