- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 9, 2010


Last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina tried his hand at dissecting Republican foreign policy attitudes. I commend the senator for trying to come to grips with this vital question, which is getting so little, if any, national discussion. As foreign events grow ever more threatening, the view of the now both culturally and congressionally dominant party - the GOP - becomes central to the range of political options President Obama has available to him.

There are two factors to assess: (1) Is the pre-Tea Party GOP in the process of shifting significantly from its free-trade, strong, assertive military posture, which it has maintained for two generations? (2) Do the new Tea Party members have a discernible position, and if so, what is it?

According to The Washington Post, Mr. Graham’s position is that with the advent of the Tea Party, “The Republican Party is going to have two wings … the isolationist wing and the wing led by John McCain, Graham and Jeff Sessions that says you’d better stay involved in the world because if you do disengage, you’ll regret it.”

The senator called lack of candidate debate on national security “stunning” and called on the electorate to challenge the newly elected lawmakers “early on” as to their views of the world. He then challenged the freshman lawmakers to go home and explain why no treaty with Russia is a good thing.

He concludes his assessment with a dark warning of what happens when the idea of isolationism during an economic downturn takes hold: “Really bad people get a pass because the United States starts looking inward.”

I share Mr. Graham’s macro-level fear of an isolationist America permitting Hitler-like characters to rise and roam the world. It has happened before, and it can happen again. But it is my sense that the senator is laying this danger excessively on the Tea Party members and movement. In fact, the trend away from a fully muscular, assertive , free-trade GOP has been unfolding for years. And that trend has paralleled (or followed) the shifting attitudes of the GOP base electorate.

This is not to say the GOP is isolationist. Rather, it is to suggest that the inartful and questionable military ventures of the United States in the past 50 years have driven both GOP members and voters to want to make a case-by-case assessment of what the U.S. role should be. Likewise, merely invoking principles of free trade no longer convinces typical GOP voters that every trade deal is in our interest.

We don’t yet know how the Tea Party members are thinking on these issues. I went to several Tea Party meetings, moderated some discussions and talked with hundreds of attendees. Foreign affairs rarely came up - understandably, given the domestic economic crisis that torments the public. But for what it is worth, my sense is that the Tea Party members are not dramatically different in their foreign policy attitudes from previous freshman classes.

There always has been a tendency for new, inexperienced candidates for federal office to be more focused initially on domestic issues - because their voters are. But for GOP congressmen and senators, their fundamental values - a powerful patriotism, a sense of right and wrong and a practical understanding of human nature as capable of great evil - tends over time to lead them to a firmer foreign and military policy posture than that held by liberal Democrats.

But my reason for writing this column is that, while I share the senator’s concern, I fear that the worst way to gain the objective of infusing the new members of Congress with an alert view of foreign danger is to call them names.

The world is shifting, and the senator would do well to hold firmly many multiterm congressmen. The way to win their support is to make the strongest objective argument in each individual case.

For instance, regarding the New START with Russia, many of its skeptics are established neoconservatives who don’t contest the objective but seriously doubt the effectiveness of the details. To call such men and women isolationist is risible.

Reaganite foreign policy experts have always been much more skeptical of particular disarmament treaties. And with China rushing ahead on its nuclear program, we need to consider our stockpile requirements in the Chinese context every bit as much as we do the poorer Russian capabilities.

The clarity of Americans divided between hawks and doves is fading. We are entering the more ambiguous age of owls and vultures. Effective foreign policy arguments will take heed of these, perhaps unfortunate, developments.

Tony Blankley is the author of “American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century” (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide