Here at Bloomberg.com, Ted Cruz correctly explains to readers:
Qaddafi was a bad man, he had a horrible human rights record. And yet…he had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism. … We have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war. … Rubio and Clinton are repeating the very same mistake they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.
Bloomberg.com notes that while Rubio favors a democracy-spreading “Wilsonian” view of foreign policy, Cruz embodies a narrower “Jacksonian” view. In a recent article for The Atlantic, political science professor Peter Beinart explained the Jacksonian philosophy: “They don’t like spending money or sending troops abroad. They don’t see free trade, let alone mass immigration, as unambiguously good. They don’t believe that American security depends on democratizing far-off lands, something they suspect is impossible. And when there’s a crisis in some other part of the world, their first reaction is likely to be: Why can’t the countries over there handle it? A notable proponent of the Jacksonian outlook, Beinart noted, is Republican front-runner Donald Trump.”
Regarding Marco Rubio’s foreign policy views, Cruz told Bloomberg that he views Rubio’s stance as “military adventurism” that has benefited Islamic militant groups. Cruz even tied Rubio to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Ted Cruz’s decision-making test on military action would be about whether there’s a “real threat” to American security. On foreign policy, Cruz said he will employ a simple test: “How does it keep America safe?”
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Is Nikolas Cruz a Product of America’s Moral Decomposition? - February 16, 2018
- France 2017: Smallest Wine Crop in Fifty Years - February 16, 2018
- More Guns, Less Crime - February 16, 2018