To avoid long years in the political wilderness, Republicans should focus Wednesday’s first presidential-candidate debate on policy issues.
Whether they succeed, or whether the media concentrate only on Donald Trump’s whereabouts or breaking news in his many criminal prosecutions, remains to be seen.
For voters who still care about policy and governance, however, I offer some questions for the aspiring nominees.
The most fundamental inquiry is how the candidates see America’s proper place in the world.
To maintain our way of life here, with all the benefits of a vibrant economy and stable society, we need a strong position internationally.
If we are unable or unwilling to protect our national interests abroad, economically and politically, and our friends and allies, the state of the union will decline.
Candidates who miss the connection between a forward international posture and a vigorous society at home are irreparably flawed.
Ronald Reagan characterized his national-security vision as “Peace through strength.”
He saw that advancing US interests in a dangerous world was best accomplished by deterring our adversaries from aggression, making it clear their costs would be far higher than any foreseeable benefits.
Implicitly, of course, Reagan was prepared to use force to protect our interests and allies if deterrence failed. Otherwise, deterrence would have no credibility.
Accordingly, he oversaw a substantial, across-the board defense buildup, from increased nuclear capabilities to higher pay and benefits for servicemembers.
Today, Reagan would deplore the isolationist virus spreading among Republicans, including some of its presidential candidates.
He knew that, ultimately, a strong US military is the only sure way to protect and advance our interests and that our strength and alliance systems benefit not only ourselves but international peace and security generally.
This, in turn, fosters global stability and greater economic growth here and abroad.
Reagan did not think strong American defenses constituted doing favors for other countries or bearing their burdens for them.
He fully believed allies should meet their obligations to defend what NATO’s treaty calls “the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples.”
The most significant immediate tests of “Peace through strength” relate to Ukraine and Taiwan, although America and its friends also face countless other international threats.
Presidential candidates should be asked how they would respond to unprovoked aggression, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s imminent threat to Taiwan.
Russian belligerence threatens not only Ukraine but neighboring European NATO members, which are now gravely concerned.
Beijing is closely watching for signs of US weakness in Ukraine, which would undermine Taiwan’s ability to resist invasion or blockade.
Closely related is how candidates would handle Iran and North Korea, de facto partners in the Beijing-Moscow axis but also dangerous for their own nuclear-proliferation and terrorism threats, not merely as add-ons to their superpower patrons.
Importantly, the hard arithmetic of pursuing “Peace through strength” after many years of inadequate military spending is that defense budgets must be increased significantly.
With unchecked federal deficits threatening our economy and requiring major reductions in domestic spending, higher defense allocations mean even greater domestic cuts.
Sounder policies fostering economic growth can help, but candidates must accept that global threats justify dramatically higher military spending to increase warship construction, expand our combat-arms capabilities and do more in space, cyberspace and asymmetric warfare, defensively and offensively.
Candidates unwilling to face these hard realities don’t make the grade.
Finally, candidates should be asked how they will address China, this century’s existential threat to the West.
We need vigorous questioning at the debate over American strategy, and there is plenty of room for bold suggestions.
But one approach is clearly wrongheaded, disqualifying any candidate who adopts it.
It is simply false to say Europe, the Middle East, even the Western Hemisphere are lower priorities than East Asia and can, in effect, be ignored.
Wherever America downsizes or withdraws, our adversaries emerge.
We are engaged in a global struggle with the China-Russia axis, and we will win or lose on the global, not a regional, stage.
It would be a huge misfortune and significant missed opportunity if national-security questions at Wednesday’s debate received inadequate attention.
Let’s hope the candidates raise these issues even if the questioners do not.
John Bolton was national security adviser to President Donald Trump, 2018-’19, and US ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-’06.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
