Jacksonian Americanism vs Wilsonian Internationalism

[SF-TX]

I found this an interesting read contrasting Ted Cruz's foreign policy vs Marco Rubio's.

A Stark Choice: Ted Cruz’s Jacksonian Americanism vs. Marco Rubio’s Wilsonian Internationalism

So why would Rubio be such a strong supporter of Obama on a key foreign-policy issue? That’s a good question, especially since Rubio is now running for president on a mostly anti-Obama platform.

So yes, by all means, let’s drill down on the question of how Rubio can support Obama so much on critical policy, even as he opposes him politically. We can ask: How does Rubio, in his own mind, make sense of that split?

The answer comes from a deep ideological current in American foreign policy, of which Rubio is a vital part. And this ideological current, as we shall see, elevates bipartisanship to near fetish-like status. Moreover, this current oftentimes seeks to subordinate, even ignore, America’s national interest—in favor, we might say, of abstract and arcane intellectual ideals. We will detail this ideology in Section II.

Link

[Peregrino]

Thanks for the link. That made for an interesting read. Especially since my own leanings are "Jacksonian".

[Badger52]

Ditto, thanks. Interesting read. One view sounds like some twenty-something SECSTATE mouthpiece saying it's way too nuanced for me to understand; the other sounds like, "there are the bad guys, they want to kill us and are already doing so & I propose we kill them first." We'll see if either is able to leverage that comparison at all in terms that translate to any voters.

[SF-TX]

Another good piece comparing and contrasting the Jacksonian bona fides of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

...The outsider, populist message of the Jacksonians jeopardized the gravy train that many in DC had become accustomed to, by threatening to seriously limit the favors government was able to hand out. They were not merely culturally anathema to the establishment class, but a very real and principled threat to the way of life in Washington that had built up in the past decades.

While Donald Trump may disgust the chattering classes with his un-presidential antics and demeanor, Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the one both parties fear will stop “cutting deals.”

“Guys like Ted Cruz will never make a deal because he’s a strident guy,” Trump recently told reporters. According to the Associated Press, Trump was “pushing back against the idea that collaboration is a dirty word. He pointed to the famous relationship between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill in the 1980s. ‘That’s what the country’s about really, isn’t it?’”

The party establishments, Democrat and Republican, fear Cruz over Trump for exactly this reason: his Jacksonian principles stand in direct contradiction to the way they are accustomed to doing business, while Trump just forces them to make room for a new lead dealmaker...

Link

[sinjefe]

That fact that anyone could vote for Trump over Ted Cruz, now, amazes me.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

That fact that anyone could vote for Trump over Ted Cruz, now, amazes me.

Perhaps they are once again allowing the media and the left to decide who is the true anti-establishment nominee.

As conservatives, we swore to ourselves that we would not let the liberal media pick our nominee again – like we did the past few cycles. Yet, in debate after debate, the entire focus and narrative has been framed by the media in the form of hitting Donald Trump from the left. This has resulted in many conservative voters (rightfully) thinking Trump is the presumptive anti-establishment candidate who will tear down the political class. A case of circular logic, no doubt...

...If Trump is indeed the nominee, many people will be asking the following two questions: why in the world didn’t the contenders take him down sooner and why do we continue to let the media frame our debate, and by extension, control the destiny of our movement?

Entire article