Ron DeSantis’s foreign policy might look like Trump’s — but isn’t

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has finally announced his intention to run for the US presidency, albeit in a mind-boggling fashion. Much of the Republican Party and professional class commentary seems to be rallying around him — or at least against former President Donald Trump.

While DeSantis’ prospects are unclear, he appears to be the only true Republican challenger to Trump’s bid for a rematch of the 2020 presidential election against President Joe Biden. So it’s worth considering what kind of foreign policy a President DeSantis would pursue.

DeSantis has served in the US military and has even visited Guantanamo Bay, where he apparently laughed and watched as prisoners were tortured. Before becoming governor of Florida, he served multiple terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where his approach to foreign policy seems to have been guided by a rather orthodox Republican belligerence. He opposed the Iran nuclear deal, supported controversial trade deals that Trump would eventually derail, and strongly opposed the idea that Americans are war-weary.

But that has changed since he started positioning himself for the Republican presidential primary.

On the rare occasions when DeSantis strikes a surprising tone when discussing foreign policy for a candidate billed as more aligned with GOP leadership. In his recent book, The Courage to be Free, DeSantis talks in an apoplectic tone about George W. Bush-era neoconservative rhetoric about the importance of spreading democracy, even denouncing it as a “messianic impulse.”

DeSantis also praised the work of scholars who charge the American ruling class with making choices about war and peace that betray the interests of the American people in support of an internationalist ideology.

These statements have earned DeSantis the nickname of a foreign policy populist from observers, and some even to describe him as “Jacksonian”. This is a reference to Walter Russell Mead’s 2001 treatise on the tradition of US foreign policy, in which he divides it into several camps—Jacksonianism, named after President Andrew Jackson—is the most nationalistic and populist.

Jacksonianism is a tendency toward a foreign policy that is militant in its outlook and obsessed with prestige, but also suspicious of America’s entanglements with the world on issues ranging from foreign conflict to trade and cooperation with allies. The Jacksonian believes in a “fortress America” ​​approach, but also reacts belligerently to any encroachment on the nation or even perceived insults. Basically, Jacksonians are quasi-isolationist but militant and unilateralist.

This is also the framing many have used to describe Trump’s peculiar approach to foreign policy — including Meade himself. Trump has also praised Andrew Jackson’s legacy, describing him as his favorite president.

So, why does a more established candidate like DeSantis present himself as a Trumpian on foreign policy? The answer lies in understanding the role of foreign policy discourse in American politics today.

Decades of academic research have shown that foreign policy issues almost never shape the voices of Americans, who instead prioritize issues like the national economy. With rare exceptions, such as in 2002 – the election after 9/11 – and in 2006, when anger over the Iraq war reached its peak, the US political campaigns do not involve much discussion of foreign policy. Early signs indicate that this election will be no different, despite the war in Ukraine and the risks of a confrontation with China on the horizon.

According to recent polls, Ukraine’s foreign policy and war receive negligible interest from the public, even when compared to other non-economic issues.

But the 2016 election was an example of how foreign policy can be used for electoral gain. Trump was able to deftly use an indictment of interventionist practices that his party had defended to garner more support. The fact that he so decisively won the Republican primary in the veteran-ravaged state of South Carolina after vigorously criticizing the Iraq War shocked political observers in Washington, DC.

Trump’s use of foreign policy issues was not intended to convey a worldview or strategic plan for the US role in the world. Rather, it sought to establish him as the opponent of Washington, D.C.’s ruling elites, so distrusted by many ordinary voters. His foreign policy statements were intended to bolster this reputation.

During his tenure, however, Trump’s foreign policy was hardly revolutionary. From the massive expansion of the use of sanctions to the abandonment of international agreements, his administration’s policies largely reflected a somewhat more aggressive version of what the mainstream Republican foreign policy community had previously pursued.

But Trump meaningfully deviated from mainstream US foreign policy practices on a number of points, including his strong rejection of trade deals and his more hostile attitude toward US allies.

DeSantis may want to emulate Trump’s anti-elite style during the campaign, but that will be much harder for him than it was for the former president.

The main difference between Trump and DeSantis is that Trump is an almost completely autonomous political presence with a high degree of GOP voter loyalty and the ability to build his own campaign infrastructure. DeSantis, on the other hand, relies more on the institutions and elites of the conservative movement. That makes him more tied to a Republican foreign policy attitude and hawkish Washington commentary.

Russia’s war in Ukraine is the most obvious example of how DeSantis shifts awkwardly between the more traditional Republican instincts he saw during his tenure in Congress, his new populist campaign stance, and his desire to create an elite of the Republican Party.

While in Congress, he aggressively pushed for arms to be sent to Ukraine in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. declared himself to be of the “hard-on-Russia” Reagan school.

But recently, answering a questionnaire from influential right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson, he warned that the US could become “further entangled in a ‘territorial dispute’ between Ukraine and Russia.”

However, after a few news cycles in which he was criticized by conservatives and the mainstream media, he “clarified” those comments, claiming that his statement had been mischaracterized.

How candidate DeSantis juggles the expectations of different audiences during the campaign remains to be seen. But if elected, his ties to the Republican establishment will likely make it difficult for him to break too definitively from traditional foreign policy thinking within his party.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial view of Al Jazeera.