Tea Partiers say their movement is a response to the way government power, and government debt, grew under both Bush and Obama. But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what they’re upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive “war on terror.” Anyone genuinely worried about debt can’t ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution can’t ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires.

The Republican foreign policy apparatus in Washington, which is in large measure funded by defense contractors, has declared preemptive war on the idea that military spending should be part of deficit-reduction discussion. But before going along, the Tea Partiers should think about how they’d like to be remembered by history. If they don’t extend their constitutional vision to foreign policy, they’ll be abandoning any serious chance of cutting the deficit and reducing the size of government. They’ll become indistinguishable from other conservative Republicans, just the latest in a long line on the right to put a globalist foreign policy over a minimalist state. If, on the other hand, they genuinely chart a foreign-policy course based upon their understanding of the Constitution—if they subordinate the “war on terror” to the demands of fiscal solvency—they will be a new and subversive force in American politics, and the Republican Party will be headed for a fascinating ideological showdown. ~Peter Beinart

One of the reasons why no one ever seems to be able to define a “Tea Party foreign policy” is that most Tea Partiers tend to avoid the subject. On many other issues, one could cite candidates’ statements, campaign pledges, and interview answers, or search for what Tea Party activists have had to say about it over the last two years, but on the whole there is simply not much evidence available. Depending on the writer and the point he wants to make, Tea Partiers might be portrayed as anything from zealous Jeffersonians to fierce Jacksonians to conventional Republican voters. If all else fails, pundits might fall back on Rand Paul’s example to give them some idea of what to say, except that Rand Paul has been studiously avoiding discussing foreign policy for most of the last year.

It would be interesting and encouraging if Tea Partiers saw the threats to liberty and the Constitution from an unchecked, expansive national security state and a political establishment dedicated to perpetual war, but when it comes to the politicians who have identified with Tea Partiers there is remarkably little evidence of this. Looking at the House members connected with the House Tea Party Caucus, we see a lot of very conventional hawks. That doesn’t prove that most Tea Partiers are strongly supportive of the national security state, but it also suggests that it is not a major concern for most of them. Presumably, most of them haven’t given it a lot of thought. I don’t intend that as an accusation. It would be surprising if a lot of voters were particularly riled up about U.S. foreign policy at a time when domestic and economic issues dominate the scene, and it would be even more surprising if a lot of Republican voters suddenly started agreeing with a radical Jeffersonian critique of Bush-era foreign policy excesses when most of them reliably voted for Republican candidates throughout the Bush years.

Looked at another way, the constant search for a “Tea Party foreign policy” seems to be a waste of time. If there is a movement of activists and voters focused almost exclusively on one set of domestic issues, most pundits wouldn’t ask what the foreign policy views of movement members are. The question would never come up, because the movement consciously defined its priorities as having nothing to do with foreign policy. For that matter, there isn’t much interest in the domestic political preferences of explicitly antiwar movements, except by way of trying to discredit or defame them as part of the “fringe.” Yes, if Tea Partiers wanted to be thoroughgoing Jeffersonians and strict constructionists, they would favor dramatic reductions in the warfare state as Beinart says, but what gives Beinart the impression that there are suddenly legions of Jeffersonians among the Republican rank-and-file?

Beinart is the one making the connections between Tea Partier complaints about spending and debt and strict constructionism because of largely boilerplate rhetoric about respecting the Constitution. He mentions “their understanding of the Constitution” when he almost certainly knows that most of them do not really subscribe to the understanding to which he is referring. In other contexts, Beinart would be happy to emphasize the contradiction between Tea Partier constitutionalist rhetoric and their general acquiescence in New Deal and Great Society programs, and he would be horrified if any of the would-be constitutionalists were the strict constructionists he currently claims would at least be “interesting.” For that matter, if Tea Partiers became Jeffersonians on foreign policy, Beinart would likely be one of the first to decry their “isolationism.” Despite his most recent incarnation as a critic of American overreach and hubris, Beinart isn’t going to congratulate Tea Partiers for their principled opposition to the national security state. He would be amused by the intra-Republican conflicts it created, he would denounce the new and dangerous “extremism” the Jeffersonians represented, and he would point to it as evidence that his party has more credibility on national security issues. If Tea Partiers took their rhetoric to its logical conclusion, he would attack them as fanatics, and if they remain fairly conventional he will declare them to be frauds.

It would be very healthy if the GOP moved towards a more Jeffersonian foreign policy after the disaster of the Bush years, and it would mean that a large number of conservatives learned some of the right lessons from the past decade, but it is more likely that very little will change in Republican positions on foreign policy. For one thing, foreign policy is one of the areas least affected by popular movements. On the whole, elected Republicans have no interest in a reduced American role in the world, and instead believe that the administration has been far too “passive” in its conduct of foreign policy. Except for a few honorable exceptions, Jeffersonians among Republican Tea Partiers have no one to speak for them in Washington, and there do not seem to be enough of them to bring much pressure to bear on Republican politicians. More to he point, Republican leaders make a habit of actively ignoring the interests and concerns of their constituents. Even if it is true that self-identified Tea Partiers are generally more “protectionist” and less supportive of military interventions, their political leaders seem to be reliably supportive of free trade and hegemonism.

Update: Jim Antle has more.