Posted on 04/30/2015 1:59:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Republican foreign policy debate usually gets described as a divide between Rand Paul and ... basically everyone else. But Ted Cruz wants to change that, positioning himself as a sort of "third way" between Paul's non-interventionism and Bush-style neoconservatism. Cruz's approach seems like it should be popular, but it also illustrates one of the central problems in his candidacy: there isn't really a natural Cruz constituency.
Cruz's position on the use of force is hawkish: he wants the US to be far more aggressive than the Obama administration has been when facing threats. But he's also skeptical of nation building and democracy promotion; he's less comfortable with campaigns to topple authoritarian regimes in places like Syria than some other members of his party. He broke his view down into three principles in a Tuesday Daily Caller interview:
1 Any intervention "should begin with a clearly stated objective at the outset. It should be directly tied to US national security."
2 "We should use overwhelming force to that objective. We should not have rules of engagement that tie the hands of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines."
3 "Third, we should get the heck out ... It is not the job of the US military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias."
Basically, the US should hit its own enemies hard and not worry all that much about dealing with the consequences for the locals.
It's an argument finely calibrated to today's Republican party. Cruz's instinctive hawkishness fits with the base's mood, which has become increasingly enamored of American military interventions since the ISIS crisis began. However, there's also not a whole lot of public appetite for another massive investment of US lives and resources in another extended foreign war. Clearly opposing one, even when it's unlikely, is a safe way to differentiate yourself from more conventional neoconservatives.
You can see echoes of this in some prominent Republican foreign policy figures, like former UN Ambassador John Bolton (who Cruz says is one of three foreign policy figures he trusts most). In a smart column, the Washington Examiner's Phil Klein argues it's more likely to catch on in the GOP than Rand Paul's non-interventionism.
But Cruz's foreign policy position also reflects a central problem with his candidacy: his profound isolation inside the party.
There isn't really a major organized movement that likes Cruz's position. More conventional neoconservatives, like Marco Rubio, are vying for support from the vast bulk of the conservative foreign policy apparatus. Paul appeals to a dissident libertarian-conservative movement — one that has its own intellectual tradition and turned out in large numbers for his father, Congressman Ron Paul.
There isn't, by contrast, a natural home for Cruz's position. The fact that it might be base-friendly isn't enough: at this stage in the primary, it's more important to garner support from elites and institutions that are willing to work for you than to propose positions that poll well. Say what you will about Paul's libertarians being marginalized in the GOP, but at least they're an organized movement.
Cruz's ideas might be able to eventually shape the Republican foreign policy debate, as Klein suggests. But barring a Cruz victory in the primary, that'd probably take a concerted effort to push them on his part over the course of years. In the short term, he doesn't actually get a lot out of advocating for them.
So was Bush.
Until he got elected.
If you think Ted Cruz is like Dubya, I invite you to vote for Hillary.
/johnny
The few remaining honest and sane people in the nation are Cruz’s natural constituency.
Admittedly that is a rather small pool.
“Basically, the US should hit its own enemies hard and not worry all that much about dealing with the consequences for the locals.”
The “locals” are generally culpable for supporting our enemies. Consent of the governed and all that jazz. So I don’t have any problem with them bearing the consequences of their leaders messing with us.
Cruz is the right man at this time of our history. He will win
Hit Iran’s nuke facilities hard, get out. Sounds like Ted has a plan. And my vote.
I am the Natural Cruz Constituency.
Conservative.
On virtually all issues.
>> but it also illustrates one of the central problems in his candidacy: there isn’t really a natural Cruz constituency.
In the sick Prog mind of the “writers” at Vox, all Republicans need to be lumped into one of several “extremist” positions: the libertarians, the neocon hawks, or the corporate/banking cronies. Since the rank-and-file GOP voter is somewhere in the middle of all three...and so is Cruz...he must be really scaring the hell out of them right now.
” there isn’t really a natural Cruz constituency.”
This may seem a bit cliched, but I don’t think Reagan had a “natural constituency” either. And he did succeed in being elected President. Twice.
Another point of the Cruz doctrine is get the U.N. out of the USA pronto.
Cuba is opening up and sure they can find some real estate for the UN there, me personally I want the UN far away from US shores as possible.
"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
That was W one day before the election. It didn't work out that way, did it?
Cruz is right about #1 (have a clearly stated objective that is tied to US national security from the very beginning) and #2 (use overwhelming force -- I'm not sure about his "rules of engagement" comment, though), but he's blowing smoke when it comes to #3 (we should get the heck out).
Any government that goes to the trouble of toppling a foreign regime isn't just going to clear out and let whatever happens happen. Ted Cruz won't tell you that. But we all know it.
I meant, one point of the Cruz Doctrine should be.
He wants Jeb to fight Rand who’ll fight Huckabee who’ll fight Rubio....
There may not be a “natural” Ted Crux constituency...under normal conditions. That’s a reasonably valid point. Enough people, though, are so alarmed at the deterioration and desecration of the ambient level of law enforcement, governmetal procedure, and adherence to constitution-like principles that they have become activated in one or more ways, politically.
Until this regime, so very few gave much thought at all to the idea that we might have an actual cabal of saboteurs working from inside the government to steal as much as they could while crapping on everything that most of us have sort of taken for granted.
Just like, there is no natural constituency for a plumber unless your pipes are broken. There is no natural constituency for a surgeon unless you are in dire medical peril. Color us complacent. We thought we had a pretty good thing going that others would like to participate in rather than destroy. A lot of us are finding out, per Baltimore, per Ferguson, per Iran, that great numbers of so-called people would just assume burn down the US even if they have not the slightest concept of what they would put in its place other than a Mad Max urban jungle.
“Any government that goes to the trouble of toppling a foreign regime isn’t just going to clear out and let whatever happens happen.”
They certainly could if the right leadership were in place.
“there isn’t really a natural Cruz constituency”
Quite the opposite. The natural Cruz constituency is what has always been referred to as the Sleeping Giant.
I believe Cruz knows how to articulate his platform in a way that will activate this giant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.