If you missed the Republican debate on foreign policy last night here is the transcript. I actually did watch the debate after having skipped the last two because they were unwatchable. There were a few moments that made me retch, like when criminals Ed Meese and Paul Wolfowitz were invited to ask the panel a question. But something about the location (D.C.) and the topic prevented the the Republicans from talking utter nonsense. You can’t debate these fools on anything involving math, like budgets or economics, but you can have a somewhat normal conversation with them about foreign policy.
For the purposes of last night’s debate, immigration policy was considered foreign policy. And that was where Newt Gingrich attempted to stake out a compassionate position that would allow undocumented workers who have lived here a long-time to gain a legal status (but not citizenship). Romney and Bachmann denounced him for being pro-amnesty. Rick Perry tried to have it both ways. The immigration question will probably wind up being the most consequential for the outcome of the primaries.
Other divisions arose. Huntsman and Romney were sharply divided over whether or not we should draw down our troops in Afghanistan. Huntsman took the president’s side in favor of a swift drawdown.
Santorum, Gingirch, and Cain were in favor of racially profiling Muslims. Santorum went so far as to say that we are not in a war against terror, but a war against “radical Muslims.” Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman thought we should think first before we throw our own civil liberties in the trash. Romney (along with Gingrich) said that we need one system of justice for criminals and another system of justice for Muslims accused of terrorism.
I mention these parts of the debate not because they were the only parts worth nothing, but because they involved significant disagreement. As you would expect, Ron Paul was contrary on nearly every issue, but he did agree with Rick Perry that we should zero out of foreign aid. In fact, Ron Paul said foreign aid is worthless and accomplishes nothing.
The question on whether to attack Iran (or allow Israel to do so) also produced some variations in the Republican responses. Ron Paul was flatly opposed. Herman Cain wanted a feasibility assessment (that he presumed would argue against an attack). Newt Gingrich wanted regime change or nothing. Michele Bachmann told a bunch of lies and said we needed to Drill, Baby, Drill.
Overall, with the exception of Mr. Paul, the Republicans present an extraordinarily bellicose foreign policy that will lead to more preemptive war, more torture, more detainees that can’t be dealt with in the criminal justice system, more erosion of our civil liberties, and more blowback. A fair assessment of President Obama’s foreign policy must conclude that it shares some of the same faults. But it’s not really a close call if you’re choosing between them. The president is winding down wars, not looking to start news ones. He’s ended torture and isn’t confused about its definition. And he’d close down Gitmo and hold trials in normal courts if Congress would let him.
