Some might find it absurd to say that Ron Paul has a “Reaganesque” foreign policy. The man himself has never made any such claim. But it is far less absurd to note the similarities between the 40th president’s foreign policy and the views of the Texas congressman than it is for Paul’s hawkish critics to continue claiming the exclusive rights to Reagan’s legacy. In fact, Republicans who still refuse to show the slightest hint of regret for the Iraq War or our continued presence in Afghanistan would be fairly alien to the ever-reflective Reagan. And when Republican hawks wax nostalgic for the Gipper’s “bold” and “muscular” foreign policy, most of what they remember is fantasy — as Reagan’s characteristic aversion to committing troops was far closer to Paulian prudence than Bushian recklessness.
Let’s examine Reagan’s actual foreign policy record. Writing for Foreign Policy magazine, journalist Peter Beinart has noted:
Today’s conservatives have conjured a mythic Reagan who never compromised with America’s enemies and never shrank from a fight. But the real Reagan did both those things, often. In fact, they were a big part of his success … Sure, Reagan spent boatloads — some $2.8 trillion all told — on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahedeen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom — the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm’s way — Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war — the 1986 bombing of Libya — was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns — in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) — each of which dwarfed Reagan’s Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?
Former American Conservative Union chairman and current National Rifle Association President David Keene has compared Reagan’s reluctance to put troops in harm’s way with other presidents and today’s Republican hawks:
He resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office … After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?
“Backing away”? Why, heaven’s no! Real “Reagan conservatives,” as they love to tell us, are committed to any fight, anywhere, for any reason and even for no reason in particular (Sen. John McCain and Libya).
The problem with this narrative is that the actual Reagan wasn’t anything like this.
Reagan admitted that the worst mistake of his entire presidency was his decision to commit troops in Lebanon, and he thought American efforts in that part of the world would always be severely limited by the region’s political and cultural realities. Whereas both Presidents Bush and Obama embrace the Wilsonian notion that America can help transform parts of the Middle East into democracies, Reagan took a decidedly more conservative approach, or as Paul described in 2005: “We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region.”
Paul recalled Reagan’s reassessment of our involvement in Lebanon in an effort to get America to rethink its current overall involvement in the Middle East. Yet, anytime Paul applies a cost/benefit analysis to our foreign policy or suggests diplomacy is preferable to war, he is roundly denounced by Republican hawks as weak or naïve.
Many of these hawks had the same attitude toward Reagan. Beinart writes:
Nothing compared with the howls of outrage that accompanied Reagan’s dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow’s imprisonment of an American journalist, [Norman] Podhoretz accused him of having “shamed himself and the country” in his “craven eagerness” to give away the nuclear store … When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain.
Fear-mongering about the ever-present “next Hitler”? Suggesting that diplomacy makes one Neville Chamberlain? These are absurd accusations with which Congressman Paul is familiar. Apparently, so was Reagan.
Perhaps Senator Rand Paul put it best in a speech he delivered in June:
If, for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme … Likewise, if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world — well, that would be the other polar extreme … But what about a foreign policy of moderation? A foreign policy that argues that — maybe we could be somewhere some of the time?
Senator Paul added: “Reagan’s foreign policy was one in which we were somewhere, some of the time, in which the missions were clear and defined and there was no prolonged military conflict — and this all took place during the Cold War.”
What Rand Paul describes is far closer to what his father believes than what most of today’s Republican hawks believe. It is also closer to Reagan’s actual foreign policy.
Despite these examples, it would still be absurd to claim that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are identical to Ronald Reagan’s. But it is far more absurd for Paul’s foreign policy critics to continue claiming Reagan’s legacy as their own. That this is a fiction hawks will continue to find useful is undeniable.
So is the fact that it is fiction.
Jack Hunter writes at the “Paulitical Ticker,” where he is the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign blogger.
