The American people may think that George W. Bush’s presidency was a disaster, but the Republican Party is still committed to his foreign policy vision.
Over at Vox yesterday Zach Beauchamp had a nice preview of Jeb Bush’s first foreign policy speech:
A look at his past comments, as well as some sparse excerpts from the speech, suggest he’ll take a position well inside the Republican mainstream—embracing hawkish and neoconservative similar to those of his brother, George W. Bush, whose record on world affairs sent him limping out of office with 34 percent approval rating.
This is a smart play. It might seem like Jeb should run from his brother’s ideas ahead of the GOP presidential primary—especially since he’s expected to be flanked by Sen. Rand Paul, whose non-interventionist approach seems like it should appeal to a war-weary public. But there’s plenty of evidence that when it comes to foreign policy, the Republican Party is ready for a retread—not a rethink.
Jeb has spent his whole career in the mainstream of Republican politics so if he is doubling down on his brother’s neoconservative foreign policy vision that stresses foreign military adventures and disdain for international norms and institutions it’s a safe bet that that’s where the Republican Party is headed these days.
This of course raises the question of if this is a good idea for the country. I’m skeptical. After all it’s not like we haven’t tried this course of action in the past. As Kevin Drum pointed out the record of foreign military adventures over the past decade and a half are pretty dismal:
Afghanistan: A disaster. It’s arguable that Afghanistan is no worse off than it was in 2001, but after losing thousands of American lives and spending a trillion American dollars, it’s no better off either.
Iraq: An even bigger disaster. Saddam Hussein was a uniquely vicious dictator, but even at that there’s not much question that Iraq is worse off than it was in 2003. We got rid of Saddam, but got a dysfunctional sectarian government and ISIS in return.
Libya: Another disaster. We got rid of Muammar Qaddafi, but got a Somalia-level failed state in return.
Yemen: Yet another disaster. After years of drone warfare, Houthi rebels have taken over the government. This appears to be simultaneously a win for Iran, which backs the rebels, and al-Qaeda, which may benefit from the resulting chaos. That’s quite a twofer.
More over these sorts of disasters don’t seem very necessary. As Jonathan Rauch pointed out recently the world in general and America in particular are both much safer places than they were even 30 ago. Let alone at other times in history.
The reality is that American voters care much more about domestic affairs, especially the economy, than they do about foreign matters so don’t expect major political waves over the Republicans’ embrace of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. But that doesn’t make it unimportant, as a Republican could easily win in 2016 and put neoconservative doctrine into action in places like the Middle East.
After all that exactly what happened a decade and a half ago.
Like The Good Men Project On Facebook
Photo by Paul Sancya/AP