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. I have three parts remaining before I reveal how the Republican candidates have scored so far.
It ties in well with the previous categories of immigration and trade, but to me foreign policy 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, and it works out that my two “America First” candidates go first.
Matthew Morris (House)
At the tail end of his issues page, Matthew thunders, “We have to put an end to Globalist interests that are taking away from the American Dream, and that starts with putting AMERICA FIRST.” I just wish I knew what he meant: does he agree in lockstep with my next aspirant?
Yet he has a softer side too, noting the other day his willingness to extend foreign aid to victims of disaster like the luckless people who were affected by the Beirut explosion.
Lauren Witzke (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.”
Lee Murphy (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.
James DeMartino (Senate)
In looking at DeMartino’s approach, I get the impression it’s “steady as she goes.”
I think he edges more toward the “world’s policeman” side, though. While he begins by saying, “We must continually maintain the strongest, best equipped and trained military in the world,” he then notes, “As a country, we must provide world leadership to protect human rights worldwide and reduce the horrific occurrence of human trafficking.”
It seems to me dealing with human trafficking is a job for law enforcement, a place where international cooperation would do us good. But is that enough of a priority that it gets mentioned so prominently?
He adds, “We must support our allies around the world and continue to strengthen our bonds of freedom, democracy and humanity with Israel.” I can agree with that one.
I also believe I heard James extolling his military and legal background as being advantageous for dealing with treaties, which indeed is a Senate job in the rare case they get one to address. So there is that, too.
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?