Pawlenty And Foreign Policy
Reports of Tim Pawlenty’s early preparations for a 2012 presidential campaign have drawn a lot of attention today, so I thought I would look at Pawlenty’s statements on foreign policy to see what we could expect from him if he did run for higher office. Most recently, Pawlenty went on record declaring Obama’s decision on missile defense to be “appeasement.” This is standard Republican boilerplate at this point, so some conservatives might be inclined to forgive him for repeating such nonsense on the grounds that it doesn’t necessarily reflect how he thinks about foreign policy. It could be that he will mouth stupid phrases to satisfy certain activists, but will then demonstrate some understanding of policy at a later date. I’m not holding my breath.
However, Pawlenty did not simply call the decision appeasement, but went on to make this bizarre claim:
Appeasement and weakness did not stop the Nazis, appeasement did not stop the Soviets, and appeasement did not stop the terrorists before 9/11.
I call this bizarre because there were no meaningful attempts to appease the Soviets or jihadis. Even the harshest anti-Clinton hawks could and did acknowledge that he did not attempt to “appease” Al Qaeda. For the most part, they have attacked Clinton for not engaging in enough military action in response to terrorist strikes, but that was it. Unless you tendentiously define detente as appeasement, there is nothing in U.S.-Soviet relations that would be relevant. In other words, Pawlenty is spouting pure nonsense, but he thinks he is making a significant contribution to the debate, and his audience is eating it up. What worries me about this statement is that it isn’t even remotely close to a serious statement about European security and U.S. interests. What worries me about Republican cluelessness on foreign policy more generally is that this statement counts as intelligent, informed commentary in GOP circles.
Yes, Pawlenty was speaking to the Values Voters Summit, so he was to some extent playing to the crowd and throwing them the red meat they want, but that has to be balanced with some modicum of knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, he would just be a Minnesotan version of Palin. This is supposed to be the viable, credible alternative to Mitt “No Apology” Romney?
Is there evidence from other remarks that would suggest Pawlenty knows anything about foreign policy? The more I search, the more discouraging the results. There are not many results, and those that I do find confirm my impression that he doesn’t know anything and has compensated by echoing the most ridiculous criticisms of the current administration. Pawlenty just launched his Freedom First PAC, which is not primarily concerned with foreign policy, but in his first conference call for the PAC he kept harping on the missile defense decision. This tells me that the primary debates are probably going to be dominated by candidates trying to out-do one another in hawkish ignorance. Pawlenty’s off to a good start in that respect.
Pawlenty is an empty suit. I could say worse about my governor, but I’ll try to hold my tongue. The Politico piece was classic: “It’s also not entirely clear what Pawlenty’s signature issues will be, since there is no overarching accomplishment in St. Paul that he could clearly run on.” Notice that the rest of the article did not even mention one issue, signature or not, only names and not-that-guy-or-gal.
You think Romney’s slippery? Besides the hair, Pawlenty’s got him beat. Before his decision not to run, he was the classic nice guy, beer budy, dog whistle to the base, Sam’s Club Republican. Since then, he has come out swinging, mostly at Obama. But he is media savvy, quick on his toes, and has great personal charisma. So I guess he is an improvement over the other already-rans.
“This tells me that the primary debates are probably going to be dominated by candidates trying to out-do one another in hawkish ignorance. ”
This is true. The hope among some paleos that a Democratic presidency would revive the spirit of non-interventionism in the GOP was always a fantasy, and you were right not to buy into it. The genius of reflexive hawkishness lies in it being a infinitely elastic position: if a targeted regime is not cowed by bluster and saber rattling, then you impose sanctions; if they are not cowed by sanctions, then you bomb them; if the bombing fails to inspire change, then you invade them; if your invasion is not completed in 10 years, you stay for 100. Even when your objectives (democratic, pro-US middle east) are impossible, you can never be disproven, provided your means (coercion) can always be amplified.
Until the attacks of 11 September are decades behind us, I fear the GOP will always default to bellicosity. In the case of Obama, this is not really serious thinking so much as a crude symbolic and cultural appeal: “This ivy-league pussy doesnt know how to run a war!” is the idea. Since Obama is saddled with the Afghan War, the GOP will probably accuse him of tactical mismanagement, as the Democrats did in 2004. The primacy of economics issues in the following election will also allow the GOP to be as crazy as they want in foreign affars without suffering any real public disapproval. Its a good time to be a hawk, sadly.
If your looking for a non-interventionist/anti-war Republican to vote for in 2012, then it’s gonna be Gary Johnson. However, if you are looking for a more Mainstream, “Realist” Republican suchas Colin Powell, and George H.W. Bush, then you’re out of luck. That wing of the Party is no longer exists, and libertarians are only useful to the Establishment of the Party when it comes to Healthcare and Taxes.
Unfortuantely at this moment in time the Current President is the best you’re gonna get when it comes to a Foreign Policy of restraint. Which isn’t saying much…
As unprepared as Palin was in most of the important areans, it was her fatuous bravado when it came to sensitive and dangerous areas of foreign policy, particularly Russia/Nato issues, that convinced me she was best kept far from the presidency.
It was only the belief that John McCain would most likely survive his term that allowed me to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Mr. Larisons commentary is quite accurate. How ironic that reasonable conservatives might now conclude that only democratic candidates are balanced and rational enough to conduct foreign policy in a way that does not actively harm U.S. interests.
Right now the right and the GOP are hoping that they can trash Obama, block pretty much everything (except money for the rich), and work back to power, same as before.
If they lose in 2010 and 2012, they’ll have to reform, but not until then.