Posted on | November 27, 2012 | 30 Comments
Emphasis mine on James Joyner in The Atlantic:
The Republican Party needs a new message on foreign policy that is true to the conservative principles of the base and yet has a broad appeal to the American public. It so happens that one already exists, has a proven track record of electoral success, and is only slightly used: the “humble foreign policy” that candidate George W. Bush espoused during the 2000 campaign but abandoned with the Global War on Terror and the Iraq invasion.
I’ll be the first to agree that it would be cool if history allowed a fully Paulian ‘non-interventionist’ foreign policy. Joyner’s article, read the whole thing, figures that all would have been more swell if Bush had stayed the HFC course.
That’s a nice counter-factual, but how, given the hegemonic status of the United States, does one avoid the suction of history into events?
I submit that, if you haven’t told me how you’re deconstructing the Military-Industrial Complex, and offloading your hegemonic position to someone else (The UN? That outfit couldn’t lead water to flow downhill) you haven’t told me much. And I submit that the Dovish Democrat who bombed the Balkans and #OccupyResoluteDesk, who bracket Bush historically, are dealing from the same deck.
In review, the Democrats hopped in their gunboat and overtook GOP diplomacy. How progressive of the Dems. The bewildered GOP is going to have to pony up, put some deeds where its Constitutional bleatings are located, and deliver a return to Constitutional, balanced government, or remain indistinguishable from the Dems and keep right on losing elections.