The most coherent candidates on the Republican side on foreign policy so far are two – one
would be Marco Rubio who absolutely is the most traditional standup for intervention,
indispensable American supporter.
I mean he has basically said that I will defend any intervention of international air space,
cyberspace, outer space, you name it, I’m all over it.
He hasn’t said how he’s going to pay for it, how he’s going to get Congress to support
him.
But nonetheless he certainly sounds super indispensable and he’s going to have to
answer some questions around that.
He’s shown himself to be pretty articulate on foreign policy so far.
Quite surprisingly to many of us on the foreign policy scene that hadn’t seen much from
him heretofore.
Rand Paul on the other side also very articulate on foreign policy, completely different set
of beliefs.
I mean saying basically not only would he not have gone into the war in Iraq but that
Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein.
Something that’s clearly true but not a lot of people want to say.
And I think, you know, a lot of Rand Paul’s inconvenient truths on intervention in places
like Libya, sanctions against Russia, cyber surveillance, I mean things that really do
seem like they subvert American values, they spend a lot of money.
They don’t necessarily accomplish a lot for the Americans clearly long term, put him
much more firmly in the independent camp.
So, you know, what’s interesting again early days but we do actually see candidates coming
out in very different places in answering these questions at a very superficial level
so far.
But I mean with over a year left in the campaign – God our campaigns are long and expensive
– can we please stop that.
But leaving that aside there’s going to be great opportunity to actually flesh these
issues out.