Republican presidential politics and the world

One of the truisms of politics is that, given the difficulties many presidents have in implementing their domestic agenda, confronted as they are by Congress, budgetary inertia and a skeptical electorate, many turn to foreign policy as an arena to make an impact. Because of this, even though most presidential candidates prefer talking about other issues, their initial approaches to foreign policy, more than any specific crises, can reveal a great deal about what kind of president a candidate would be.

Candidate Obama promised to talk unconditionally to foreign dictators, reset the relationship with Russia, withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, downplay the war on terror, and reduce the size and use of the armed forces. The disastrous consequences of these priorities have become evident in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. So, it does matter what candidates say, even if they cannot predict the crises they will confront.

Considering 2016, what would be the foreign policy priorities of potential presidential candidates? More than 20 Republican hopefuls have taken steps toward a run or mused publicly about doing so. Among the most serious ones to consider, with national networks and demonstrated campaign success at the state level or higher, are Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul. Each has been at the top of at least one national Republican presidential survey, an important distinction. What kind of priorities would each bring to foreign policy?

Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have little experience in foreign policy, similar to the rest of the field, but seem to look to the example of President George W. Bush for inspiration.

Their speeches and public comments convey strong assertions of neoconservative interventionism.

• Christie has been criticized for close ties to some questionable Muslim leaders in New Jersey and New York, and so will need to explain to conservative primary voters what, if any, impact this will have as he deals with the Middle East.
• Jeb Bush has closer ties to another community, Florida's Cuban-Americans. Fluent in Spanish and with significant interest in Latin America, Bush criticized Obama's recent diplomatic opening to Cuba, but will face questions in primaries about his support for immigration reform that is closer to what Obama has proposed than is typical for a Republican.
• Marco Rubio shares Jeb Bush's stance on Cuba, and also has attempted to develop bipartisan immigration initiatives. Supportive of Obama's engagement with China, hawkish on the use of U.S. military power, but preferring, as in Syria, to arm proxies rather than send American soldiers, Rubio has been described as a soft neoconservative. He has contrasted himself with fellow Sen. Rand Paul most strongly, warning of what he considers Paul's isolationism and preference to let the world run without U.S. engagement.
• Ted Cruz might be expected to be a president that would, to rephrase Teddy Roosevelt's formulation, "speak loudly and carry a big stick." Not one to look for common ground with rivals, much less enemies, he is the potential presidential candidate most likely to call out foreign leaders and nations for what he regards as unacceptable behavior. He is less hawkish on the use of military force than Bush or Christie, with a recent column describing his approach as somewhere between John McCain and Rand Paul. It remains to be seen whether averaging two tendencies in the Republican party is a strong foreign policy foundation.
• Mike Huckabee is exceptional for his strong support for Israel, remarkably ardent even in a party known for its pro-Israeli sentiments. Like Ronald Reagan, Huckabee is not shy about highlighting his perspective on the unique moral virtues of the United States, as a nation based on ideals of liberty, founded by primarily Christian Founding Fathers.

The former Arkansas governor is passionately concerned about the persecution of Christians worldwide, and strongly critical of what he sees as the Obama Administration's coddling of nations hostile to the U.S. Having run for president in 2008, and coming in second to John McCain in that race, he is the best prepared in the field for questions on foreign policy.

• Rand Paul is the most likely to advocate for dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy. Not as libertarian as his father, Sen. Paul advocates for "conservative realism," an approach that would reject both neoconservative and liberal interventionism.

Willing to confront Russia and Iran in ways that might make libertarians shudder, he nonetheless does so in a way that speak to U.S. political and economic interests, rather than hopes to remake the world in a way more friendly to democracy and Western values. More reluctant to use force than many of his colleagues, and to accept traditional restraints on presidential power, he is most likely to insist on a declaration of war before acting as commander in chief.

n

Full disclosure: I served as an alternate delegate for Mike Huckabee to the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Wayne Bowen received his Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University, and is also an Army veteran.