Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Ted Cruz Banks on Foreign Policy as His 2016 Differentiator

  1. #1

    Ted Cruz Banks on Foreign Policy as His 2016 Differentiator

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...iator-20140928

    Ted Cruz is running for president. The only thing left for him to do is say so.

    According to sources close to the Texas senator, Cruz could be preparing for an end-of-year announcement and is now dedicating considerable time and effort to cultivating a foreign-policy foundation that might help his candidacy stand out in what is guaranteed to be a crowded field.

    "At this point it's 90/10 he's in," one Cruz adviser said. "And honestly, 90 is lowballing it."

    The senator's choreography since arriving in Washington has long pointed to a presidential run. His office meticulously documents the details of his meetings and events to guard against opposition research. He has aggressively pursued visits to important primary states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Late last month Cruz hired three prominent consultants with experience in national campaigns and extensive contacts in early nominating states. And he recently moved his chief of staff, Chip Roy, from his congressional office to the campaign operation, sending the clearest signal yet to allies inside and outside the Capitol that a bid for the White House is imminent.

    Cruz's allies in the conservative movement have long obsessed over the timing of his decision. The senator told some supporters earlier this year that he planned to decide by the end of 2014, lending added gravity to every new hire and early-state visit.

    But while those allies monitor movement on the surface, perhaps more consequential than any addition to his staff or speech in Iowa is his crafting of a foreign policy portfolio designed to draw sharp contrasts—not just against Democratic opponents, but potential GOP rivals as well.

    Indeed, ever since he played an instrumental role in last year's government shutdown, Cruz has narrowed his agenda to focus on international affairs, both as an avenue to raise his profile among GOP donors and to pivot away from his reputation as a conservative kamikaze bent on wreaking havoc inside the halls of Congress. It's an abrupt evolution for someone who ran for Congress just two years ago on abolishing Obamacare and extinguishing comprehensive immigration-reform efforts.

    But now, with the "entire world on fire," as Cruz says, and the Republican Party largely unified on matters of social and fiscal policy, the junior senator has made the calculation that global tumult affords him the best opportunity to stand apart from other probable contenders, in particular Rand Paul.

    "I have been very clear that, in my view, the 2016 election is the most important election of our lifetimes," Cruz told National Journal in a lengthy interview in his Senate office. "Our nation teeters on the brink of a precipice. And I believe 2016 will be an election like 1980 about two fundamentally different visions for America."



    It's no surprise that he wouldn't directly say whether a campaign is in the offing. But Cruz made clear he's waging a two-front messaging war on foreign policy, attacking President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their handling of foreign policy, while casting himself as a pragmatist who both understands the nation's war-weariness but is not afraid to use force to defend American interests abroad.

    "Is it true that the American people are war-weary? Absolutely," Cruz said. "We are tired of sending our sons and daughters to distant lands year after year after year, to give their lives trying to transform foreign nations. But I think it's a serious misreading of the American people to conclude that we are unwilling to defend ourselves, that we are unwilling to be strong and vigorous defending U.S. national security."

    Cruz's foreign policy approach starts with soft power—pushing tougher sanctions on Iran and Russia, for instance, and using fierce rhetoric to undermine the legitimacy of unfriendly governments. Cruz, whose office features an enormous painting of Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate, says rhetoric should be paramount in American foreign policy. "It's a critical responsibility of the president of the United States to speak out as a clarion voice for freedom," Cruz said.

    As for the conditions for use of force, Cruz appears ready to deploy the U.S. military, but not in a nation-building or occupation capacity, a position his team likely calculates as a poll winner, considering Americans' dissatisfaction with unsuccessful efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "If and when military action is called for, it should be A) with a clearly defined military objective, B) executed with overwhelming force, and C) when we're done we should get the heck out," he said. "I don't think it's the job of our military to engage in nation-building. It is the job of our military to protect America and to hunt down and kill those who would threaten to murder Americans. It is not the job of our military to occupy countries across the globe and try to turn them into Democratic utopias."

    While Cruz predictably saves his strongest criticism for Obama and Clinton—tying them together by repeatedly tagging the current White House approach as an "Obama-Clinton foreign policy"—he spends considerable time contrasting his positions with those of his likely rivals. In fact, Cruz's desire to exploit Paul's perceived weakness on foreign policy has in large part driven the Texas senator's brand-building strategy thus far. It's certainly what has led Cruz to focus early and often on establishing friends in the pro-Israel community of voters and donors, which remains wary of the libertarian from Kentucky.

    Cruz has never been shy about showing solidarity with the Jewish state. (It backfired recently when he walked off stage to the sound of booing at an event for persecuted Middle East Christians after telling attendees they had "no greater ally" than Israel.)

