Tonight’s national security debate, televised by CNN and
sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage
Foundation, could be a big event for serveral Republican
candidates. Coming right before people will be talking politics
with their families over Thanksgiving turkey, it’s another pivotal
moment as the first nominating contests draw closer.
Newt Gingrich, a former AEI fellow himself, will look to cement
his status as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. This is
his kind of a debate. It will allow him to showcase his wonky side,
downplay past domestic policy transgressions, and speak in bold,
occasionally apocalyptic terms. The debate is also an opportunity
for Jon Huntsman, even though he doesn’t fully take the
Heritage/AEI line on foreign policy, and Rick Santorum, who is a
hawk’s hawk, to showcase their knowledge.
Herman Cain has seen his poll numbers fade recently and has had
to combat allegations that he doesn’t know anything about foreign
policy (the widely circulated interview with a Milwaukee newspaper
showing Cain struggling to gather his thoughts on Libya didn’t
help). This is a big debate for him tonight. Rick Perry is in the
same boat, and he is fighting to remain near the top tier. Michele
Bachmann could also use a good performance.
The candidate for whom this debate has the most obvious pitfalls
is Ron Paul. He is the only Republican on that stage who has ruled
out attacking Iran (Cain seemed to do so as well at the last
debate, but who knows what that means). He supports military
spending cuts opposed by Heritage and AEI. He will probably be
given more than 90 seconds to expound upon his views this time, and
the other candidiates may gang up on him.
For Paul, there is a possibility of a repeat of his 2007 South
Carolina exchange with Rudy Giuliani. That dust-up benefited both
candidates, but surprisingly helped Paul more by galvanizing his
young, antiwar followers. The danger for Paul is that last time
around, he had nowhere to go but up. This time, recent polling
shows him positioned to either make a move into the top tier (at
least in Iowa and New Hampshire) or to fall toward the middle of
the pack. He is also drawing more traditional Republican support
than he was four years ago. What impact will a foreign policy
debate have on that?
Martin | 11.22.11 @ 5:12PM
If Paul avoids making anti-American comments, he could gain massive support. Many of the Republicans out in the heartlands are Coolidge Republicans; they want a foreign policy that is cheap and avoids foreign entanglements unless absolutely necessary.
That is directly contrary to AEI/Heritage/neocon view of the world, but there's a huge number of potential votes behind it. Bachmann can potentially appeal to those voters, as could Perry if he's smart.
The Wilsonian urge to go meddle in the Middle east and impose democracy, backed by Romney, Newt and Santorum, has failed utterly and is likely to repel voters beyond the Beltway rather than attract them.
Dai Alanye | 11.22.11 @ 5:42PM
Paul owes much of his support to young men who believe that if the nation shrinks from foreign conflict they'll never be faced with the dangers of close-order drill and sleeping in small tents. For them, all the rest of Paul's positions are window dressing.
Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:23PM
Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters Are Real Conservatives,Who Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right.
George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Washington D.C. & In Iowa.