Republican Pride and Principles
To a non-American, the process of electing the President in the United States is perplexing. Anyone can become a candidate regardless of political (or life) experience. That candidate stands on the stage and debates topics they know little about, in full view of the entire world. The debate carries weight, because prior to being selected by the party to advocate for its values, the candidate must publically destroy his/her opponents, who largely share those values. Exhausted and bruised by “friendly fire” the substantial policy issues between left and right can only then be debated. But in an ironic twist, typifying the power-plays within politics, the nominee will often turn to a former competitor and make them his or her running mate.
It’s a strange way for a political party to build support for its ideals, values and policy positions. The Republican field is still so large and contradictory that it is hard to get a feel for what the party represents in 2016. Not that policy positions are often offered in debates. We have become accustomed to one liners, shameless self-promotion or one-upmanship instead of thoughtfully considered positions.
But for me, as a conservative outsider looking in, there are two aspects of the Republican debates which really surprise me.
Firstly, I cannot understand the divergence of position on substantive foreign policy ideals within the party. Case in point: promote democracy or prop-up dictators? In answer to the question of whether or not Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad needed to be removed to achieve a peaceful outcome in Syria, Rand Paul, Donald Trump & Ted Cruz preferred retaining Assad (or not actively removing him). Wow! This is despite the US and its allies working hard to convince Russia and Iran that Assad’s departure is key to any negotiated solution. Russia and Iran have both recently indicated that they are softening their stances and open to a period in which Assad transitions out of the presidency.
When I heard the full spectrum of Republican views regarding this question I was shocked. To be clear, whilst it is hard to reconcile how any conservative (I will give ‘libertarian’ Paul a free pass here) can take a position supporting Assad given the past 5 years, that is not the thing that concerns me most. I am far more concerned that given the way the American system works, there is no unified Republican position. Yes the executive branch in the US operates differently to the British Westminster system that I am used to, but I cannot understand why or how such disunity benefits Americans. I would have thought that it is in the interest of all citizens for foreign policy positions to be formed in a party room discussion between experts rather than in the President’s head.
Secondly, and far more alarmingly, is the tendency of candidates to make ridiculous assertions which seem to just fly under the radar. Again, to be clear, these candidates are not running for school captain; they are running for the most powerful office in the world. We should expect them to say things that make sense.
Much has been written about Donald Trump’s outrageous statements, which seek to specifically offend believers of politically correct speech. For me, the statement that makes me shout at my computer screen is this:
What on earth does this statement actually mean? This ‘policy position’, repeated ad nauseum, is actually astounding if taken literally; how else should one take it? The most straight forward explanation is that Donald Trump, a leading contender for United States President, believes that the US army should fly into another sovereign country, militarily secure its oil supplies, and then either construct an industry whereby the stolen oil is sold and the proceeds are returned to the US or establish some elaborate shipping scheme whereby some 300,000 barrels of oil are shipped back to the US mainland each day. Either way the proceeds would then be distributed via some form of social welfare package to those injured in combat. Is that his policy position? It sounds pretty ridiculous if you say it out loud.
But equally as concerning is that such a statement can be made unchallenged. Why are none of the moderators drilling down into the oil policy (pun intended)? How has nonsense become part of the (inter)national debate?
Let’s take another example from the 5th debate. In answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question, “Would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?” Ted Cruz, a respectable and supposedly thoughtful candidate, replied “You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops… the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.”
Sorry what? Anyone who has read anything about ISIS understands that they control a large territory across Syria and Iraq. Their fighters are spread across that territory, amongst hundreds of thousands of civilians within cities such as Raqqa. Ted Cruz knows this. So why did he say that he would “carpet bomb where ISIS is” and what did he actually mean by that? It’s one thing to avoid answering the question, it’s another to say something that doesn’t make any sense. Further, why did Blitzer and CNN let him get away with it? What harm are these statements and the lack of accountability doing to the quality of the debate? Does no one care that you can make meaningless statements that go unchallenged?
I will tell you who should care: the Republican Party. Whilst I am not sure that any non-American will understand why the process of selecting an American President is as it is, everyone understands that the Republicans goal is to get one of their people back into the White House.
Surely the Republican Party itself can do something to give its candidates a fighting chance. How about getting in some experts to brief candidates on foreign policy issues? How about having some fundamental principles that the party believes in and ensuring the candidates advocate for them? How about actually creating an environment of accountability in which Republican candidates are publically called out when they say ludicrous things that reflect badly on conservative ideals? How about demonstrating pride in taking established conservative positions rather than extreme or nonsensical ones?
And to people like Wolf Blitzer the networks and that are being paid big bucks to broadcast the statements and policies of these candidates, how about taking journalistic principles seriously? This is not simply a question of fact-checking. This is about challenging nonsensical responses and clarifying just what is meant by outrageous statements. Surely the voting public deserves that.
