Recently, Florida Governor and most likely, potential nominee for the 2024 presidential election, Ron De Santis, called Russia’s war of destruction a “territorial dispute” while on air on Fox News with Tucker Carlson.
In a series of statements by the two major contestants to become the Republican nominee for the 2024 election, Donald Trump and Ron De Santis, it has become clear that a campaign message that both of them will be sending is that it is not in US interests to help Ukraine. Whether or not DeSantis really believes it is in US interests to ignore Putin’s threat to Europe or to pretend that genocide, war crimes and nuclear threats are a “territorial dispute”, it is evident that he senses that the Republican base thinks that Ukraine is not important. Hence, it is logical to echo what your base wants to hear. A wide base tickled with the temptation of hearing what they want to hear will always attach quickly to the candidate who satisfies their temptation.
How such a base formed is a different story, however. Despite negative views of Russia from both Democrat and Republican voters, the Republican base has fallen behind their Democratic counterparts in this regard. After a divisive 2016 presidential election and a toxic coverage of Trump’s presidency of 2017-2021, Republicans close to Trump as well as large swathes of his base turned their attention to ‘internal’ enemies – the Democrats. This transition was also seen due to the major disagreements between the Republican establishment on one side and Trump’s camp on foreign policy. Trump insisted that America’s main enemies were internal, while international affairs concerning external authoritarian regimes were either secondary or entirely irrelevant to US interests. For some, the accusations of Russian collusion with the Trump presidential effort in 2016 made Russia even likable. Trump, the nation’s savior who would make America great again, was supported by the Russians to fight America’s internal enemies – they thought. With an overemphasis on “internal enemies”, the external ones were left completely unattended here.
For those who found the constant collusion accusations entirely unfounded, eventually got fed up with discussions concerning Russia and Putin, and did not want to hear any more about Russia’s danger and threats to the world. With no hard evidence of Trump-Russian collusion presented by an official committee, this feeling only grew.
Trump’s popularity within the Republican base has simultaenously changed the mood in the base. Tucker Carlson’s popularity and high viewing on Fox News have also transformed the base in a similar manner. Why should the US care about things that are happening thousands of kilometers away? Look at the southern border with Mexico! Ron De Santis knows that he needs to strongly identify with whatever the Republican base has already made its mind upon, so if promises of the US pulling out of every foreign country imaginable could get him more votes, then it would be the logical thing to do.
Despite not showing any interest in opposing Russia, the Trumpian and subsequently DeSantian rhetoric towards China is a lot colder. Seen as a rival for global economic supremacy, both Trump and DeSantis use the public unpopularity of China to their favor. Yet, no real proposals of tackling Chinese economic and military expansion exist (on the other hand, Joe Biden vowed to defend Taiwan militarily). While the economic cost the US is experiencing in order to provide aid to Ukraine is relatively small compared to previous American international engagements, the cost of ‘tackling’ (as they say) China would be far more serious. With China being America’s number one trade partner, the cost of an economic war would be painful for both nations. Yet, few seem to realize that what is being asked of the current US administration to provide for Ukraine would be far less than if Trump’s or DeSantis’s rhetoric on China would actually be put in practice. Therefore, it is absolutely predictable that in the event of a Republican victory in 2024, US-Chinese relations will not change fundamentally, given the prospect that no escalation over Taiwan takes place. Perhaps, the only thing that would change would be less diplomacy. An economic hit from a trade war with China would impact the average American far more than the relatively small amount of US taxpayer money that goes to Ukraine (mostly in the form of military aid).
Furthermore, such a move would be poorly perceived by those who are extremely sensitive (politically) to the inflation crisis in the US now. If spending on Ukraine is a concern for them now, one could imagine how they would perceive the aftermath of a trade war with China. The major issue here is that the cost of helping Ukraine is blown out of proportion, while no real intention in ‘tackling’ China is even put in place – just mere rhetoric. The second, cheaper option here is more attractive for voters. Heavily criticizing China without doing anything to follow up, sounds perfect – the US would “look strong” at almost no cost. Rhetoric surpassed action in voters’ preference, and this in and of itself is a crisis for Democracy. Would people be willing to sacrifice large amounts of their income for a stand-off with China (much more income than now)? I find it hard to believe. Would people vote for someone who promises to be “tough on China” at no cost and with no intention of actually doing anything in this regard? Probably.
Perhaps this is not the best strategy to win elections overall given the demographic changes in the US favoring the Democrats, but it might be just the strategy to get nominated as the Republican presidential candidate. It may seem that both heavyweights for this role have placed their bets on foreign policy isolationism and simultaneously, a contradictory and fictive “tackling China” rhetoric to be one of their winning campaign messages. Nevertheless, it might be less likely to become the winning idea for the US as a whole, as the last time a Republican presidential candidate won a popular vote was in 2004. However, if you find yourself eventually nominated as the Republican nominee, you still have a fair shot at the presidency. You will need to rely on an abnormally high dissatisfaction with the Democrats in swing states.
