Ron DeSantis’s nonexistent isolationism
Daniel DePetris
Responding to a questionnaire from Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) recently accused President Joe Biden of issuing “a blank check” to Ukraine over the war it is fighting against Russia.
DeSantis, widely regarded as an undeclared front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, suggested that this takes the United States too close to a direct confrontation with Russia. The actual U.S. objective, DeSantis said, should be a peace deal, not a Ukrainian military victory. “While the U.S. has many vital national interests … becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.”
DESANTIS VETTING PROCESS BEGINS IN EARNEST AS UKRAINE COMMENTS SCRUTINIZED
That line caused a huge furor inside and outside of the GOP. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legitimate to ask about the Biden administration’s policy of arming the Ukrainian military “for as long as it takes” and whether that policy is sustainable over the long run.
GOP presidential candidates are split on the topic. Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and ex-Vice President Mike Pence are staking their flags in the traditional Reaganite corner of the party. A defeat for Russian President Vladimir Putin, they argue, is not only a win for U.S. national security but a deterrent to other strongmen (including China’s Xi Jinping) who may be tempted to launch their own wars of aggression.
Others aren’t convinced of this line of reasoning. DeSantis is clearly skeptical of the current policy, believing the risk of getting into a tussle with the world’s largest nuclear-armed power isn’t worth enabling Ukraine’s maximalist military objectives. To be clear, even if one thinks Ukraine’s objectives are wholly justifiable on a moral level, as I do, they are nonetheless maximalist, given the blood, sweat, tears, and expense required to achieve them. And those goals could turn out to be impossible. Former President Donald Trump, who never had much sympathy with the Ukrainian political leadership anyway, is also solidly in this pool and would rather hand the entire problem off to the Europeans.
One can agree or disagree with each of these positions in good faith. Policy is debatable.
Facts, however, are not. And the fact is that just because someone happens to question the sustainability of Washington’s support to Kyiv or the U.S. interests involved, that doesn’t mean he or she is an isolationist. I’d wager that 90% of the people who invoke “isolationism” haven’t picked up a dictionary and read what this loaded word actually means. Here’s a definition from Merriam-Webster: “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.”
In other words, actual isolationists want nothing to do with international relations. Period. Alliances or even security partnerships wouldn’t exist under isolationist leadership. Trade relations would be cut off, with a country relying on itself to generate wealth and commerce. Embassies around the world would be downgraded, perhaps even closed.
Nobody of significance, and I repeat, nobody, in the foreign policy discussion is advocating this. There are no isolationists on or off Capitol Hill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), often castigated by his colleagues as the epitome of an isolationist, is in reality a noninterventionist who supports free trade and believes the U.S. should be doing a lot more diplomacy than it does right now.
And if Paul isn’t an isolationist, DeSantis, who is on record for strengthening U.S. military power in the Indo-Pacific to counter and contain China, certainly isn’t either.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.