By Matthew Romano, Columnist
Although the Tea Party has captured the energy and image of this fall, it owes its campaign appeal to domestic politics, such as government spending and control. But when it comes to foreign policy, the unity of the Tea Party stops. They are simply all over the map.
According to Foreign Policy magazine’s Peter Baker, “[Tea Party] leaders are hopelessly divided over everything from the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism policies to free trade and the promotion of democracy abroad.” This is a fundamental problem as fall elections are approaching.
One thing Tea Party activists can at least agree on regarding foreign policy is opposing international organizations. Anderson’s Independence Caucus, an organization committed to replacing incumbents with fiscal conservatives, posed 80 questions to Tea Party candidates with only four relating to foreign policy.
All four asked candidates to abandon sovereignty to the United Nations and international treaties, such as opposing efforts “to recognize or implement any United Nations actions, decrees, or programs that would interfere with or supersede our sovereign national government.”
According to a Sam Adams Alliance poll, 80 percent of tea partiers say defense is a “very important” issue to them. However, if downsizing government spending is a Tea Party objective, how can a Tea Party candidate support the spending of 782 billion dollars on defense in 2009, or 23 percent of the overall budget? The contradictions concerning the classic American divide of interventionism versus isolationism is present for the Tea Party.
Two of the most famous Tea Party members are at the opposite ends of the foreign policy spectrum. Texas Congressman Ron Paul has called for an isolationist approach. Paul bases this on fiscal restraint, arguing that non-intervention in foreign affairs is the best policy and that it is hypocritical to be frugal at home while wastefully spending overseas.
Sarah Palin, arguing against budget cuts for the military, suggests that we need to step out, spread Democracy and become the police force for the entire world, similar to the ongoing violence in Afghanistan.
However, wars are expensive, and spreading Democracy is even more expensive. Without addressing military overspending, one cannot address the issue of government spending with expectations to significantly reduce the deficit.
It’s too much versus too little. The Tea Party does not have a unified stance on foreign policy beyond a few simple platitudes. Perhaps the Tea Party should be considered a “single-issue party,” even if it hurts them in this season’s elections.