What is Republican Foreign Policy Again?
Thinking back to the Bush era reminds one of how effective the GOP once was
Kevin McCarthy was recently booted from his role as Speaker of the House by dissatisfied Republicans who joined Democrats in a vote against him. The ringleader, Matt Gaetz, said it was because of Ukraine spending that McCarthy voted for. Now, Ukraine has become a source of temporary embarrassment for most Republican lawmakers, not because their support is poorly received, but because bringing it up is now an indicator of factionalism and weakness. One must think about how the GOP used to make foreign policy a strength, not a weakness.
Although I was at most 8 years old during the George W. Bush administration, I have what feel like profound memories of it. Maybe it was because the two things my parents explained to me when I was very young were what sex is and why the Iraq War is bad, two pretty good lessons to teach any kid. We’re past the Bush era now, but that only makes reminders of its unique characteristics more striking.
I recently started watching The Boys, and just finished the first season. The fifth episode of that season, Good for the Soul, takes place partially at an evangelical speaking tour, The Believe Expo, where the superhero Homelander delivers a speech resolving to not be held back by congress in his pursuit of protecting America. To be honest, it was kind of refreshing to see something that wasn’t just a 1 to 1 Trump allegory. The Christ-like apolitical nature of Homelander is a real throw back to the time when America’s righteous inevitable and fury reached across the globe backed by divine justice. Homelander is totally adored and carries foreign policy influence with him.
This Christian glossiness was a real Bush era throw back, which I guess is refreshing, although this nostalgia is on about the same time frame as Happy Days coming out in the 70s and That 70s Show coming out in the 90s. Of course, this same luster is still arguably applied to current day Evangelical Christianity, after all, that scene was supposed to be contemporary. But the endorsement of a universally beloved figure changed that scene’s dynamic in a way that reminded me so much of Bush era, especially the aftermath of 9/11. All the same hate is there (several shots and lines emphasize that homophobia is still very entrenched in the same way it has been for decades), but the luster of it being about pure kind hearted patriotism was still present. In this universe, it takes the presence of a man who is essentially a pseudo-messiah to make Evangelicals presentable as well intentioned. If you wanted any more evidence that Homelander is a indisputable Dubya allegory, the speech he delivers earlier in that episode is essentially just the same one Bush gave using a bullhorn at Ground Zero.
But I’m not a culture critic, not unless you’re hiring. So what does this all have to do with contemporary issues? Well I could cop out and say every world and even personal event since 9/11 has been about George W. Bush in some way, but I had something more specific in mind. The idea of Christian foreign policy struck me as so novel when I thought about it again. Obviously the Bush administration wasn’t actually guided by strict Christian morals when dictating foreign policy, but they had goals that could be easily interpreted that way by the general public. No matter how cynical the people working at the State Department were, Islamic terrorists destroying the two biggest buildings in Manhattan is going to get more than a few people amped up for a crusade.
This kind of synchronization between national and international interests is a thing of beauty for state crafters. After the end of the Cold War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the culminations of a new post Communist strategy to maintain the American war/foreign policy machine’s momentum. When Islamic terrorism was in recent memory and still threatening, the combination of global consolidation of American interests with Christian Fundamentalism was something to behold.
But for as great a team as the 9/11 Bulls were, they didn’t leave today’s right wing with much room to maneuver rhetorically. American foreign policy rests on pillars that contradict what’s above them. Supporting the theocratic Saudi Arabia while decrying ‘radical islamic terrorism’ is probably the largest example in terms of just dollars spent. Most of foreign policy ends up being decided by ‘the blob’, a group of generally unaccountable politicians, lobbyists, think tank members, etc. Still, the dynamics of foreign policy influence are managing to change, especially on the Republican side.
Change maybe isn’t the right word, thrash might be a better way to describe how things are going over on the Republican side. You probably know by now that Ukraine is the hobbyhorse of many ambitious Republicans, be they law makers, intellectuals, or even just media personalities. Given that the support for Ukraine is pretty much unconditional for about 90% of congress on both sides, this allows skeptical lawmakers to carve out oversized influence if they’re able to make Ukraine support into a public issue that centers themselves. About 60% of Americans still support Ukraine, but only about half of Republicans are among them. It’s probably not going to be a wedge issue, but those in deeper red districts certainly have advantages wielding it as a cudgel. Opposing is always going to be easier than supporting, and being on the opposite side as Joe Biden certainly helps.
As I’m writing this, Kevin McCarthy was just deposed as Speaker of the House, so this strategy definitely works, at the very least as a cover for internal power plays. Matt Gaetz used a supposed ‘secret deal’ over Ukraine spending to leverage support against McCarthy, a deal that 117 Republicans voted against, although primarily because it was outside procedure. This points to severe issues within the Republican coalition that happen to be manifesting around Ukraine.
The truth is that Ukraine isn’t really the problem. Again, most Republicans are fully on board with sending weapons to Ukraine, and those opposed aren’t ready to put their hands fully into the fire to grab a reason besides budgeting. Even the most dovish Republicans won’t give up China as the real enemy, and consider Russia a distraction. Even the National Review admits to the fact that their frustrations with dissenting Republicans were over their desire for power, and that using Ukraine to make that power play is just in very poor taste.
There’s a disconnect that doesn’t even stem from ideological difference, but from inefficiency. The war in Ukraine (the Special Military Operation phase) has only been happening under a Biden presidency, so it’s a very good punching bag for the president’s opponents that don’t have to answer for leadership during the war directly. Call it a benefit of being in the opposition, a benefit some Republicans want to take advantage of, while others want use other tools in their kit. In my opinion, the best summary of the GOP position on Ukraine was from congressman George Santos on the night of the second primary debate.
