A Republican Candidate Expert in Foreign Affairs?

The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…” https://goo.gl/xGfqPs . This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.

The volatility of the Middle East has taken American politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.

Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? 

The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing with these details daily and is fluent in them.

The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa .

In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.

In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light of challenges arising from foreign affairs.

As Republicans turn their attention to primary season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.

Art of the Deal and Effective Leadership: Trump vs. Santorum

Donald Trump, they say, channels anger. I think it’s a fair assessment. His supporters might just say that it’s part of the “Art of the Deal.” Channeling anger, however, is not how one forges the kind of alliances that are necessary to get things done in Washington. Trump comes across as if he thinks he can bully his way through Washington to “make America great again.”

Lions need a pride

To be sure, Republicans are tired of their leaders being so sheep-like; gone are the days that a House Speaker (namely, Paul Ryan) might be forgiven for backing the Obama spending bill of 2015. Republicans are eager to rally around the lion’s roar, and they hunger for red meat. I think this explains much of the Trump appeal.

Yet, Republicans need to understand that Trump tactics, no matter how taut he ratchets up the rhetoric, will be met with fierce Democrat resistance. Trump may divinely pronounce “Let there be light,” but he’ll need some Democrat help in flipping the switch. Things simply do not happen in America by presidential fiat. Trump’s art of the deal with leave America in the dark.

Alliances are necessary to make America great again

This approach to the “art of the deal” stands in stark contrast with the more considered and effective approach seen in Santorum’s storied career as a legislator. I was watching a Senate floor debate from 2003 between Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton (Santorum-Clinton-Harkin Partial Birth Abortion Debate ). I was impressed with Santorum’s “art of the deal” tactics which graced the debate. He did not call Hillary an idiot or Tom Harkin ignorant. He did not appeal to the basest of our red-meat cravings. Yet, in the end, he managed to forge the kinds of allegiances with enough Democrats to pass the ban, thus correcting a bad ruling by the Supreme Court.

In the debate, I was impressed at how gracious Santorum was in “sharing” his time with Clinton and Harkin, and how he showed that he understood their point by restating their concerns. He made rhetorical concessions when he could and was regularly deferential. He did not throw down gauntlets and get red in the face. Yet he consistently stood his ground, and did so on substance. This is real “art of the deal” material.

Santorum shows that he is a faithful negotiator. His opponents see him as respectful, and this makes for the kind of environment which promotes cooperation. This makes for effective leadership.