The New York Times published an article this past Tuesday stressing the importance of foreign policy in the impending race among Republican presidential contenders. With the national economy improving under President Obama’s term and foreign policy challenges, like the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Middle East and U.S.-Russia relations surrounding the Ukraine crisis, hawkish conservatives will undoubtedly look for political strength in foreign issues.
Among these issues, and there are certainly many, is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to assert regional hegemony and re-establish global relevance. Such actions invite Republicans to begin comparisons between their policies, opinions and the actions of their apparent patron saint, former President Ronald Reagan.
Most Republicans are quick to cite former President Reagan’s steadfast position of anti-communism and American exceptionalism when dealing with foreign policy challenges from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Our prominent governor was quick to embrace this Republican norm as well, in fact, Walker compared his battle with labor unions early in his term as governor with former President Reagan’s standoff with air traffic controllers in 1981 and the strength it demonstrated towards the Soviet Union. Walker took his admiration for the former president one step further by sharing in an interview that his wedding anniversary is the same day as Reagan’s birthday.
As the Republican primaries draw closer, such ludicrous comparisons are sure to continue as each candidate attempts to prove they have the competence and moral wherewithal to lead effectively on foreign policy issues.
Laughable political comparisons aside, Republicans are correct in taking Putin’s actions seriously. Moreover, their criticism of President Obama and his administration’s reaction to Russian aggression has also been justified. Russia is a powerful state with a large nuclear arsenal and framing Putin’s actions as irrational or unprovoked is unfounded.
The concern that emerges is that the rhetoric of Republican candidates resembles Cold War-era diplomacy. The view that most republicans have is diplomacy is synonymous with weakness and the “do whatever is necessary” attitude that nearly every candidate has (besides Rand Paul) is alarming.
However, the truth is that Reagan-era foreign policy tactics are outdated and inapplicable. The strategies and tactics of the Cold War should not be re-employed in today’s challenges since there is no longer a clear sense of the U.S. role in international affairs.
During the Cold War, there was a bilateral power structure where the clear actors were the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Today, most would argue that there is a unilateral power structure with the U.S. alone as the most powerful global state actor.
The debate arises when attempting to assign a role to the U.S. in its unilateral dominance. Ultimately, such a task is the responsibility of the President and her/his advisers. Consequently, the views and rhetoric of hawkish Republican presidential candidates are highly relevant.
Walker’s allusion to Reagan and his policies provides insight to the path he will take as he attempts to gain traction within the Republican Party. Without any foreign affairs background of his own, aside from his love for Reagan’s tenacity, he will face an uphill battle in establishing his legitimacy in foreign affairs.
In doing so, Walker will have to make a decision. This decision will be whether or not he abandons Cold War tactics and assumptions that unilateral American aggression trumps multilateral intergovernmental diplomacy.
Do you agree or disagree with Benjamin's assessment of Gov. Walker's foreign policy plan? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
