Conservatives and global governance | The Multilateralist

Repbulican U.S. debates on foreign policy and national security raise a number of good questions about where the candidates stand and how their positions relate to historical trends among candidates and the party.  It is a canard to say that the Party of Lincoln aren’t fans of international organization–but to what extent does that hold true?

David Bosco explores this question in a two-part blog post, noting that:

When the focus shifts to that broader constellation of international organizations, the picture becomes more complicated. American conservatives are not uniformly opposed to a prominent role for institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, or the WTO. (They have little fondness for the European Union, it’s true, and none of the candidates is eager to see U.S. funds save the Euro. But that does not distinguish them significantly from the Obama administration.) Indeed, in last week’s Republican debate, Mitt Romney advocated using the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism to challenge China without a peep from the other candidates:

via Conservatives and global governance (part 2) | The Multilateralist.


One thought on “Conservatives and global governance | The Multilateralist”

  1. This article addresses a portion of what my thoughts have been for the past week. I am going to simply agree with the author and expound upon the one aspect that I am most passionate about.

    I found last weeks GOP debate rather intriguing. I thought that Huntsman really shined and this debate was right up his alley. I thought that Newt Gingrich took a risky stance on immigration. That, however, is why it surprised me so much that his ratings went up so substantially following the debate. It also solidified my sneaking suspicion that Herman Cain didn’t really know what was going on. It showed his lack of knowledge on international politics. Overall, a very interesting debate. I concur with the above article that indicates Romney’s advocacy toward China was a bit questionable.

    One of the most intriguing parts of the entire debate, in my eyes, was the very last question. It was asked what one thing do you think will become an issue that has not been talked about already. This is where the true knowledge of the candidates came forth. Huntsman is still the strongest and most knowledgable candidate in my personal opinion. The sketchy advocacies and stances from the other candidates don’t seem to hold up for me.

    This is another opinion on the debate on foreign policy. Very interesting to me…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s