There Were No Anti-Interventionist Candidates at the GOP Debate
Only Vivek Ramaswamy and Gov. Ron DeSantis said they wouldn't support additional aid to Ukraine. But both argued we should be more militarily engaged against China and Mexico.

The first 2024 Republican presidential debate made clear that there's no non-interventionist candidate in the race, even if there was a lot of quibbling over which specific foreign interventions the U.S. should prioritize.
When debate moderators asked the eight candidates on stage in Milwaukee who would not support additional military aid to Ukraine, only businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said they wouldn't.
Everyone else was enthusiastically on board with increased aid to the embattled country.
"Ukraine is the first line of defense for us," said former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie echoed those sentiments, warning that "if we don't stand up against this type of autocratic killing in the world, we will be next."
Former Vice President Mike Pence meanwhile suggested that it was borderline anti-American to suggest there's a trade-off between devoting resources to foreign entanglements and solving domestic issues. "Anyone who thinks we can't solve the problems here in the U.S. and be the leader of the free world has a small view of the United States," he said. "If we do the giveaway to [Russian President Vladmir] Putin, it's not going to be too long before he rolls across a NATO border."
Given that baseline, the responses from DeSantis and Ramaswamy were encouragingly skeptical of increased Ukraine aid.
"Your first obligation is to defend this country and our people. I'm not going to send troops to Ukraine," said DeSantis. Likewise, Ramaswamy said that "Ukraine is not a priority" for American defense. He also took heat from Haley for past statements he'd made opposing military aid to Israel. The only war he said he wants to fight was against the administrative state.
Nevertheless, both candidates endorsed using America's resources and military might on other interventions abroad.
When asked whether he'd send "special forces" to the southern border and even into Mexico to combat drug cartels, DeSantis was unequivocal.
"Yes, and I will do it on day one. The cartels are killing tens of thousands of our fellow citizens," said the Florida governor, adding, "We reserve the right to operate" and promising to leave drug dealers on the border "stone-cold dead."
Ramaswamy similarly contextualized his opposition to Ukraine aid as a means of opposing China. He described the Russia-China alliance as the greatest geopolitical threat to American interests. By withdrawing U.S. support for Ukraine, Russia would have less need to lean on China for support in its war in that country, he argued.
Furthermore, he said that he said that the U.S. should be working with Israel to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Ramaswamy, like DeSantis, said that the resources we aren't using in Ukraine should be deployed to fight Mexican drug cartels.
"I think that this is disastrous that we are protecting someone else's border when we should be using those resources to stop the invasion of our southern border," he said.
No one on stage made the argument that the federal government, and the U.S. military specifically, is a poor instrument for solving our problems, foreign and domestic.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"But both argued we should be more militarily engaged against China and Mexico."
Oh for fuck sakes, Boehm. Is that fat brown Koch envelope really worth your soul?
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Bitches doesn't have a soul, or a brain. Quite the defective model actually.
Oh, calm yer tits. I suspect the threat from China is wildly exaggerated. In any case, there are lots of better ways to deal with them than saber rattling and a new arms race. And are you seriously suggesting that military engagement in Mexico would somehow be a good thing? That would require some industrial strength retardation. Then again, every time I think you've hit rock bottom, you start blasting.
Ron Paul is tanned, rested, and ready. And not much older than Biden.
What a swell photo op! Republicans you say? Nice lookin’ bunch. Nice lookin’ suits. I think the word “debate” has lost it’s meaning and the press doesn’t seem to know where or how to find it again. Heinlein mentioned his cousin with two heads who debated both sides of the Free Silver issue with himself. This sounds like a Master Debater showcase!
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail...except Ukraine. They're screwed.
Maybe if we sent some letters and sent Cartel leaders to DEI training they would stop the mass killings.
Or we could legalize drugs and cut off their main source of funding.
I don’t think that would fundamentally reduce their funding, but it might curb the violence if they could be legitimate businesses. It’s not like Target and Walmart engage in turf warfare.
