.png)
In today’s Wall Street Journal, former Vice President Dan Quayle makes the important case that foreign policy is but should not be a side issue in the presidential campaigns.
I introduce the op-ed piece setting out the former Vice President’s bedrock point: “Kamala Harris and Donald Trump aren’t running for economist in chief or sociologist in chief but the commander in chief.”
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Look Abroad, Presidential Candidates
Foreign policy shouldn’t be a side issue in the 2024 election. It will determine the legacy of whoever wins.
By Dan Quayle | Oct. 21, 2024 2:39 pm ET
As is often the case in U.S. presidential elections, both candidates are treating foreign policy as a side issue in this campaign. That’s a disservice to the American people. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump aren’t running for economist in chief or sociologist in chief but commander in chief. While Congress spends most of its time on domestic policy, the president spends most of his or hers on foreign policy.
With wars raging in Europe and the Middle East and instability in the Pacific region, our next president will be working overtime on foreign policy. Four major geopolitical challenges today will likely determine the legacy of whoever wins the White House.
The first is an ambitious China lying in wait. If there ever were any moderates in the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party, none remain. The party is controlled by hawks with specific aims: to take Taiwan and to replace America as the world’s pre-eminent superpower.
When I served as vice president, our administration missed this threat. We mistakenly believed China would be a good-faith partner to America and an honest participant in international institutions. Subsequent administrations operated under the same flawed assumption. Now, the hour is late, as we saw with China’s aggressive military drills in the Taiwan Strait last week. The next president must deter China’s global military agenda.
The second issue is a revanchist Russia controlled by Vladimir Putin. As tragic as the war in Ukraine is, it could one day be remembered as the opening salvo of a far deadlier conflict. Mr. Putin always wants more—a lesson we should have learned after he invaded Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea in 2014. A president who appeases him now would be making a blunder of 1930s proportions. [Emphasis added – RAM]
The third issue is Middle East turmoil, which all traces back to Iran. True peace in the region is unlikely until there is regime change in Tehran. However the next president handles the mullahs and ayatollahs, we can be sure that it will determine more than just the fate of Israel.
The next president’s fourth geopolitical issue is at home: the steady erosion of America’s technological edge in defense and warfare. Our military uses ships and jets built decades ago. Meanwhile, China is outpacing our investments in autonomous, hypersonic, cyber and space weapons.
This challenge underlies the other three. If China eclipses America’s military might, we’ll complete the transition from a unipolar world dominated by America’s benevolent strength to a bipolar world in which our enemies unite against us. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea share the same short-term goal: to take down America.
The next president must reassert strong leadership around the globe to prevent these threats from coalescing into a new anti-American axis. The specter of World War III has been tossed around carelessly, but we need serious strategies to prevent it from happening.
If our next president pulls back from global affairs or meets these challenges with weakness, the resulting threat will eclipse any domestic accomplishments. That’s why, if our candidates were wise, they would close out their campaigns laser-focused on foreign policy. That’s the job they are running for.
Mr. Quayle served as vice president of the United States, 1989-93.
ROBERT MCCONNELL
Co-Founder, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
Director of External Affairs, Friends of Ukraine Network
Introductory comments are Mr. McConnell’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation or those of the Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN).