by In the alternate timeline in which Ron DeSantis proved himself a capable activist and seemed set to defeat Donald Trump in New Hampshire and beyond, we would be looking at a multitude of left-leaning essays on a single topic: “Why “DeSantis is actually more dangerous than Trump.”
In this world, the only threat to Trump in New Hampshire is Nikki Haley, and her candidacy doesn’t seem poised to last much beyond those primaries. But in the spirit of slipping her controversial views while she can, and because she could still be Trump’s running mate, here’s my own fear: A Haley presidency could be more dangerous than a second Trump term.
This is not because I think Haley is an authoritarian threat to American democracy. Obviously he is not, and his nomination and election would have the salutary effect of re-normalizing Republican politics on important questions like: “Should we contest a lost election by pressing a constitutional crisis and whipping up an angry mob?”
But when the story of 21st-century American decline is written, the crucial chapter will focus not on Trump but on one of his predecessors, George W. Bush: a better man than Trump, a capable politician with a set of solid policies under his belt. to have. credit, but also the architect of an arrogant foreign policy whose disastrous effects continue to reverberate throughout the country and the world.
The Iraq war and the slower, longer failure in Afghanistan not only began the unraveling of Pax Americana. They also discredited the American establishment at home, destroying the center-right and undermining the center-left, dissolving trust in politicians, bureaucracies and even the military itself, while the social effects of the war persisted in the opioid epidemic and the mental health crisis. .
Haley isn’t exactly a George W. Bush Republican. Rather, he shares the sentiment that emerged among establishment Republicans after the collapse of Bushism, which blamed the failures of his presidency on excessive spending rather than Iraq, and imagined a Republican future defined by fiscal austerity, moderation on issues and a tough, full-spectrum stance on foreign policy. .
This was the worldview that Trump successfully fought back in 2016, when it was grossly inadequate for the challenges facing the country. Today, the picture is somewhat different: Haley’s eagerness to talk about entitlement reform, for example, is still probably a political loser, but the inflation-shadowed world of 2024 could use a big deal on deficits the same way the world did eight years ago. No.
In foreign policy, however, a radically tough vision is even more out of touch with today’s global landscape, where the United States faces a destabilizing world with an overstretched military that cannot meet its recruiting goals and a set of rivals who see this moment. as your window of opportunity. (Or by necessity, in the case of a China that is powerful today but sees rapid demographic decline on the horizon.)
Promises of resolution and moral clarity will not save us: there is no way we can confront every threat with the same confidence and military power, and necessary trade-offs must be made between the costs of the Ukraine war, our support for Israel, and containment. of Iran, our efforts to protect Taiwan and cool North Korea’s growing bellicosity, along with the various secondary obligations and surprise crises they could affect.
In this environment, the ideal president is a Nixon or an Eisenhower: a realist and a careful balancer, not a dove or an isolationist, but not a bellicose idealist either. And our gravest danger right now is probably not the one invoked by Haley’s critics who imagine the United States abandoning its allies, handing the world over to dictators, and beating a cowardly retreat.
Rather, the greatest danger is that the American establishment and an American president will overestimate our powers, commit themselves too broadly or too superficially, and end up facing a series of debacles and outright military defeats. (In fact, if I were to script a true domestic crisis for American democracy, it would begin with the United States losing a war with China and seeing its global power crack and break.)
Now it may be unfair to Haley to cast her in this kind of arrogant role. Hardline politicians can practice realpolitik and act as peacemakers (Ronald Reagan did both), and would-be realists can miscalculate their path to disasters. It is possible to imagine scenarios in which simply having more energy in the executive helps the United States avoid problems we would sink into under a decrepit Biden or an amoral, agitated Trump.
But of all the candidates, Haley’s vision still reminds me most of George W. Bush’s worldview, which in an era of seemingly limitless power set us on a path toward our era of crisis and limitations. Having seen that vision undermine a strong America, I have no confidence that it will rescue a weakened America. And if what failed us once failed again, the price could be more terrible and the collapse much more complete.
