Marco Rubio’s “New” Foreign Policy Is Stuck In The Old World

Rubio has all but shattered his Tea Party credential. Now he is setting himself up as an alternative to Rand Paul and, he would claim, John McCain. He gave an “exclusive interview” to the Daily Beast to get them to campaign for him.

According to the headline, Rubio “slams both hawks and doves.” So I guess we’re supposed to see him as a third way.

“It has become starkly apparent to me that we lack any sort of strategic foreign policy view, and when I say ‘we,’ I mean the country in general but in particular the Republican Party,” Rubio told The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview Wednesday. “There’s this false choice between the labels ‘isolationist’ and ‘hawks.’ I think, frankly, those labels are obsolete in the foreign policy debates we now have. They have no applicability at all.”

Rubio laid out his vision in a detailed speech Wednesday morning at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. The senator is advocating an increase in foreign aid, diplomacy, trade, active engagement, and promotion of democracy and human rights abroad.

“The time has now come for a new vision for America’s role abroad, one that reflects the reality of the world we live in today,” he said in the speech.

The Rubio approach, a balanced foreign policy based on various tools, matches closely with what Hillary Clinton set forth as secretary of state in her vision of “smart power,” which was based on the idea that defense, diplomacy, and development should be equal pillars of U.S foreign policy. Rubio acknowledged the similarities but said he would be able to succeed where Clinton and the rest of the Obama team failed to follow through.

First of all, the American Enterprise Institute is Neo-Conservative.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton is a hawk and a warmonger. I think it destroys his claim to be different from both sides if he is going to admit that his views are much like hers. He’s just a hawk trying to rescue the hawks from the doves.

Thirdly, where is the money going to come from? Our “defense” is not only more expensive than the next ten militaries put together, but it is an unaccountable money pit. Foreign aid is basically a nice word for taxing or leveraging poor people in the United States to bribe rich people overseas. Foreign aid should simply be stopped for every country whether friend or foe. This isn’t just true for reasons of principle; it is true because we are a bankrupt country and we need to drastically and dramatically cut spending.

Rubio says his view “reflects the reality of the world we live in today.” No, it doesn’t; it pretends we are still in the boom times of the eighties and nineties. The reality is that we are broke and need to do some serious retrenchment and reform if we are to avoid becoming a long-term banana republic.

Rubio is living in the past.