Because DeSantis has adopted Trump’s foreign policy of appeasement, Reagan conservatives no longer can support him. Instead, they must look to other 2024 GOP presidential candidates.
The war for the Republican Party can best be understood as pitting Reaganites against Trumpsters.
Reaganites believe in fiscal responsibility, debt reduction, free trade, peace through strength, a proactive and assertive U.S. foreign policy, and honest, judicious administration of government.
Trumpsters believe in fiscal irresponsibility, debt expansion, protectionism, appeasement and retreat, a go-it-alone, hidebound U.S. foreign policy, and a chaotic and suspect administration of government.
Those of us who had supported Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for the 2024 presidential nomination had hoped that he would pick up the Reagan mantle, take the fight to Trump, and reclaim the Republican Party, so that, once again, we can enjoy conservative political victories and not the steady and mounting stream of political losses brought about by the Trumpsters.
DeSantis’s Statement. Alas, as we now know, through the release of DeSantis’s statement about Russia and Ukraine to MAGA political boss Tucker Carlson, it is not to be. DeSantis has revealed himself as a political disciple not of Reagan but of Trump.
Indeed, like his mentor, Donald Trump, DeSantis calls Russia’s illegal and horrific war on Ukraine a “territorial dispute” that is not a vital interest of the United States. And he warns against becoming “further entangled” in this “territorial dispute,” because it “distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.”
Of course, much the same could have been said, and was said, about Nazi Germany’s “territorial disputes” with Poland and Czechoslovakia.
But farsighted conservative leaders then (Winston Churchill, for instance) recognized that the attempted Nazi German subjugation of Europe was not a “territorial dispute”; it was an attempt to conquer and enslave other countries and other peoples.
The same is true today of Russia’s war on Ukraine: It is not a “territorial dispute.” It is a naked attempt by one country to conquer and subsume another. And, as every American president, Republican and Democrat, has recognized since at least the Second World War, the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Europe remains peaceful, stable, and free.
China. DeSantis points out that the United States must devote its efforts to “checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Community Party.”
This is true. But China is formally aligned with Russia and will draw either inspiration of perspiration from our success or failure in Ukraine.
After all “nothing succeeds like success. Countries respect the prerogatives of the strong or successful horse. Failure, by contrast, breeds more failure.
DeSantis doesn’t seem to understand this. Nor does he seem to realize that the United States needs allies to confront China. But how likely are the Europeans to help us confront China if we abandon them on Ukraine?
China has designs on Taiwan. Is that also a “territorial dispute” which DeSantis thinks we should avoid becoming “entangled” in? Certainly, the analysis that he applies to Ukraine applies as well to Taiwan, a fact that is not lost on the Communist leaders of China.
DeSantis says that “the Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a defacto alliance with China.”
But the historical record clearly shows that China and Russia have had a defacto alliance against America and the West for many years. DeSantis suggests that appeasing Russia in Ukraine will somehow make Russia nice again.
Really? Why would anyone think this, given Russia’s two decades of antagonism toward the United States?
Arming Ukraine. DeSantis says that we mustn’t provide Ukraine with F-16s and long-range missiles, because these would enable Ukraine to “engage in offensive operations beyond its borders.”
This, he warns, “would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict” and possible result in a “hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable,” he declares.
But aircraft and long-range missiles are needed to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Is DeSantis opposed to Ukraine winning and retaining its independence and sovereignty?
Moreover, how does Ukraine defeating Russia increase the likelihood of a hot war between Russia and the United States? If anything, the opposite is true, no?
A defeated and chastened Russia exhausted from its war in Ukraine is far less likely to confront the United States simply because it lacks the means and wherewithal to do so.
Escalation. Finally, DeSantis warns against “regime change” in Russia and an “escalation” of the war in Ukraine.
But the Ukrainians obviously are not fighting for “regime change” in Russia. They are fighting for their territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. And an “escalation,” or further war, is likely if Ukraine loses, not if it wins.
If Ukraine loses, then an emboldened Russia will seek to cause further mischief for the United States in Asia and the Middle East, even as it looks for new “spheres of influence” (read: territorial subjugation and conquest) within Europe.
DeSantis warns against a “blank check” for Ukraine, but it looks like he would give Putin a “blank check” in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Is that in the American national interest?
Conclusion. For these reasons, GOP voters who take foreign policy seriously cannot possibly support DeSantis for president in 2024.
Instead, they must look elsewhere: to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senator Tim Scott, and Vice President Mike Pence. These men and women appear to be Reagaites. DeSantis, unfortunately, is a Trumpster.
Feature photo credit: Trump and DeSantis, two peas in the same isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy pod, courtesy of Vanity Fair.
