Somewhere, a long time ago, we decided we weren’t ever going to do a “Sorry we haven’t posted in awhile” post, because, well, it’s trite. (Someone even made an entire blog aggregating blog posts where people did that.) But the good news is we’re working on a huge new project, dropping later this year. (Keep your fingers crossed pre-Christmas for the holiday drive and travelling.)
That said, did you really think On V would let an election that challenges democratic norms and features one of the least informed politicians that’s ever ran for President without commenting on it? (We commented on the primaries here.) But before we get to the top of the ticket race, let’s look at where the two major American parties stand internationally.
Everytime we write about elections, we have to make the point that foreign policy--unlike domestic policy--is usually non-partisan. As we wrote before the 2012 election, both sides tend to use foreign policy as an easy way to score cheap political points:
“Foreign policy, unlike domestic issues, is a mostly non-partisan affair. More than that, the parties can’t agree on what they disagree on. Do liberals or libertarians oppose Guantanamo? Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich all support American isolationism. Democrats are supposed to be anti-war, but their presidents started World War II, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs disaster and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, Kosovo and intervened militarily in Libya.
Politically, both sides of the aisle use foreign policy victories or mistakes to score cheap political points. Conservatives opposed Clinton heading into Kosovo, supported the war in Iraq, and then half-opposed intervening in Libya, depending on what the President did. Liberals protested the invasion of Iraq, then changed the subject when anyone asked them about Libya; they also hated Bush’s drone strikes in Afghanistan, and have ignored them under Obama’s watch.”
Taken at face value, 21st century foreign policy seemed pretty clear: Bush, embracing a neo-conservative foreign policy, started a series of disastrous foreign military engagements designed to reshape the Middle East. Liberals mostly opposed what Bush did, but Obama continued some of the same policy mistakes, like drone strikes. (Enough to get Conor Friedersdorf, a thinker we really respect, to pull his endorsement in 2012.)
Alas, this is no longer the case. As we’ve been writing about all year, Republicans--frightened by ISIS’s terror attacks, then catalyzed by Donald Trump’s popularity--advocate a foreign policy that is dangerously illiberal, factually wrong and morally bankrupt.
Here are some examples, culled from our posts on the Republican primaries, starting with the factually dubious claims:
America is safer than it has ever been. Republicans, throughout the entire primary, have made an effort to make Americans scared. Terrified. (Mostly of people from other countries or minorities). As the Trump campaign fumbles its way through early October, their only talking point is that the murder rate went up last year. (It did. It’s also lower than it was forty years ago.)
ISIS isn’t nearly the threat Republicans want you to think it is. Not just that, but all of the available evidence points to a decline in ISIS’s membership, territory, revenue and military capability. Sure, ISIS will launch future terror attacks, but they won’t “take over” America. Ever.
The U.S. military isn’t crumbling. Despite exaggerations to the contrary, the American military remains the largest fighting force in the world. Actually, we’d argue--and have been arguing--that the American military is too big. The money America spends on defense could be better spent elsewhere, especially if that were coupled with smart improvements to our wasteful military contracting system and ]focused less on building weapons that have no relevance to the wars we’re actually fighting abroad. Just a few weeks back, the U.S. Army admitted it had a 6 trillion dollar accounting error.
Torture. And now we move from factually wrong assertions to morally reprehensible statements. In short, the Republican party endorses torture, which violates everything our nation stands for.
Killing Civilians and Loosening the Rules of Engagement. Look, the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are a complicated issue. No one is denying that. But it is one thing to debate the merits of our current ROE and another to actively encourage killing civilians. The latter isn’t just wrong practically, it is wrong morally. (And Republicans routinely exaggerate and misrepresent the military’s ROE.)
Supporting Dictators. Few things irk Michael C more than this. And to be fair, Democrats are far too cozy with far too many dictators. (Looking at you, Saudi Arabia!) That said, Republicans have taken it to another level with campaign, praising dictators no one should support.
Using hate speech. For Eric C, in light of every other ugly thing that has been said this election cycle, the tearing down of civility is the worst. The Republican use of hate speech against Islamic people represents this. The only upside is that Kzahir Khan made an eloquent defense of America’s multi-cultural identity and, more importantly, Democrats have embraced it.
When we started writing this post, Michael C asked Eric C who it was meant for. The point is this: on down ballot races, on foreign policy grounds, we don’t recommend voting for Republicans. This may (and hopefully will) change in the future. But there is an ugly, anti-democratic, illiberal bent to Republican foreign policy right now (illustrated by the numerous conservative foreign policy experts who have come out against Donald Trump). Don’t let this continue to expand.