That would be the ethical thing to do and I fully support it. But at this point the cartels have diversified enough it would be more of an inconvenience than a death blow. One of their other big money-makers is human trafficking. A more sensible and humane immigration policy could reduce the incentives for that.
Making the drug war a little more literal certainly won't fix the problem though. Fighting cartels without removing the incentives that created them is just a bloody and expensive game of whack-a-mole. Even worse, wiping out some mostly just provides new opportunities for the most violent and ruthless. Selectively breeding nastier predators doesn't strike me as a great strategy.
What a cunty bit of framing! The top 3 candidates (Trump, Ramaswamy, and Desantis) want to pull away from the active military conflict that doesn't involve us. While I don't agree with their plans to deal with China and the border, I also wouldn't call it interventionist to address China's hostility and build-up for war. It isn't interventionist to have a response to the dramatic increase in illegal border crossings. It isn't interventionist to put military action on the table to take care of militarized cartels operating on both sides of the border and increasing their reach.
Let's re-weight this criticism based on support the candidates have (as well as polling on Republican voters.) The top 3 candidates represent something like 80% of primary voters and oppose involvement in Ukraine. The candidates Christian wants to highlight have little to no support.
It would be nice to see Reason drop their partisan bias, especially when their favored party actively opposes their proclaimed principles
The Liberteens running Emote strike again!
Koch-funded libertarians totally care about anti-interventionism.
That's why it must have been so awkward for KMW to work for Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard.
No one on stage made the argument that the federal government, and the U.S. military specifically, is a poor instrument for solving our problems, foreign and domestic.
Certainly, Christian. I believe it's obvious to everyone that the federal government has no business dealing with the borders of our country. I mean, who could possibly think the national government has any place securing the national border?
It’s totes important that we enforce the Ukrainian border though.
I think Ramaswamy has been pretty clear about ending wars (aka 'interventions') involving the US. The only thing that he said that comes close to contradicting that is his claim that we should help Israel prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. That claim certainly needs clarification given his insistence that we need to stop being the world's protector. I also don't see defending our border as a misuse of the military. I know we Libertarians disagree with the concept of limiting immigration, but then we should work to change the law, not pretend our border must be 'open'. We have some problems to solve here before we can open our doors to all, not the least of which is, enticing good people with the American dream at the same time we are destroying it.
Yeah, it’s not like China and Mexico have been intervening with us or anything
Yeah, those evil Mexicans! How dare they turn swathes of their own country into war zones in order to do America's dirty work on drugs and migration?
Did anyone watch the debates?
I listened. Vivek was good. Desantis gave mostly decent answers, but his voiceis grating. Haley was ok on culture issues but bad on other stuff. Pence had a few decent answers, but came across as the establishment shill he is.
Overall, it was pretty tame and boring but I'm a little less opposed to some than I was before. Personally, I'd say Haley, Ramaswamy, and Desantis are the only ones who deserve a spot on the next debate stage.
Is Reason’s definition of anti-interventionism that the US should not be able to secure its own border and should not engage diplomatically with other countries?
Seems that way.
Reason supported Gary Johnson and he was practically a neocon.
Reason writers are a joke. We had the most non-interventionist President in 50-100 years when Trump was in office and Reason writers were frothing at the mouth with hatred for him the whole time.
Stop pretending to care about “no wars”. We all saw you. We all remember. You care about mean tweets and jobs for illegals (with despair, homeless camps and fentanyl overdoses for Americans).
And just how many wars did Trump end? None. He (sometimes) talked a good game but accomplished very little. The top brass quickly figured out how to lead him around by the nose. He appointed John Bolton, who never met a war he didn't like, National Security Advisor, for dog's sake.
Trump inherited a growing economy which he then trashed with unilateral tax hikes that raised prices for ordinary Americans and made US manufacturers less competitive.
The only reason we have fentanyl overdoses is because of the failed and immoral drug war. Making that war a little more literal isn't going to do jack shit to improve the situation. As long as we arbitrarily prohibit drugs some people want, taking down cartels is nothing but a bloody and expensive game of whack-a-mole.