Jekyll, Hyde and the GOP
The Republican debate over America's role in the world shows a party at odds with itself
DISCLAIMER: This piece is about the debate between the GOP’s vision of foreign policy and America’s role in the world. It is not about President Biden!! I will write more about his and the Democrats’ vision tomorrow after the State of the Union.
With Nikki Haley bowing out of the Republican primary contest, the GOP's ideological battlefield has tilted decisively towards the isolationist faction of the party, continuing its shift from the Reagan-inspired doctrine of American exceptionalism and assertive foreign policy.
Now, a party once synonymous with Reagan's shining city on a hill is grappling with its identity, torn between its traditional conservative roots and the populist, isolationist fervor stirred by Trump. This internal struggle, manifesting in the party's approach to foreign policy, lays bare a rift.
On one side stand the isolationists, a faction skeptical of foreign engagements and wary of the costs associated with global leadership eager to retreat into America's shell; on the other, the interventionists, who view U.S. global leadership as both a moral imperative and a strategic necessity.
delightfully refers to them as as the Neo-GOP and the OG-GOP.: “Two GOPs living in one body...the ill-suited marriage of two worldviews that have little to do with each other, two sides who see America and the world completely differently.”
Historically, the GOP has championed free trade and global engagement as cornerstones of American prosperity and security. Yet, recent reassessments, spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, the realization of globalization and over-dependence on adversarial states like China for critical supplies, and the border crisis have prompted a reconsideration of these forward-facing tenets.
In his book “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism,” the American Enterprise Institute’s Matt Continetti says the Republican introspection is reverting the party back to its pre-World War II identity of economic protection, restricted immigration, and wariness of foreign intervention from the era of Calvin Coolidge and his predecessor Warren Harding in the 1920s
Donald Trump is presenting a vision of America that oscillates between a fortress of isolation and a unilateral bulldozer on the global playground. This curious blend of stark militarism and aggressive posturing on one hand, and unprecedented retrenchment on the other, sends mixed signals that would confound even the most astute foreign policy observers, leaving friends and foes alike to wonder if America is leading the charge or abandoning the field.
A recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found a shocking 53% of Republicans said it would be best for the future of the U.S. to stay out of world affairs rather than take an active role. This was the first time in the 49-year history of the survey that a majority of Republicans espoused that view.
The party's foreign policy debates, once a forum for nuanced discussion on America's role in the world, have devolved into a spectacle of soundbites, with candidates vying to outdo each other in their hawkishness or isolationism. The complexity of global affairs, reduced to catchphrases about "smoking terrorists" and "cutting off the heads of snakes," underscores a party at odds with itself and with the realities of a multipolar world.
This Jekyll and Hyde struggle is not just a policy debate over whether we should aid Ukraine or even an existential ideological debate, but a fundamental question of America's identity on the world stage. Trump's ascendancy and possible re-election threaten to entrench a form of isolationism, a strategic retreat cloaked in the rhetoric of "America First."
Such a stance, while crowd-pleasing to a base disillusioned by endless foreign conflicts and perceived diplomatic failures, risks abdicating America's longstanding role as a defender of democratic values and a bulwark against authoritarianism.
Trump's pitch to the American electorate is less a hopeful vision for the future than a dystopian diagnosis of the present, painting a picture of the United States as a nation beleaguered by internal and external demons. In his narrative, America teeters on the brink of third-world status, plagued by border crises and electoral chaos, a country in need of a savior rather than a president.
His rhetoric, brimming with the promise of retribution against perceived enemies, strikes a chord with a faction of the GOP hungry for a return to a more muscular, albeit lonelier, stance on the world stage. A November CBS/YouGov poll showed that most Republicans believe it’s more important for the United States to be feared than loved.
Unfortunately, in an effort to feign loyalty to Trump, many in the GOP, still adhering to the principles of Reaganite foreign policy – which have governed the party for half a century – have stopped communicating that compelling vision of American engagement and leadership. Their continued failure to do so could consign the party—and the country—to a path of isolation, diminishing America's influence and forsaking its legacy as a beacon of freedom and a defender of democracy.
From threatening to abandon NATO to cozying up to dictators, our allies worry that Trump's foreign policy in a second term could herald a prolonged era where America, rather than acting as the linchpin of international stability, becomes a wildcard of unpredictability. Europe, still nursing the bruises from Trump's first tenure, now faces the real possibility of Round Two, a sequel that promises more of the same disdain for diplomatic norms and an even greater appetite for autocratic camaraderie.
Armed with plans to consolidate power and sideline democratic institutions, a potential second Trump term poses a paradox. His administration might seek to impose its will unilaterally abroad while simultaneously pulling back from military and diplomatic commitments, and a return to a more transactional approach to international relations, a strategy that promises to undermine U.S. influence.
I don’t think it's dramatic to predict this could lead to a fragmentation of the international order, emboldening adversaries like Russia and China, and undermining our alliances, which, while in need of modernization, have underpinned global stability since the end of World War II.
Nikki Haley's exit, therefore, is not merely a footnote in the political saga of the 2024 election. It is a harbinger of a potential realignment of American foreign policy, with repercussions that could reshape the global landscape. As the GOP grapples with its identity, the duel between the OG-GOPs and the Neo-GOPs will not only define the party's future but also determine the contours of global politics in the 21st century.
The direction the GOP takes may well decide whether America remains a guiding star of liberty or retreats into the shadows, abdicating its role on the world stage for a myopic focus on domestic grievances - leaving a void that adversaries are all too eager to fill.
I’m playing around with these narrated posts - please let me know what you think in the comments or send me a DM!
Hi Elise, while you've written an interesting analysis, it's more about a couple trees rather than the forest. There's a great shift occurring in the American economy which is being reflected in the politics. The change came with shale and fracking. This reduced the cost of domestic production, especially between America and Mexico. This has led to onshoring of American production. Robert Lighthizer was the vanguard of this trend under Trump. He basically told China that happy days were over. Then covid struck and this hastened the process. Biden has only institutionalised Lighthizer's work and carried it to its logical end. The politics have reflected this. Trumpism has become the rallying point for the economic and cultural losers of this transition and thus a party of grievance. Their authoritarian program is reactive to a feeling of disempowerment. That's a hard core 30% of the American population. The traditional Republicans are merging into the Democratic Party since there's a continuity of beliefs. The last time we saw such a transition was when Dixicrats moved to the Republican Party and the black vote went to the Democrats. Last I looked there's a healthy optimism for a positive future in the hearts and wallets of the American majority. This involves an internationalist foreign and domestic policy.
I find it difficult to even discuss today’s republicans party, certainly in the realm of policy. The party has no written platform. I take this to mean they want to place no restraints on their actions. Plus, angry, vengeful, retribution actions probably would look like a childish tantrum when committed to paper.
Face facts, as long as Trump is their nominee, their policy changes nearly everytime Trump starts speaking. He may read a teleprompter and thereby stick to the proposals from his previous speech. If he speaks unscripted God knows what lunacy he will advocate for.
I wonder if the Germans ever talked about Hitler’s foreign policy?
I think it best to sticking to describing Trump as a monster.