Why did this whole thing remind me of think of Homelander again? Seeing something so Bush era brought me back to how far the Republican foreign policy consensus has fallen. I don’t mean behind closed doors, that’s still cohesive for the most part, but in terms of what’s being sold to voters. It used to be that every gun-humper and armchair general could see the full might of the American military be brought down upon on a foreign horde of heathens as revenge for what they did to the American people on 9/11. Squadrons of A-10 Warthogs chewing up Baghdad with incendiary 30 mm Avenger autocannon rounds as M-1 Abrams rolled into the streets. It was disastrous for those people, be they combatants or civilians, in America’s crosshairs, but they can’t vote, can they.
What mattered was that it was maximalist, you could lean into supporting that as hard as you wanted to without your credibility breaking under the weight. Evangelicals, the Republican Party’s bedrock, supported the war more than any other demographic. But even the traditionally liberal Hollywood seemed to be profoundly effected. When Michael Moore was accepting an Oscar three days after the war began, his speech decrying it was met with booing from the audience. In this way, Bush was like Homelander, a man with the power of god that was only able to be cheered on or quietly dreaded.
This consensus is not the case anymore. Being a hardline Republican doesn't give one the luxury of going all in on the right wing drive for violence. Obviously these people want a war of some kind, none of them would be refraining from requesting defense budget cuts if that wasn’t the case. And far right Republicans are more than happy to openly advocate that there be more violence at home or even posture about inflicting it upon America’s neighbors. The problem is that they’re further constraining themselves with the domestic focus.
Who’s gonna carry out these demands? The military is woke now, the FBI locked up the people who tried to rightfully restore Trump to the presidency, Lockheed Martin has a post on their Facebook celebrating pride month, which means they want to come cut the genitals off your nephew who avoids you at family functions. Far right politicians asking that their own supporters be allowed to carry out fantasies that would involve more than one mile of walking. The violent libido can’t be satisfied unless you start supporting the same war as Joe Biden and Globohomo or take the massive leap of supporting the other side of that war being fought by a country you statistically never been to and probably can’t find on a map.
All this pent up rage that exists on the right with no release valve seems like a recipe for some kind of fascist coup or at least wide spread domestic terrorism. Is the American right’s drive for violence not being satisfied going to create a late Weimar political situation? Many seem to think so; I saw a tweet the other day about the state wide manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante, a Brazilian national who murdered his ex-girlfriend in Pennsylvania and escaped from prison. This tweet was quoting a video of showing an elated family loading their car up with assault rifles in so they could all hunt for Cavalcante. The tweet itself said: “the wehrmacht is dead but the spirit of bloodthirsty methheads with god complexes lives on through the degenerate sadists of the american petit bourgeoisie”.
This tweet irked me, not because it was being ungenerous, but because it was being too generous in describing the type of person that seeks out violence in this way. Say what you will about the Wehrmacht, but one thing that defined them was that they actually trained and followed a fairly rigid command structure based on set objectives. The Wehrmacht didn’t just let you go to the Eastern Front for a couple hours to hunt partisans and then leave, there was a uniform to put on, and there was a very good chance those partisans would actually be shooting back. Fear mongering over the average American gun-nut’s appetite for violence is lending them far too much credit. We don’t get to experience the American Wehrmacht at home, that’s for other countries. We’re stuck with the Waffle Freikorps.
During the Iraq War, some US soldiers kept portraits of Erwin Rommel in their tanks. Rommel is arguably the most palatable Nazi, not opposing Hitler but still being politically apathetic enough to get indirectly tied up in the plot to overthrow him and being forced to commit suicide by Hitler himself. Most importantly however, Rommel was objectively competent, and skillfully commanded the Wehrmacht’s impressive Panzer force in North Africa.
George Bush (either one this time, they loved Rommel during the Gulf War) took the technical aspects that made Nazi Germany effective in some ways, and combined them with American values of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to create a well oiled machine for war on the ground and at home. I’m not even just talking about Rommel anymore when I say ‘Bush made use of Nazi technicals’. You look at what Prescott Bush was up to in the 40s, and try to say it’s just the tanks. Similar to Bush, we learn in the second season of The Boys that Homelander is the result of Nazi scientists who were brought to America and experimented on children so that they could create the perfect soldier.
American violence will continue overseas, that’s inevitable for the near future. But unlike in years previous, no large group of people will get to fully indulge in this carnage and extract political value from it. Boots aren’t on the ground in Ukraine, confrontation with China only exists at sea for now with no blood being shed yet, and who cares about the air strikes in Somalia. The only conflict that I could see getting that blood pumping is if America completely cut against its Turkish NATO ally and started supporting Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan as Russia proves that it can’t assert authority over the Caucuses as much as it once did.
Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity in the world all the way back in 301, and Armenians are facing ethnic cleansing by Muslim Azerbaijani forces. Under better circumstances this could be the issue that Republicans use to keep some of their mobilizing cultural capital that existed during the Bush era. But this is basically infeasible, I’m sure the State Department would like Armenia to drift away from Russia, but what would end up being risked by angering Turkey outweigh whatever could be gained from symbolism.
And that’s really the heart of it, isn’t it? The Bush era is long gone, and with it the efficiency with which it used culture war and regular war to gather support. It remains to be seen how the current GOP policy of culture war turns out, but the results haven’t been great so far. Who knows what will end up happening, setting a meaningful foreign policy agenda for Republicans relies on control of the White House, unless the party wants to go all in running on isolationism, but that’s a hard ask. Whatever comes next, the glory days are gone, and Republicans would be smart to focus on other areas of growth at this point.
