There has been a lot of speculation about Chris Christie running for President despite his repeated denials. So where does Christie stand on foreign policy? The answer is probably better than most hawkish interventionists Republicans, but not where non-interventionist conservatives would like. He recently gave a speech about “American Exceptionalism” (an intreventionist buzz phrase).
Here is Jim Antle’s take on the speech.
Here is Daniel Larison’s take.
Here is the comment I made below Antle’s post. The fact that interventionist don’t entirely like Christie’s speech is positive.
If Mr. Smith doubts Christie’s commitment to the “War against Islamic Radicals,” then as a conservative non-interventionist I find that hopeful. The first paragraph you excerpt strikes the right note. The later babble about world leadership and not turning our back on the world, less so. (The authentic conservative wants his country to tend to its national interests and otherwise mind its own business. The crusader wants his country to “lead.”)
What this probably means is that Christie is more of a “realist.” He likely takes mainstream foreign policy assumptions about America’s role in the world for granted, but is less of a crusader and fearmonger than many interventionist Republicans. That’s an improvement, but it isn’t authentic conservative non-interventionism.
Christie strikes me as a moderate that conservatives like because he won a blue state and is whacking away at his state budget, but one thing I like about Christie is his persona. He comes off, like we discuss about Putin below, as an alpha male*. He doesn’t come off as slick or packaged.
* see my discussion in the comments below