    Cruz has made three trips to Israel in less than two years in office. He has referenced the country thousands of times on the Senate floor, according to the Congressional Record. He has even begun meeting privately with Jewish leaders and advocacy groups during recent trips to early primary states. To leave no doubts, Cruz welcomes visitors to his personal office with a large, framed photograph of himself, his wife, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Sources close to Cruz say much of this is meant to exploit the anxiety within the pro-Israel movement about Paul, who once echoed his father in suggesting an end to Israeli foreign aid. Paul has been laboring to repair relations with Jewish leaders. But Cruz allies, confident that "they aren't buying it," say the Texas senator has contacted some of the same parties to emphasize his commitment to their cause.

    "It's no accident that Cruz is sponsoring bill after bill, making speech after speech, about Israel and mentioning Israeli citizens and Israeli causes—all with Rand right there in the chamber," said one Cruz adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the senator's strategy.

    What makes this contrast so effective, of course, is how little daylight exists otherwise between Cruz and Paul. Both freshmen senators ran insurgent, tea-party-backed campaigns and have been heralded as leaders of the conservative movement. But as both maneuvered into position for presidential campaigns, something had to give. And in March, it did.

    "I'm a big fan of Rand Paul; he and I are good friends. I don't agree with him on foreign policy," Cruz said on ABC's This Week. "I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world, and I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad, but I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did."

    Cruz's opening volley—asserting that he and Paul are basically the same kind of conservative, save for Paul's views on foreign policy—launched something of a "Cold War" between the two offices, sources familiar with the situation said. The day following Cruz's comments on ABC, Paul wrote an op-ed for Breitbart.com that read: "Every Republican likes to think he or she is the next Ronald Reagan. Some who say this do so for lack of their own ideas and agenda.... What we don't need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers."

    Cruz isn't alone in attacking Paul. Other potential rivals, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also have poked at his foreign policy positions, leading Paul to pen a Time op-ed this month entitled, "I Am Not an Isolationist."

    When asked his opinion on that piece, Cruz smiled and took a long pause. "I will leave it to Rand Paul to characterize his own views," he said. A moment later, he added: "In the Senate there is a wide spectrum of views on foreign policy. On one end of the spectrum you have Rand Paul; on a very different end of the spectrum you have John McCain. Both have been forceful about their views on foreign policy. I would characterize my position as a third point on the triangle."

    Cruz calls this "the sweet spot." By his own calculation, Republican voters who soured on endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan drifted in recent years from McCain's pole toward Paul's but are suddenly reconsidering that move after seeing American journalists murdered by jihadists.

    Cruz's foreign policy profile captures this conflict. In one breath he says, "It is not the job of our military to occupy countries across the globe and try to turn them into Democratic utopias," and in the next he calls the Islamic State "the face of evil" and argues they must be defeated with overwhelming military force. These principles are not inherently in conflict, but as many presidents have come to realize, they are often difficult to marry.

    While the "sweet spot" Cruz aims to carve might provide a presidential candidate some political refuge, it will be temporary. In 2016, as voters recognize a world that looks increasingly insecure, Cruz will be asked to answer a fundamental question: Should the president consider putting American boots on Mideast soil?

    "We should do whatever is necessary," Cruz said slowly, "to protect this country."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Cruz has succeeded in convincing a large number of people across the spectrum that he is the most 'conservative' candidate. He will be a huge thorn in the side if he runs, I see no reason why he cannot win Iowa. Santorum won it, and he was far less respected by conservatives than Cruz is.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Cruz has succeeded in convincing a large number of people across the spectrum that he is the most 'conservative' candidate. He will be a huge thorn in the side if he runs, I see no reason why he cannot win Iowa. Santorum won it, and he was far less respected by conservatives than Cruz is.
    You might be right, although the electability argument is going to hurt him a lot. He fairs worse in the polls against Hillary Clinton than any other Republican. A large number of Republican voters are still pretty pragmatic voters.

  5. #4
    So I guess some anonymous member keeps feeling the need to give every single one of my threads one star. Lol.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    You might be right, although the electability argument is going to hurt him a lot. He fairs worse in the polls against Hillary Clinton than any other Republican. A large number of Republican voters are still pretty pragmatic voters.
    Potentially winning Iowa will be bad enough. Cruz may be able to tap into the talk radio type of voters nationally, who did not rally around anyone in particular in 2012. Ted is considered by many to be the toughest on the border issue, although I think they are mistaken.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Potentially winning Iowa will be bad enough. Cruz may be able to tap into the talk radio type of voters nationally, who did not rally around anyone in particular in 2012. Ted is considered by many to be the toughest on the border issue, although I think they are mistaken.
    Do you think he would have any chance at all to win a general election against Hillary? He seems like he would be completely unelectable to me. He may be seen as a Michelle Bachman type candidate.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Do you think he would have any chance at all to win a general election against Hillary?
    No, but neither does anyone else except perhaps Rand in my opinion. So it's kind of a moot point. But that's a long time from now, who knows what may change.


