Foreign policy takes center stage during second Republican debate
Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush stand at the CNN set for the second Republican debate of 2015 Photo: bellenews.com
Last night, the 11 leading Republican presidential candidates took the stage to debate the year's most important political issues. As senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz noted during the debate, it was fitting for the candidates to come together to discuss the political scene for the coming year on the eve of our annual Constitution Day. Indeed, in typical conservative fashion, nearly every candidate hearkened back to the ideals of the American founding during their remarks.
This reactionary sentiment was promoted by political outsider, Donald Trump, who argued that his business acumen would help him 'make America great again.' Likewise, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued that as president he would 'restrain government, not the people,' in a cry to return to the days of a nascent government unable to interfere in the affairs of its citizens. California businesswoman Carly Fiorina also emphasized the traditional American dream in her discussion of her own rags to riches biography, promising to create an economic climate in which all Americans would have the opportunity to follow in her footsteps.
There was emphasis on the original Constitution as a representation of the limited form of government that so many Republican candidates support. Yet, interestingly enough, it seemed that the candidates were not hoping to go all the way back to the American founding, but rather to the golden era of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-1989). Though Reagan is often referenced as a representation of the values of American conservatism, the comparison to Reagan's presidency during this debate was particularly apt. Just as during the Cold War, the candidates last night spent a considerable amount of time discussing the threat of Russia as a rising geopolitical rival.
The general sentiment from the candidates was hawkish. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) argued Russian President Vladimir Putin's goal is to become the main power broker in the Middle East. For this reason, he proposed, his future administration would take a tough stance on American relations with Russia. Fiorina proposed bolstering U.S. military presence in Europe and rebuilding our missile defense system as a safeguard against Russian expansionism. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee argued that the U.S. tensions with Iran stem from a clash of civilizations, and the next president should destroy any agreement made with supporters of radical Islam.
Cruz took a similarly strong stance on U.S. foreign policy, but focused more on the new Iran deal. If elected, Cruz said the first thing he would do would be to tear up the deal. In contrast, Ohio Gov. John Kasich proposed a more measured response that emphasized working with our European allies rather than reneging on an existing deal. Trump took this moderation a step further, arguing that he would be able to get along with Putin and other heads of state. For this reason, Trump said the result of his presidency would be a more stable world.
The debate also heated up on the issue of immigration. Trump, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and surgeon Ben Carson emphasized ways to limit the number of immigrants in the United States. Among other strategies, the candidates proposed building a wall, fingerprinting visa holders and deporting between 11 and 12 million undocumented residents, though other candidates questioned the feasibility of these plans.
On the other hand, Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush highlighted the need for a reformed legal immigration system in order to allow people to come to America to achieve their dreams. Bush called for a 'comprehensive conservative approach' to immigration that would not break apart families and communities.
Tensions rose further over the issue of involvement in Syria and military status in general. Most candidates argued the United States should increase the size of its military in order to bolster its position of leadership internationally. Except for Paul, who argued that the United States should approach intervention with caution, there was a general consensus among the candidates on a more aggressive foreign policy in the coming administration.
Ultimately, the real voices of dissension have yet to engage the Republican candidates. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton emphasizes increased focus on international climate change, human rights around the world and alliance-based foreign policy in addition to prioritizing a strong military. In similar opposition to most Republican hopefuls, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has publicly supported the Iran deal, arguing that 'war should be the last option' for international conflict resolution. Like Clinton, Sanders also hopes to tackle global climate change and establish a 'fair and humane' immigration policy.
Given that the real variety in policy comes from across the aisle, it seems that we may have to wait until next year to see real debate on foreign policy.
