What Would Reagan Do? Or Why Rudy and Romney Don't Get Foreign Policy

If you have been paying attention to the Republican presidential primary debates, you will notice that Ronald Reagan's name has been invoked many times, almost in the manner of a deity. There is this clamor to be like Ronald Reagan in such a way as to hearken one's mind to religious comparisons--potential successors to a deceased prophet trying to out-do even the prophet himself. This of course is why all Calvinists are more rigid than Calvin himself, why all Marxists are more radical than Marx, Kantians more skeptical than Kant, and so on.

Rudy and Romney like to invoke the name of Reagan perhaps more than anybody--perhaps because they are the candidates who least resemble him, and therefore they are a bit self conscious. (I find this is also true of Christians...the ones who find it necessary to wear it on their sleeve all the time are most usually the ones who least resemble both the life and teachings of Christ himself).

For some reason there is a myth amongst Republicans that Ronald Reagan was this great war hawk. Actually, the opposite is true. Reagan believed in "peace through strength." That is, having a military large enough that it never had to be used. This is dramatic contrast with Rudy and Romney, who are saber-rattlers extraordinaire. Rudy is calling for massive increases in the size of the U.S. Military--a 50% increase in personnel, a build up to a 300-ship navy, and so on, but simultaneously calling for immediate military action against Iran. Perhaps the brilliance of Reagan's foreign policy is that he adapted Mark Twain's old adage "'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." In foreign policy terms, Reagan never really used the military, except as a threat-deterrent. "Tis better to be thought an unbeatable power than to use that power and prove otherwise." Which is precisely what has happened in Iraq.

The reason Iran is so defiant is that they know a) the U.S. doesn't have the domestic political support to justify military action against Tehran and b) Even if the U.S. did invade Iran, Iran would probably win.

I'm not sure that there is anything more uncivilized about Rudolph Giuliani than his constant call for more military and more war and the continual justification of pre-emptive strike, as if America needs to "prove something" to the world and show that we still have our "manhood." I would rather show our manhood through massive economic strength, and being the cultural and soft-power leader in the world who people follow because they love us--which is what happened in the aftermath of World War II, when we really were viewed as liberators--instead of invaders.

Reagan understood this well. The Soviet Union was a threat--but he knew better than to call for military action against the Soviet Union. The most saber-rattling Reagan ever did was jokingly test out his radio mike (unaware he was live) by saying "My fellow Americans I have just signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Yet it's obvious that Romney and Rudy don't get it. Reagan called for a strong national defense. Romney and Rudy's rhetoric calls for a "stronger military." Seemingly, this is a splitting hairs, but there is an obvious underlying motive that is different. Romney and Rudy contemplate a military that can invade our enemies before they invade us. Their language is reflective of this. They talk of taking the fight to radical jihadism, rather than defending America from foreign threats.

The trouble for Rudy and Romney is that even if they were advocating Reagan's actual foreign policy, it wouldn't work today. This is not 1980. We do not live in a bipolar world, where the Soviet Union and the United States are the world's two superpowers, duking it out in a cold war where merely building a larger military helped to bankrupt the enemy. It shows that, for two people who talk so much about terrorism and "radical jihadism," they don't understand much about the necessity of new strategies to deal with such threats--especially strategies that do not involve the pre-emptive invasion of sovereign countries.

The only Republican who seems to truly understand the Islamic world is (regrettably) Ron Paul. The reason they hate America is not because we love freedom. That is a weird fantasy that a lot of Republicans seem to have frequently. Rudy and Romney say these sorts of things often. No, the Islamic world really does hate us because we have military bases in their territory--we have a long history of intervention in their region, and we have made it clear, under the Bush Doctrine, that we are going to keep doing it forever. When Ron Paul says this in the Republican debates, Romney responds with flash point garbage like "Well Ron, it's apparent you've been reading Ahminejad's latest press releases," and "If they just hate us because we occupy their countries, then why did the jihadists assassinate Benazir Bhutto?"

If the only way to combat terrorism is unending imperial wars, then I'm afraid we're in for some trouble.

In connection with my post from this morning, I'd like to start synthesizing some of my points about what is at stake in this election. Depending on who the Republicans nominate, this country will face a presidential election that puts us squarely between the Scylla of worsening our fiscal crisis through socialized health care and the Charybdis of worsening our fiscal crisis through imperial overstretch abroad. These two choices, though seemingly very different given the rhetoric of each side, are actually two sides of the same coin. They both promise security--but they go about it in different ways. The Republican mindset is that security comes through the prevention of threats from abroad. The Democrat mindset is that security comesthrough the prevention of the ills that plague humanity by its very nature: disease, sickness, and hunger.

To both the Republicans and Democrats, I paraphrase Benjamin Franklin "a people who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Unfortunately both want to sell us out--just in different ways. When will there be somebody who wants to actually preserve America--rather than gain power by playing on people's fears?