    He seems like he would be completely unelectable to me. He may be seen as a Michelle Bachman type candidate.
    Hopefully, but I fear he may last longer than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  9. #8
    I'm going to post this as it is relevant. It is no longer online, so no need to post a link. My main disagreement is that I would place Bush under Wilsonian.


    Frequently Asked Questions about Walter Russell Meade’s Spectrum
    Or
    What the Hell is a Jacksonian?

    Intro


    Walter Russell Meade has postulated an interesting set of definitions for the American political landscape, at least as far as the foreign policy arena goes. Rather than using the traditional left/right, Democratic/Republican models, he’s worked out four schools of “American” foreign policy thought, named after influential American statesmen who epitomize the principles of those schools. In brief, they are:

    - Jacksonian
    - Hamiltonian
    - Jeffersonian
    - Wilsonian

    All four of these schools of thought have had significant impacts in the larger world. Major international organizations derive from these fundamentally American ideals.

    So, what are these schools, and what do they represent?

    Jacksonian
    The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own. Looking for a Jacksonian President? Ronald Reagan was very much a Jacksonian, as is our current President, George W. Bush.


    Hamiltonian
    Hamiltonian doctrine is really the doctrine that pushes the economic primacy of the United States. Hamiltonians believe that a fundamental link between the government and big business is key to the survival and success of the country. They are, however, realists who believe that the US is at best primus inter pares among other nations. As a result, they believe that the US is best served by international organizations that protect fundamentally American interests. If you're looking for Hamiltonian legacies, look at things like the IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, and the WTO. Hamiltonians believe that the US should be integrated into the global economy on the most favorable terms possible, and that this above all else drives the success of the American system. Well known Hamiltonians include George H. W. Bush, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Bill Clinton.
    One common misconception to be ware of is that Hamiltonian thinkers are essentially identical to the realpolitik-driven upper crust of European society. While the socialization is superficially the same, the results on this side of the Atlantic are quite different. In the common European view, national interest was most often viewed in terms of a military balance of power. In the Anglo-American Hamiltonian view, however, national interest is best served by preventing the rise of a single hostile power able to unify the opposition, while strong expeditionary forces and a similarly-strong international trading environment are used to provide the muscle of the nation's defense.

    Jeffersonian
    Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against* international agreements, rather than for them.
    If you had to look for a fundamentally Jeffersonian institution, look no further than the ACLU. For a Jeffersonian, an organization like that stands on the front lines of the battle to protect American democracy. There really aren't any Jeffersonian presidents in the 20th century. The Libertarian Party, however, is a fundamentally Jeffersonian organization.

    Wilsonian
    Wilsonians believe that both the moral and national interests of the United States are best served by spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world. They want to see the U.S. involved on a worldwide basis with a peaceful international community based on the rule of law. Want a Wilsonian organization? Look no further than the United Nations, perhaps the *quintessentially Wilsonian creation.
    An interesting point to note is that Wilsonian values are a fundamentally American conceit, yet they have been adopted wholeheartedly by many of the ruling political organizations in Europe, especially by those most passionately interested in furthering the European Union.
    Wilsonian tendencies have run through American foreign policy thought since long before Woodrow Wilson took office. The tens of thousands of missionaries sent abroad from the US in the 19th century, for example, are an exemplar of Wilsonian thinking. American Presidents have often been guided by Wilsonian thought, too. Jimmy Carter was obviously a Wilsonian. But so was McKinley when he used missionary thinking to justify annexing the Philippines. Wilsonian views are also widely held in Great Britain, where the new version of the Labor Party and it's head, Tony Blair, exemplify Wilsonian thinking.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Ted Cruz is the GOP's version of Obama:

    Minority?... check
    Supported by Goldman Sachs?... check
    Supported by AIPAC?... check
    Supported by MSM?...check
    Supported by grassroots?...check

    Meet the GOP's own Barack Hussein Obama. Ted Rafael Cruz.

  12. #10
    I wonder if Cruz would pick Paul as his VP

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    I wonder if Cruz would pick Paul as his VP
    Most likely it would be his advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Most likely it would be his advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
    Yeah, or someone else establishment.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Republican Foreign Policy
    By Unregistered1 in forum Guest Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 10:36 PM
  2. John McCain talks up Cruz, Christie & Bush for President; Says Cruz Loves His Foreign Policy
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 07:52 AM
  3. Opinion: On Banks and Foreign Policy, Ron Paul is Right
    By sailingaway in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 05:35 AM
  4. Opinion: On Banks and Foreign Policy, Ron Paul is Right
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 05:35 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •