Happy Thanksgiving to each and every one of you. We didn’t send this substack out on Thursday (our usual schedule) reckoning you were either cooking, preparing to argue with your in-laws or making early cocktails (if it has juice in it, is it really a cocktail?)…
We had a great guest for a week in which we give thanks for our founding, and for those boat people of old who schlepped their way across the Atlantic to build the greatest nation on earth. So…. three things from our podcast with Senator Tom Cotton, author of a new book, Only the Strong | Reversing the Left's Plot to Sabotage American Power. :
Decline is a choice.
At the heart of decline are those who believe American global power is intrinsically malign.
Politicians who look backwards — whether in elections, or in seeking to expiate America’s perceived sins — are bad for the country.
You should Tom Cotton’s excellent book for yourselves. So we’re going to take just a little of your post-Thanksgiving morning for a short rant. We’re always here to share good work, serious reports, and thoughtful arguments from our colleagues at AEI and others. So if you’re curious about the assertions below, let us know in the comments.
Those who believe that Iranians hate Americans because we overthrew their leaders back in the 1950s…. Are wrong on every count.
Those who believe that China is overtaking America because Beijing has a winning formula for managed capitalism… Are wrong on every count.
Those who believe al Qaeda attacked America because of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, or because of Israel, or because of American support for corrupt Arab regimes… Are wrong on every count.
Those who believe that freeing 25 million people in the Iraq War was inherently wrong and that the U.S. president lied to depose Saddam Hussein… Are wrong on every count.
Those who believe that the war in Afghanistan was a disaster, failing to achieve its aims and devastating the nation…. Are wrong on every count.
Those who believe Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because he felt threatened by NATO… Are wrong on every count.
There are facts to back up every one of those statements. Uncomfortable facts on occasion, but American global leadership is the surest way to advance the safety and security of the homeland, and the freedom and prosperity all people deserve. There are no other options. Remember, Thanksgiving isn’t about stuffing and ugly birds. It’s about paying homage to our forefathers who yearned to build a nation that would guarantee their freedom. We are not perfect, but we are the best anyone’s got, and the only hope for a free and secure world in which to raise our children and eat turkey.
Thanks for being with us, we’re grateful for your support.
HIGHLIGHTS *
*A few more highlights, no show notes this week.
Why do Americans sense that our best years are behind us?
TC: [T]he sense of decline Americans have is not wrong nor is it just an accident or bad luck that these things happen when people like Barack Obama and Joe Biden are president. It's because the progressive left back to Woodrow Wilson have been deeply ambivalent about America and therefore doubtful about American power. They're not necessarily anti-American, though plenty progressives are, but they do believe that the exercise of American power at home and abroad is more likely to bring war and arrogance and oppression than it is to bring safety, prosperity, and freedom.
But the problem isn’t just among Democrats (remember “American carnage”?)…
TC: [R]emember, it's not only the Democratic party that reflects the progressive mindset. In some ways, Teddy Roosevelt, especially in his campaign in 1912, tried to be more progressive than Woodrow Wilson […] There's this sense among progressives that defending America's national interest is somehow grubby or grimy, it's beneath our dignity and that what we really need to do is go to war on behalf of abstractions to improve the economic, social and political wellbeing of other peoples, not defend our own national interest.
Why are so many Republicans souring on supporting Ukraine?
TC: One reason why I think some of our voters have doubts about Joe Biden's leadership in Ukraine is he does talk about it oftentimes in these very abstract terms about the fight between democracy and authoritarianism for instance.
[D]on't get me wrong. It would probably be better for Russia, probably better for the world if Vladimir Putin was gone. But the idea that America is going to be able to remove the Russian president who has the world's largest nuclear arsenal is, I would suggest, somewhat grandiose. As opposed to focusing, as I explained in Only the Strong on what our founders did and what Ronald Reagan did on our vital national security interest, our concrete interest around the world. And I think most Americans understand just as a matter of basic common sense and also historical lessons going back to the 1930s, that an aggressive war of invasion, especially by a large country against a smaller neighboring country, is inherently dangerous to America.
So some of the way Joe Biden has talked about the war in Ukraine, I think has gotten the anti-progressive hackles up of some of our voters and not incorrectly. The way I always try to focus on it is on those concrete core interests to allow Russia to reconstitute the Russian Empire, which has always been Vladimir Putin's long term objective. And Ukraine is the most vital part of Vladimir Putin's plan would inherently endanger America's interests. It would allow Russia to corner more of the geopolitical map in Europe. It would embolden adversaries like Xi Jinping in China to go for the jugular and a similar way in Taiwan where our interests are even more greatly implicated. It would call into question America's credibility in all regions of the world,
So you don’t think the GOP will pull the rug out from under Ukraine?
TC: …in my experience, especially on the campaign trail this fall, I could tell you guys, I found mostly broad support among our voters for continuing to support Ukraine. They wish Europe would do a little more, especially when it comes to financial and economic and humanitarian aid. But a pretty common sense understanding that America is the main provider of military aid, given our defense industry capabilities.
[T]he targeted and discriminated application of military force is a consistent theme of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Sometimes it was entirely covert and driven by intelligence agencies like in Afghanistan. I'd make another contrast here with Biden on Ukraine. Biden said that we would not put American troops into Ukraine. I don't disagree with that statement. I would not have made it public because it simply makes Putin's war planning easier. Ronald Reagan never considered putting troops in Afghanistan, but he didn't say that. He didn't even talk about what we were doing in Afghanistan.
What about defense spending?
TC: It just is Democratic instinct when they take office to slash the defense budget. And this is true of even so-called strong or tough Democrats like FDR or Harry Truman. I mean, defense spending leading up to the Korean War had reached historic lows. And even a month before the war started, Truman was proposing even further cuts. … Because he and other Democrats view the military as just one more budget kitty, one more place to cut money from programs they don't care for and put it into welfare spending they do want. This is the exact opposite of how we should view the budgets, exact opposite of how Ronald Reagan described it in an important oval office speech in one of his early battles with the Democrats in Congress to fund his defense build up.
When it comes to defense spending, we can't let the budget drive our strategy. Our strategy has to be based on the threats we face abroad. And then you have to fund the budget. So these people that say, "Well, we could cut the defense budget by 1% or by 5% just across the board," it's not like say whether or not you can cut taxes by 1% or cut taxes by 3% just based on fiscal needs. You have to identify where you can accept risk in your strategy and why it's reasonable to accept it. Otherwise, you have to fund the budget that matches your strategy and that means that the defense budget should come first and foremost. It's not the most important thing that government does, but is the first and most fundamental thing that government does because security in a dangerous world underwrites everything else that we do at home to provide for freedom and prosperity for the American people.
So how much more for defense?
TC: Over the long-term, to meet the threats that we face, especially the threat from a rapidly arming communist China, we need to have something like 3 to 5% real growth in our defense budget every single year to get back to where we were, at least in the middle of the Reagan buildup and the 4.5 to 5% range of our total economy, not where we were at the end of Obama and where we would trend if Joe Biden had his way, which is below 3% of our total economy.
Our colleagues Hal Brands and Mike Beckley have written that we can’t ramp up defense production as we once did, even for a conflict with China…
TC: I think it's a real challenge and I think they're onto something there. You see this in the appallingly low rates of production for relatively simple munitions in the war in Ukraine. Don't get me wrong, a javelin anti-tank missile is a lot more advanced than the bazookas of yester year, but it's not an aircraft carrier. It's not a stealth bomber. These are things that the American worker should be able to produce in mass quantities very rapidly, but they can't.
And if we were attacked today, I would be worried. Or if say China went for the jugular in Taiwan, I would be worried about America's munition stockpiles. That's why it's so urgent that we rapidly increase capacity in our defense space. Something I've argued now for some years, something I think the Ukraine War has brought home the necessity to many members of Congress, and hopefully, we can make some progress in these coming months as we pass a new defense budget.
What should we do?
TC: We need to focus on is more of the asymmetric weapons that Ukraine has shown so successfully can be used against Russia that China has been building to counteract our traditional advantage and, say, aircraft carriers with its long range anti ship missiles. Well, we can do the same thing as well. And the Department of Defense needs to be more innovative, it needs to be more willing to use commercial off the shelf technology, and less beholden to massive single vendor, multi-decade, trillion dollar weapon programs. Don't get me wrong, those are important programs like the F-35. Pilots love it, but the contract and the performance has been a debacle going back to when I was in high school. There's a lot of other things that we can arm up with in the Western Pacific, both for our own forces and Taiwan, that don't take 30 years and don't cost a trillion dollars, but can be pretty devastating towards the PLA and their Air Force and Navy.
Are you worried about China?
TC: I think China is probably the greatest threat our nation has ever faced. We've never faced something quite like this, a country with an economy almost as large as ours, therefore, with a military capable of being as large as ours and deeply intertwined with our own economy. The Soviet Russia's economy was always much smaller than the American economy, and the Warsaw Pact bloc combined economy was always much smaller than the western world's economy. And we just didn't have much trade with Soviet Russia. That's just not the case with China and China's influence in our society as pervasive.
But a lot of Americans aren’t willing to do what it takes to divorce China…
TC: …during the Trump era, when Trump was negotiating trade deals with China, it was not uncommon to hear from small and medium-sized manufacturing companies in Arkansas who were owned by red blooded patriotic Americans, a little worried that Trump was being too tough on China because they'd outsourced so much of their production to China.
I also think we need to try to disentangle our economy in certain critical strategic sectors as well. And that's not just high tech sectors of our economy, like producing and manufacturing the rare earth elements necessary for all modern electronics, although we need to do that. It's also low tech stuff, like basic pharmaceutical ingredients or medical equipment. Things that America's health and prosperity are dependent upon should not be sold or even limited source from China.
So how should the divorce happen?
TC: We're in the holiday season now and when you go to Walmart, almost every Christmas tree or every decoration you see, in addition to that, for that matter, most children's toys going to be made in China. I wish they were made elsewhere. I wish they were made in America and creating jobs here. It's not really going to be a threat to our national security though if people buy fake Christmas trees from China. It is a threat to our national security if Americans don't have access to basic life saving medication like penicillin and heparin because it's all made in China and China decides to cut it off because they don't like our policy towards Taiwan.
It is vitally important for our prosperity and our security that we not be dependent on semiconductors made in China. Now, China tends to only make lower-end semiconductors, but the American people need semiconductors that are in things like refrigerators or automobiles for the basic needs of modern life. And we shouldn't be dependent on China for those. They don't make the higher-end semiconductors. We've been so far somewhat successful depriving them of that technology, what they need in terms of design or tools to make those semiconductors.
Taiwan…
TC: As it happens, though, the world's most advanced chips are made at the largest scale in Taiwan. That is a very dangerous situation, that the most vital semiconductors are made on an island against which communist China has irredentist claims going back decades and thousands of missiles aimed at. We need to get that production, not necessarily off of Taiwan. I understand Taiwan wouldn't like that, but we need to get it duplicated, hopefully, in the United States, certainly at least out of missile range of mainland in China. And that might take something that looks akin to certain aspects of industrial policy, which I know many Orthodox libertarians might oppose. But as I write in Only the Strong, sometimes orthodox libertarian thinking vital, and helpful, though it is, and domestic debates about taxes and regulation breaks down in a world of borders and governments. And if China is going to engage in unfair trade practice to distort the market in its favor, not just for economic reasons, but for security reasons, then we have to look at our security needs as well
How did we end up with the Iran deal under Obama?
TC: I got asked a lot in those days, Marc, why doesn't Obama get a better deal? Why is he capitulating on all these issues? Why does he use crazy Republicans like you and the Congress to drive a harder bargain the way you could use someone like Jesse Helms to drive a harder bargain? And as I explain in Only the Strong, the simple answer is he didn't want a better deal. He didn't view the nuclear deal with Iran as simply, on its own terms, a nuclear arms control agreement by which you could stop Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. Obviously, it didn't do that. It simply put some temporary restraints at best on their nuclear program.
