Jonathan Chait raises a worthwhile point about the rise of Republican anti-interventionism:
Republicans have a hawkish faction that supports every military intervention, and Democrats have a liberal faction that opposes every military intervention. But large numbers of both parties make their decision about any particular intervention based on whether they trust the president — which means whether he’s in their party or not.
It’s true that some Republicans are sounding anti-interventionist notes now. George W. Bush himself ran in 2000 as an anti-interventionist, attacking the Clinton administration for its nation-building and promising a more “humble” foreign policy. The Republican fear of reckless American intervention disappeared as soon as Clinton did, and it will disappear again as soon as a Republican takes the oath of office.
I concluded my last column on the subject: “It remains to be seen whether this debate will endure — or last only as long as the Democrats hold the White House.” The one thing we don’t know, however, is to what extent 9/11 short-circuited the debate that was going on among conservatives in the 1990s. The terrorist attacks played a big role in George W. Bush’s abandonment of a “humble foreign policy” and the GOP’s embrace of interventionism.
UPDATE: I wrote a column on war and partisanship for the Guardian not long ago.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.