Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: The
Republican Debate
By
Robert Borosage
December 16, 2015 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Campaign
for America's Future"
-
It
was showtime in the Republican debate
last night in Las Vegas. Hysteria was
the coin of the table. Carpet-bomb ISIS.
Take out Assad. Destroy Iran. Shoot down
Russian planes. Launch cyberwar against
China. Expand the Army, Navy, Air Force;
modernize nuclear weapons on land, sea
and air. Spy on everyone. Build walls,
close the doors on refugees. The only
thing we have to fear is insufficient
fear itself.
CNN marketed hysteria to promote last
night’s debate. And, in the wake of
Paris and San Bernardino, it isn’t
surprising the Republican candidates
rose to the bait.
Stuff and nonsense abounded. Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton “betrayed
America.” (Chris Christie). America’s
military has been “destroyed.” (Marco
Rubio) Ted Cruz seems to think that
“radical Islamic terrorism” would be
dramatically impacted if only the
president would “utter its name.” Marco
Rubio argues that there were “no
alternative groups to be reinforced” in
Syria because the “president led from
behind.” [Rubio is the master of
uttering utter nonsense with glib
authority.] Carly Fiorina argues we’d
have caught the Tsarnaev brothers who
attacked the Boston Marathon except we
were using the “wrong algorithms.” Chris
Christie suggests that the U.S. Attorney
in New Jersey is somehow like McArthur
on the bridge. Kasich wants a “massive”
invasion of Syria, while “punching
Russia in the nose.” Christie promises
to shoot down Russian airplanes. Fiorina
promises not to talk with Vladimir Putin
until she rebuilds the Sixth Fleet,
among many other preconditions.
Rand Paul, who remarkably was a voice of
relative reason most of the night, got
it right. He skewered Christie’s inanity
about shooting down Russian planes with
“I think if you’re in favor of World War
III, you have your candidate.”
Jeb Bush, who was the only candidate
willing to take on Donald Trump
directly, delivered a prepared but good
line: Calling Trump the “chaos
candidate,” he quipped, “Donald, you’re
not going to be able to insult your way
to the presidency. That’s not going to
happen.”
Only that could easily apply to the
whole gaggle.
The Trump Effect
Trump was better than normal at first,
but faded over time as he often does.
Bush challenged him directly, but the
other candidates largely directed their
fire at one another rather than the
front-runner. Jeb’s gibe that Trump gets
his briefings “from the shows” hit home
as Trump clearly had no clue about what
the nuclear triad was when he was asked
which arm (bombers, submarines or land
missiles) he would “modernize” first.
Preening like the teacher’s favorite at
the front of the class, Rubio then
explained what the triad was and,
characteristically, argued that all of
it had to be modernized, as if the U.S.
didn’t already have more nuclear weapons
than needed to blow up the world.
Trump is an ignorant bigot. But there is
no question that he sets the tone, and
his rivals scramble to catch up. He
pledges to build a wall, and now all of
them dutifully call for strengthening
the “fence.” He wants to halt admission
of any non-American Muslims temporarily.
And now more and more call for a “pause”
or shutting off refugees from anywhere
ISIS or al Qaeda operate. He promises to
“bomb the shit” out of ISIS. And now
they all strain to be tougher than thou.
Trump leads the race to the bottom in
the Republican campaign, but his rivals
are intent on keeping pace.
Regime Change
In
the midst of the hyperbole, a serious
debate managed to break out. Rand Paul
argued forcefully that the bipartisan
excitement about toppling dictators – in
Iraq, in Libya and now in Syria – has
had calamitous results, leading to
failed states, violence and chaos in
which terrorist groups like ISIS can
thrive. “Out of regime change you get
chaos,” Paul argued, “from the chaos you
have seen repeatedly the rise of radical
Islam.” Paul was backed by Trump, and
Cruz. They argue, in Trump’s sensible
words, “that we should do one thing at a
time.” Take on ISIS first, and not push
to dislodge Assad. Implicitly, although
none would say it, form a partnership
with Russia, Syria, Iran and our Sunni
and European allies to destroy ISIS,
rather than fighting against both sides
of a complex civil war.
Against this, Rubio, Christie, Kasich
and Fiorina offered bluster. America
could take on ISIS, Assad, Iran, Russia
and China if only it had a president who
would not “lead from behind,” who
believed in America. “All of our wounds
can be healed,” Fiorina promised, “by a
tested leader who is willing to fight
for the character of our nation,”
whatever the hell that means.
Prudence generally does not fare well
against bluster and muscle flexing. But
last night, the hearty viewers who
survived the first hour got a dose of
common sense amid the posturing. The
media reviews suggest that Rubio got the
best of Cruz in their exchanges. But I
suspect Cruz will fare well among
conservatives – and may have, alas,
greater reach among independents – with
his arguments about “focusing on the bad
guys” both at home rather than trampling
the privacy of “innocent Americans, and
abroad rather than “getting distracted”
by thinking we can spread democracy by
dropping a few bombs.
Who Won and Who Lost
Rand Paul was forceful and clear for
much of the night, but is going nowhere.
Fiorina and Kasich, as Trump would say,
“don’t matter.” Carson continues to
appear lost on the stage.
Bush had a relatively strong night,
willing to go after and stand up to
Trump, but it is likely too late for
him. Christie was the most bellicose and
the most disingenuous. He might get
another look in New Hampshire.
Of
the leaders, Trump’s ignorance was
exposed once more, but then it always is
and hasn’t mattered. Rubio was glib as
always, silver-tongued despite his five
o’clock shadow and his dry mouth. But he
comes off as callow and thin,
confidently saying things that simply
aren’t true out of ignorance or
dishonesty. Cruz’s filibusters were
irritating, and his face is a
cartoonist’s dream. He is almost
universally hated by his colleagues, but
he emerges from this debate stronger
than ever.
As
always, the first casualty of the debate
was the truth. The fact is that America
has the most powerful military in the
world. Our domestic security capacities
are greater than ever. Our intelligence
agencies suffer from collecting too much
data not too little. Our allies get a
free ride. We lack not weaponry but
wisdom. We suffer from the bipartisan
presumption that we are the
indispensable nation able to police the
world. We will control the Persian Gulf,
press NATO to the borders of Russia,
surround China with troops and fleets,
intervene constantly in far corners of
the world and then be constantly
surprised at the blowback.
Republicans scorn the real and present
threat of catastrophic climate change,
even as its cost in lives and resources
soars. We have a debate on national
security without even mention of the
global stagnation that now threatens a
return to global recession or worse.
These candidates bray about spending
more on a military that is the most
powerful in the world while—other than
Donald Trump –ignoring the reality that
we aren’t making the investments at home
vital to our economy and society.
It
remains to be seen which candidate, if
any, benefits from the dustup. But we
already know that the Republic fared
poorly.