The upcoming 2016 presidential election is being overshadowed, rightfully so, by the midterm elections that are taking place on Tuesday. But we cannot ignore important developments being made in the presidential nominee sphere. We’re seeing many of the Republican candidates such as Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) start to fight over being labeled the next foreign policy wonk. These gentlemen all have conflicting views on foreign policy and we should take the time to break them down, as foreign policy is a hot button issue in the U.S. political world leading up to the 2016 election.

Jindal and Rubio are both taking the pretty simplistic “neo-con” approach to foreign policy. Neo-conservatives were the new conservatives who rose up in the late 80s. They believe in aggressive American policy that fights for Democracy. Rubio has been trying to grab this label for months, often making incredibly bombastic and jingoistic speeches where he will use a lot of buzzwords. This calls for an assertive America on the geopolitical scale and generally considers use of the US military an option on the table.

I’m not a fan of this view; it’s wasteful, incredibly arrogant as it assumes that our opponents have no agency, greatly inflates the power of the U.S. and assumes that the president is some sort of deity that can solve all issues. There isn’t much difference in what they say, between themselves or the neo-cons of the past like David Frum.

Cruz isn’t much different, though his take on foreign policy is generally a bit more informed. He actually recognizes that many Americans are war-weary, not willing to fight and die in conflicts across the globe. He stated on Sept. 29, “Is it true that the American people are war-weary? Absolutely… We are tired of sending our sons and daughters to distant lands year after year after year, to give their lives trying to transform foreign nations. But I think it’s a serious misreading of the American people to conclude that we are unwilling to defend ourselves, that we are unwilling to be strong and vigorous defending U.S. national security.”

Ted Cruz argues for interventionism but only when there is a clear strategic goal in mind. This isn’t a bad stance to take, though the US only intervenes generally when there is a clear strategic goal after Iraq.

I would like to be supportive of people like Paul, who openly admit that the neo-con strategy of bomb everyone hasn’t really worked out. Paul promotes and supports a libertarian take on foreign policy which is generally very hands off and very attractive to younger voters. The problem is that Paul has a tendency to flip-flop on certain issues, especially foreign policy. The most recent example was when Paul stated that he would bomb ISIS after months of saying bombing was not the right political move. Many political analysts call Paul’s take on foreign policy naïve and in all honesty, it is. It makes large assumptions, is underspecified and Paul makes a case for American isolationism.

Foreign policy is such a complex topic that can’t be broken down into buzz words or a campaign slogan. It’s dealing with human beings on the level of nation-states, complete with the egos, baggage and deal-making that comes with talking to another person. It’s great that some Republicans are focusing on foreign policy in a time where issues like ISIS, Ebola, rising authoritarianism and Ukraine require competent foreign policy but I don’t think any of these four are ready to call themselves foreign policy wonks yet. I can’t wait to see more developments on the foreign policy side of the election as we get closer to 2016.

Rami Jackson is a junior entrepreneurship and policy studies major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @IsRamicJ.

Published on November 3, 2014 at 12:01 am