Varieties of Republican Foreign Policy, 2023 ed.

"Cheney in heels" sums it up

In Politico, I write

The latest Republican presidential debate showed clear divisions but also one deep truth: The leading figures in the GOP have moved firmly and fully past a commitment to cooperation at home with Democrats or abroad with allies and antagonists.

One set of presidential aspirants argue for a starkly militarist, unilateral form of engagement with the world. The other set sees the United States as needing to retreat, at a minimum to deal with China and at a maximum to turn the country into a fortress. Notably, all of them adopted belligerent rhetoric with calls sprinkled in to “finish the job” against Hamas, “take out” the Mexican cartels and “cut off the head of the snake” (Iran). It’s an approach that also reflects the sentiment of GOP voters. A recent CBS/YouGov poll showed that most Republicans believe it’s more important for the United States to be feared than loved.

Ultimately both the hawks and the isolationists can reasonably claim to represent the party’s true mantle. And history shows that under the right circumstances, the side that prevails in these party debates could, if they win next November, launch U.S. foreign policy on a trajectory that will endure for a generation.

More at the link!

I couldn’t figure out how to put it in the piece, but I think Ramaswamy’s jibe that Haley is “Cheney in heels” sums it up. The party isn’t going back to George H.W. Bush levels of internationalism any time soon; there’s no appetite for that. Instead, there’s a division between a sort of Trump-Buchananite and a Dubya-Rumsfeldite brand; in foreign policy attitudes terms, there’s no more cooperative internationalism, just militant internationalism and isolationism.