There's no way to see Barack Obama's Iran policy as other than a kind of blame America first attempt to atone for America's sins, apologize to Ayatollahs, to pull in our horns, and hopefully restore normal relations with this nation that deserved them. This goes back to Obama's view of what happened in 1953 in Iran. He deeply and wrongly believes that America overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, as he puts it so often, as he wrote in his second memoir, as he said in campaign speeches in 2008, as he said in his infamous Cairo speech in 2009, as he wrote in his most recent third memoir, nothing could be farther from the truth.
And then Obama blamed America for the next 25 years for supporting the Shah. Don't get me wrong, the Shah is no one's idea of a good liberal Democrat. No one's going to mistake him or his government for the Little Sisters of the Poor, but he was pro-American and he was a source of American power and alliances in the Middle East. And when he was overthrown, in part because Jimmy Carter withdrew support from him in 1978, 1979, what happened? As is almost always the case when Democrats work to overthrow pro-American government, we got a government that was anti-American and that was even worse to its own people. But that's not the way Obama saw it. Obama viewed our history with Iran as the source of all the tensions we have that the Ayatollahs were simply misunderstood.
Now Biden wants to reenter the Iran Deal…and isn’t supporting Iranian protesters??
TC: This is kind of a replay of what happened in 2009 during the Green Revolution protests. Barack Obama appeared to stand idly by without supporting the protestors’ aims, without condemning the brutality against them, without taking any concrete action against the regime. At the time, it was perceived by some as an inexperienced president being caught flat footed, being somewhat naive about the Ayatollah's intentions. And again, I want to dissent from that line of thinking on the right. Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing in the summer of 2009, as he did for eight years with Iran. He didn't get taken to the cleaners. He wasn't inexperienced in bargaining at the Persian bazaar. He ruthlessly pursued his own ideological goals of apologizing for America's sins against Iran.
So what should we have done?
TC: What we should do is what Ronald Reagan would've done, what he always did in places like say Poland, which is stand with the forces of freedom to support them rhetorically, to let them know we support them, to take action such as we can that will help protect them. Not necessarily military action, but sanctions against regime leaders who are engaged in this kind of brutality, perhaps action at the United Nations to force countries like China and Russia on the defensive, standing up to Iran, bringing pressure to bear on our European partners who are very sensitive to the regimes attacks on protestors and repression of women, which kind of kicked off this latest round of protest to do things like walking away from the nuclear deal. Obviously, we should walk away from the nuclear deal itself. There are a whole suite of actions we could take to make it clear to the Iranian people that we support their aspirations and that we oppose their government's brutal crackdown.
What worries you the most?
TC: I still think that Taiwan is the single most dangerous flash point in the world.
I think Joe Biden has made it more dangerous, for instance, by stumbling over our traditional policy of strategic ambiguity. I think he was right when he stumbled into the idea that we should explicitly guarantee Taiwan's autonomy with military force if necessary should China go for the jugular there. And he and his anonymous White House aides were wrong to immediately walk it back. That created the worst of both worlds. You got provocation without deterrence. But for most Americans, I still don't think it's an issue that's front of mind and that many people appreciate just how dangerous a flash point it is. That's one reason why I consistently raise it as the world's most dangerous flash point.
Why was the GOP crushed in the midterms?
TC: What happened in the midterm election? Obviously, a disappointing result in some ways. We did win the House of Representatives. We did not win the Senate. We would've liked to have won both and won by larger margins. I think one consistent theme you see in the results though are Republicans who have strong records, clear and forward looking agendas, and delivered real results for their people, tend to do very well. Just look at some of our gubernatorial races with Ron DeSantis in Florida, Brian Kemp in Georgia, Mike DeWine in Ohio, Kim Reynolds in Iowa, Greg Abbott in Texas, all won pretty smashing victories. In some cases, record victories because they did just that. They had delivered positive results and change for their people, they had a clear agenda looking forward to the future. Dwelling on the past simply does not work in elections. Even if people are otherwise sympathetic to you, otherwise willing to give the incumbent party the boot, if you're not speaking to their immediate priorities and aspirations, you're not giving them much of a reason to vote for you. And we had a few too many candidates who tended to do that.
Whole transcript here.