This is the seventh part of a multi-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, foreign policy is worth 12 points.
This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.
Foreign policy ties in well with the previous categories of immigration and trade, but to me the subject is more than that. As long as we have troops in harm’s way, support of the military will be a key aspect of our desired policy as well as a stance that considers our interests first, not the vague wishes of some global organization. I’d like us to be a nation which treats its friends like royalty and isn’t afraid to spit in the eye of our enemies.
It’s perhaps not surprising that I have only received the most meaningful input from our Senatorial candidates since they have the most to do with foreign policy in terms of approving treaties and such. However, the House is important as well because they are supposed to have the power of the purse.
So let’s start on this road. As usual I am going by party beginning with the Republicans for House and Senate, respectively, then proceeding through the Libertarians, Independent Party of Delaware candidates, and finally the incumbent Democrats Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons for House and Senate, respectively.
Lee Murphy (R) (House)
I have gone through most of what I have seen from Lee and haven’t found a comment on the issue. I’m sure he has opinions to share, though. No points.
Lauren Witzke (R) (Senate)
Lauren is advocating for a very isolationist foreign policy, to wit: “Our military will be strengthened but used strictly for the defense of our nation at home. She will not support meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, and rejects regime change abroad. Foreign aid will be ended except in the events of natural disasters, and funds will be re-diverted towards Family Restoration efforts and American infrastructure.” Another way she puts it: ending the “forever wars.”
However, there is a contradiction there to something else she’s noted on social media: “Christianity is increasingly under attack in the United States and Europe. When I’m in the U.S. Senate, these attacks will not be taken lightly!” In the case of Europe, isn’t that meddling in their affairs?
Look, I’m actually for defunding the UN (and not our police departments, as she’s also written) but either you’re hands off or you’re the world’s policeman. Our foreign policy over the last 80 years or so has tended toward the latter thanks to our involvement in “entangling alliances” like NATO and others.
I give Lauren mad credit for one thing, though: she knows who the enemy is in more ways than one: “If Chris Coons and his Democrat allies weren’t busy crafting their fake ‘Russian Collusion’ narratives, our lawmakers could have focused on the real national threat from China, which has cost us not only the lives of 80,000 (at the time she wrote it, now closer to double that) Americans but untold trillions of dollars in economic damage.” 7 points out of 12.
David Rogers (L) (House)
Rogers holds the common libertarian view of isolationism, believing it was wrong for both George W. Bush to invade Iraq and Barack Obama to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya. “I believe in having a military that is strong enough for self defense,” he adds, “but I do not believe in continuing our imperialistic military doctrine.” I think that is a sound approach. 7.5 points out of 12.
Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)
Echoing the libertarian approach, she noted on social media about meddling in other countries, “It comes back to bite us in the ass.” We’re spending a fortune to be the world’s police force, she says, but would consider intervening if invited in. 7.5 points out of 12.
Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)
Believes we should foster world peace by embracing our diversity. Now that sounds bad, but at least she lives it as her social media has friends around the globe. I don’t agree with the approach but at least she’s not a hypocrite. 3.5 points out of 12.
Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)
Is quiet on the subject, at least as far as I know. No points.
Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)
The campaign of issue avoidance continues. No points.
Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)
It’s probably best he doesn’t include this on his issues page. No points.
House: Murphy 22.5, CSP 14, Rogers 13.5, LBR 3.5.
Senate: Witzke 36.5, Frost 23, Turley 6.5, Coons 1.
We are closing in on the final three categories in this federal sweepstakes. The next one I have is entitlements. Sure, the people want Social Security and Medicare fixed but have these fine folks spoken out about it?