The Democrats’ Foreign Policy
Tonight’s Republican debate exposed the continuing dilemma facing Republicans on national security. On the one hand, many Republicans have misgivings about the conduct and cost of the U.S. military engagement in SW Asia; on the other, any candidate who offers an extended critique of the Bush Administration’s Iraq/Afghanistan/War on Terrorism policies risks being labeled a turncoat. Fred Thompson attacked Mike Huckabee on those grounds tonight in South Carolina. He charged that that Huckabee “would be a Christian leader, but he would bring about liberal economic policies and liberal foreign policies.” Huckabee’s “liberal” foreign policies presumably arose from his concerns about the prison at Guantanamo Bay and his earlier rebuke of the Bush Administration for “arrogance” in the conduct of foreign affairs. “That’s not the model of the Reagan Coalition,” Thompson charged, “that’s the model of the Democratic Party.”
Equally problematic — for Democrats — are instances when their candidates have seemed to agree with President Bush’s foreign policy, particularly re Iraq and Iran.
Neither lockstep Republican support not unflinching Democratic criticism of the current Administration is to be much admired. It’s too convenient. In foreign affairs, at least, policies are seldom static, and the way they are executed is often as important as the policies themselves.
The personalities and dispositions of the foreign policy teams behind the candidates also matter a great deal. Writing in The Nation, Ari Berman gives a thorough account of the differences between the Obama and Clinton foreign policy teams. A useful guide.