fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Rubio’s Superficial “Fluency” in Foreign Policy

I intend, along with a couple of my colleagues this week, to introduce a resolution here in the Senate to act on this issue. And my hope is that this policy will move quickly on voicing support for those on the ground there in Syria who are trying, in a peaceful way, to bring about […]

I intend, along with a couple of my colleagues this week, to introduce a resolution here in the Senate to act on this issue. And my hope is that this policy will move quickly on voicing support for those on the ground there in Syria who are trying, in a peaceful way, to bring about change to their country. And I think the world has to be so disappointed, I think, that this administration has not been more forceful in speaking out on behalf of freedom and democracy throughout the region, including places like Bahrain. ~Marco Rubio

No, the world is not disappointed. Maybe Bahraini and Syrian protesters are disappointed, and we know that knee-jerk democratists are disappointed, but much of the rest of the world isn’t terribly interested in whether or not Obama “speaks out” more forcefully. Maybe that shouldn’t matter, but invoking “the world” here is even more ridiculous than the routine reference to the American people. When Rubio refers to “the world,” he mostly means himself and his colleagues.

Speaking out isn’t substantive action. It is nothing more and nothing less than paying lip service. I suppose one can argue that American officials should pay more lip service to the cause of Syrian or Bahraini protesters, but it isn’t clear what it would actually accomplish. So, Marco Rubio wants Obama to pay lip service to “freedom and democracy throughout the region.” I don’t see how that counts as an example of “forceful, clear and unequivocal support for a robust American presence in the world,” as Jennifer Rubin describes it. It is an example of support for stronger American rhetoric in lieu of action. It is just the sort of cheap talk that Jackson Diehl was demanding from the administration in the same column in which he acknowledged that it wouldn’t do any good. This will change exactly nothing in Syria and Bahrain. That’s not surprising, since it isn’t intended to change anything in those countries. It is intended to distinguish Rubio and the others speaking out forcefully, and it costs Rubio nothing. Thanks to the low standards of Republican foreign policy discourse, it earns him points.

Here is an example of what Rubin calls Rubio’s “fluency” on foreign policy:

There is a nonsensical fear that what comes after [Assad] will be worse.

It’s actually a very well-grounded fear, and the governments closest to Syria are the ones that share it. Again, this is easy for Rubio to say. If Assad falls, and something worse follows, virtually no one will remember that Rubio shrugged at that possibility and dismissed it as nonsensical. All that most people will remember was that he was in favor of “speaking out” against Assad. It won’t matter that Rubio will have been shown to be blithely indifferent to unleashing regional instability and chaos. It isn’t going to bother his fans that he was oblivious to the possible fault-lines in a country whose political future he so confidently wants to influence. No, he somehow possesses “fluency” in foreign policy because he repeats the correct slogans.

Rubin relates another gem of Rubio insight:

The notion that we don’t have interests in the welfare of other peoples, he argues, “goes against everything we believe as a nation.”

It goes against everything we believe as a nation to hold this view? This sounds like bleeding-heart Republicanism at its worst. Apart from Bush’s Second Inaugural, this is possibly the most expansive and most reckless definition of U.S. interests I have ever seen.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here