The Republican Party’s Peculiar Brand of Foreign Policy

Commentary

By Amb. Alfredo Toro Hardy 

Going back into an isolationist mood is always a latent risk within America´s foreign policy. Indeed, the United States’ foreign policy has shown to possess its very curious yin and yang qualities. Meaning, seemingly opposing forces that actually belong to the same Oneness. The Oneness, in this case, being America’s self-perceived moral superiority, and the yin and yang representing the shifting periods of international missionary impulses and isolationism. As such, the high moral ground that Americans always have reclaimed for themselves can relate to both: Whereas by putting barriers to alien models or foreign events, or by proselytizing abroad its superior beliefs.

         Between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II, isolationism prevailed. During that period, a majority of Americans refused to be involved with the League of Nations or with the serious problems that were shaking both Europe and Asia. Only the unforeseen destruction of most of its Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor, was able to awake them from the illusion that they could remain aloof and detached from the events taking place in other parts of the world. Not surprisingly, the end of the war brought with it an international liberal consensus, according to which America’s security and sense of purpose was to be found by engaging with problems abroad. However, America’s temptation to turn again upon itself, is always present.

         As a matter of fact, a group of important authors believed that the latter was precisely the case during Donald Trump’s period at the White House. Among them, Richard Hass (“America and the Great Abdication”, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017); Daniel Quinn Mills  Steven Rosefielde (The Trump Phenomenon and The Future of US Foreign Policy. New Jersey: World Scientific, 2016); Robert Kagan (The Jungle Growths Back. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 2018), and Victor Bulmer-Thomas (Empire in Retreat. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018). Actually, Trump’s practice of casting aspersions upon traditional allies and alliances, and its intent on disjointing multilateral organizations and mechanisms that supported the international liberal order, projected the impression that the U.S. was retreating from its international commitments. However, it remains difficult to reconcile the pugnacity shown by Trump in almost every international front, with the low profile normally associated with isolationism.

An alternative explanation to his behavior has been provided by figures such as Fareed Zakaria (“The self-destruction of American power”, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2019) Mark Leonard (“Britain’s lonely future in the age of clashing empires”, New Stateman, October 30, 2019). According to them, Trump’s foreign policy was based in the premise that the world was largely an uninteresting place, except for the fact that most countries just wanted to screw the United States. Hence, by stripping the global system of its ordering arrangements, and America from its burdening compromises, a “dog eat dog” environment would emerge. One, in which the U.S. would come up as the top dog, able to impose its will unconstrained by bindings. If such was the case, Trump’s foreign policy would resemble more to George W. Bush’s raw unilateralism than to isolationism. That, of course, without Bush’s liberal international vocation, and without the intellectual sophistication of the neoconservatives that surrounded him.

But independently of the true nature of Trump’s foreign policy, the fact remains that the Republican party shows itself increasingly uninterested on international issues, and even detached from national security concerns. Key figures at the Pentagon and the State Department are being held up in political holds, as a result of partisan blackmail. Support for Ukraine is grossly unpopular among Republicans, and help to their war effort is being withheld at the House of Representatives, under its control. A U.S. government shutdown that would damage the country’s ability to respond to a looming international scenario, hangs continuously in the air. Meanwhile, former Vice President Mike Pence declared on CNN: “This is what happens when we have leading voices like Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis signaling retreat from America’s role as leader of the free world” (Danielle Kurtzleben, “This is how the Republican Party became so strongly pro-Israel”, NPR, October 19, 2023).

The countless American jobs lost to globalization and the “forever wars” in the Middle East, have indeed become fertile grounds for isolationism. A phenomenon where Republicans play an outsize role. As explained by Bill Schneider: “The world is facing the most serious threat of nuclear confrontation since the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago. At the same time, we’re seeing a growing isolationist movement in the U.S. (…) The GOP is becoming the isolationist party. It is no longer the party that embraces the bold foreign policy of Ronald Reagan or the Bushes. By more than two to one, Republicans endorse the view that ‘We should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home’. Only 30 percent of Republicans believe ‘It is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs’. Whenever a policy becomes difficult or costly, isolationisms emerge” (Bill Schneider, “Republicans are the new isolationists; will the US retreat from world stage?”, The Hill, October 2, 2022).

Notwithstanding Republicans’ reluctance to engage with international issues, there is a particular subject where its isolationism melts away, as if by magical touch: Israel. The unconditional support to this country supersedes any other consideration. The reason for this was well expressed by Donald Trump, when saying that there is a direct line between protecting Israel, being an evangelical Christian and voting Republican. By virtue of the outsize weight of evangelism within that party, Republicans are inexorably tied to Israel. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration decided to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Indeed, in a 2020 campaign speech, he was blunt about it: “We move the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. That’s for the evangelicals”. This link between Christian evangelism and the State of Israel dates back to the 1960s, when Christian leaders like Billy Graham began to emphasize and politicize this connection. As evangelism became an increasingly larger and vocal parcel of the Republican base in the 1980s and thus involved itself with high-level Republican politics, an alliance between the party and Israel began taking shape (Danielle Kurtzleben, op. cit.).

The increasing isolationism within the Republican party presents, thus, a notable exception. This is why, since Hamas attack, Republican presidential candidates have been competing among themselves to see who articulates a stronger vocal support for Israel. Or why, the U.S. House under Republican control passed, on November the 3^rd, a plan to provide US$14.3 billion in aid to Israel. Meanwhile, assistance towards Ukraine languishes at the House and within the party.

Republicans have, indeed, a very peculiar brand of foreign policy, where isolationism and unconditional commitment to a particular cause, go hands and hands.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.

Alfredo Toro Hardy, Ph.D., is a retired Venezuelan career diplomat, scholar and author. Former Ambassador to the U.S., U.K., Spain, Brazil, Ireland, Chile and Singapore. Author or co-author of thirty-six books on international affairs. Former Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at Princeton and Brasilia universities. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations and a member of the Review Panel of the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center.