It is not a surprise that the Weekly Standard publicized Marco Rubio’s statements about foreign policy. The Weekly Standard is looking for a Republican champion and, if Rubio doesn’t come through, they will be stuck with another Bush. I suppose they could try to recruit Ted Cruz, but I think Cruz’s loyalty to the Constitution makes him an unlikely advocate of empire, even if he is not as vocal on the issues as Rand Paul is known for.
Here’s the summary from Mediaite:
He pivoted to foreign policy, defining the threats faced by the United States. He said that China is threatening to take parts of the South China Sea which would limit trade and threaten America’s allies, a nuclear North Korea is testing missiles, Venezuela is slaughtering protesters, and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship. He added that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and regional hegemony and Russia is attempting to “reconstitute” the former Soviet Union.
“And by the way, what do all these countries have in common?” he asked. “These are totalitarian governments.”
“There is only one nation on earth capable of rallying and bringing together the free people on this planet to stand up to the spread of totalitarianism,” Rubio said. “The United Nations cannot do this. In fact, they cannot do anything.”
“We cannot ignore that the flawed foreign policy of the last few years has brought us to this stage, because we have a president who believed but by the sheer force of his personality he would be able to shape global events,” Rubio asserted. “We do not have the luxury of seeing the world the way we hope it would be. We have to see the world the way it is. And we have to address these issues before they grow unmanageable, and they threaten, not just our freedoms, but our economy.”
Here is the bottom line for me as a conservative. I am opposed to government planning of the economy and I believe that government control of cradle-to-grave care of the citizenry would be disastrous. It couldn’t work. It wouldn’t work. And Federal Government attempting any such project violates the Constitution’s limits.
How can I claim this and at the same time claim that the United States is capable of managing all the countries of the world and turning them into peaceful partners? How can I fight the growing national debt that we need to fund a global army (borrowing money from the very people we claim are threatening us)? How can I demand lower taxes when we have to finance a military that is capable of doing the things that Rubio wants done? How can I advocate the end of the Federal Reserve when it was the Federal Reserve that made possible our entry into World War I and is the only way we can keep our war machine going today?
If we are competent to rule the planet then we will, as Obama has threatened, be competent to engage in “nation building at home.”
If Rubio’s vision is accurate, then he should just admit that the Constitution is outdated and that we need to become a highly taxed highly indebted, highly regimented society. The NSA stays in place. The TSA continues to expand.
Yet, even Cuba, though it is the closest threat mentioned, is not actually a threat to the security of the United States.
I am not willing to give up my quest for a constitutional republic because trade in the South China Sea might get reduced. I don’t want to extend tyranny at home in the name of fighting it abroad.
It isn’t even a hard decision.