It was showtime
in the Republican debate last night in Las Vegas. Hysteria was the coin
of the table.
Carpet-bomb ISIS. Take out Assad. Destroy Iran. Shoot
down Russian planes. Launch cyberwar against China. Expand the Army,
Navy, Air Force; modernize nuclear weapons on land, sea and air. Spy on
everyone. Build walls, close the doors on refugees. The only thing we
have to fear is insufficient fear itself.
CNN marketed
hysteria to promote last night’s debate. And, in the wake of Paris and
San Bernardino, it isn’t surprising the Republican candidates rose to
the bait.
Stuff and
nonsense abounded. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “betrayed America.”
(Chris Christie). America’s military has been “destroyed.” (Marco Rubio)
Ted Cruz seems to think that “radical Islamic terrorism” would be
dramatically impacted if only the president would “utter its name.”
Marco Rubio argues that there were “no alternative groups to be
reinforced” in Syria because the “president led from behind.” [Rubio is
the master of uttering utter nonsense with glib authority.]
Carly
Fiorina argues we’d have caught the Tsarnaev brothers who attacked the
Boston Marathon except we were using the “wrong algorithms.” Chris
Christie suggests that the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is somehow like
McArthur on the bridge. Kasich wants a “massive” invasion of Syria,
while “punching Russia in the nose.” Christie promises to shoot down
Russian airplanes. Fiorina promises not to talk with Vladimir Putin
until she rebuilds the Sixth Fleet, among many other preconditions.
Rand Paul, who
remarkably was a voice of relative reason most of the night, got it
right. He skewered Christie’s inanity about shooting down Russian planes
with “I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your
candidate.”
Jeb Bush, who
was the only candidate willing to take on Donald Trump directly,
delivered a prepared but good line: Calling Trump the “chaos candidate,”
he quipped, “Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to
the presidency. That’s not going to happen.”
Only that could easily apply to the whole gaggle.
The Trump Effect
Trump was
better than normal at first, but faded over time as he often does. Bush
challenged him directly, but the other candidates largely directed their
fire at one another rather than the front-runner.
Jeb’s gibe that Trump
gets his briefings “from the shows” hit home as Trump clearly had no
clue about what the nuclear triad was when he was asked which arm
(bombers, submarines or land missiles) he would “modernize” first.
Preening like the teacher’s favorite at the front of the class, Rubio
then explained what the triad was and, characteristically, argued that
all of it had to be modernized, as if the U.S. didn’t already have more
nuclear weapons than needed to blow up the world.
Trump is an
ignorant bigot. But there is no question that he sets the tone, and his
rivals scramble to catch up. He pledges to build a wall, and now all of
them dutifully call for strengthening the “fence.”
He wants to halt
admission of any non-American Muslims temporarily. And now more and more
call for a “pause” or shutting off refugees from anywhere ISIS or al
Qaeda operate. He promises to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS. And now they
all strain to be tougher than thou. Trump leads the race to the bottom
in the Republican campaign, but his rivals are intent on keeping pace.
Regime Change
In the midst of
the hyperbole, a serious debate managed to break out. Rand Paul argued
forcefully that the bipartisan excitement about toppling dictators – in
Iraq, in Libya and now in Syria – has had calamitous results, leading to
failed states, violence and chaos in which terrorist groups like ISIS
can thrive. “Out of regime change you get chaos,” Paul argued, “from the
chaos you have seen repeatedly the rise of radical Islam.” Paul was
backed by Trump, and Cruz. They argue, in Trump’s sensible words, “that
we should do one thing at a time.” Take on ISIS first, and not push to
dislodge Assad.
Implicitly, although none would say it, form a
partnership with Russia, Syria, Iran and our Sunni and European allies
to destroy ISIS, rather than fighting against both sides of a complex
civil war.
Against this,
Rubio, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina offered bluster. America could take
on ISIS, Assad, Iran, Russia and China if only it had a president who
would not “lead from behind,” who believed in America. “All of our
wounds can be healed,” Fiorina promised, “by a tested leader who is
willing to fight for the character of our nation,” whatever the hell
that means.
Prudence
generally does not fare well against bluster and muscle flexing. But
last night, the hearty viewers who survived the first hour got a dose of
common sense amid the posturing. The media reviews suggest that Rubio
got the best of Cruz in their exchanges. But I suspect Cruz will fare
well among conservatives – and may have, alas, greater reach among
independents – with his arguments about “focusing on the bad guys” both
at home rather than trampling the privacy of “innocent Americans, and
abroad rather than “getting distracted” by thinking we can spread
democracy by dropping a few bombs.
Who Won and Who Lost
Rand Paul was
forceful and clear for much of the night, but is going nowhere. Fiorina
and Kasich, as Trump would say, “don’t matter.” Carson continues to
appear lost on the stage.
Bush had a
relatively strong night, willing to go after and stand up to Trump, but
it is likely too late for him. Christie was the most bellicose and the
most disingenuous. He might get another look in New Hampshire.
Of the leaders,
Trump’s ignorance was exposed once more, but then it always is and
hasn’t mattered. Rubio was glib as always, silver-tongued despite his
five o’clock shadow and his dry mouth. But he comes off as callow and
thin, confidently saying things that simply aren’t true out of ignorance
or dishonesty. Cruz’s filibusters were irritating, and his face is a
cartoonist’s dream. He is almost universally hated by his colleagues,
but he emerges from this debate stronger than ever.
As always, the
first casualty of the debate was the truth. The fact is that America has
the most powerful military in the world. Our domestic security
capacities are greater than ever. Our intelligence agencies suffer from
collecting too much data not too little. Our allies get a free ride. We
lack not weaponry but wisdom. We suffer from the bipartisan presumption
that we are the indispensable nation able to police the world. We will
control the Persian Gulf, press NATO to the borders of Russia, surround
China with troops and fleets, intervene constantly in far corners of the
world and then be constantly surprised at the blowback.
Republicans
scorn the real and present threat of catastrophic climate change, even
as its cost in lives and resources soars. We have a debate on national
security without even mention of the global stagnation that now
threatens a return to global recession or worse. These candidates bray
about spending more on a military that is the most powerful in the world
while—other than Donald Trump –ignoring the reality that we aren’t
making the investments at home vital to our economy and society.
It remains to be seen which candidate, if any, benefits from the dustup. But we already know that the Republic fared poorly.
