Others are of a different opinion. Primacists, many pragmatists, and even some other restrainer sub-factions take the view that focusing overwhelmingly on the domestic culture war is misguided at best, and politically reckless at worst—especially given that the U.S. public is more concerned about inflation, the economy, and other material issues. Many of these sub-factions instead argue that addressing China should be America’s foremost foreign policy priority, only to be met with counter-arguments (including from within their own sub-factions) that an aggressive focus on countering China risks opening the door for neoconservatives to take over again. These voices, which include many national developmentalists, contend that the primary focus should be addressing pressing material realities—the international competition for key resources, the state of the economy, and so on—and that China should be the focus insomuch as it serves as a threat by which various policies and budgets can be justified.

Second, even without fully determining what Republicans’ foreign policy priorities should be, there is strong disagreement over how they should be addressed. Consider, for example, the intra-pragmatist debate on China. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, perhaps the most prominent defense prioritizer, strongly advocates that the United States should pursue a strategy of denial to contain China’s territorial ambitions, with Taiwan being key to this entire endeavor. Meanwhile, David P. Goldman, a notable national developmentalist and Spengler columnist for Asia Times, views this as a misguided endeavor—the real competition with China is happening in the realms of technology and economics, and America will lose if it does not properly prioritize, fund, and reform how it conducts research and development.

Given an environment of limited resources and political capital, such debates over what should be politically prioritized matter a great deal.

Third, the very framing of these debates—focusing on pressing priorities—means that various topics receive practically zero consideration. There is, for example, almost no discussion on what NatCon (and Republican) policy toward Africa and Latin America should be, to say nothing about what Republican policy toward specific countries within these regions should be. At most, there are general calls to challenge Chinese encroachment and, in the Latin American context, for the reimposition of the Monroe Doctrine—an idea certainly not welcome by the region’s inhabitants. Diplomatists are in veritable despair at the lack of consideration being given to these issues.

Fourth, Republicans (and conservatives in general) are currently in an unfavorable position in regard to foreign policy hiring. The profession, by its nature, imposes various requirements on its practitioners: holistic proficiency in a variety of intellectual subjects (history, economics, diplomacy, military science, etc.); strong critical thinking skills; knowledge of a foreign language (or several); an understanding of and exposure to foreign cultures, customs, and mores; a strong capacity for writing/arguing well; geographical residence in more-expensive urban environments for proximity to relevant/key institutions; and so on. Not all of these are necessary for an individual to be involved in foreign policy decisionmaking, of course. But even then, the requirements are such that foreign policy tends to be an elite-dominated profession, with a minor tendency to skew to the political Left due to the concentration of jobs and institutions in major metropolitan cities, which trend politically liberal.

As such, conservatives tend to have a harder time recruiting professionals in foreign policy-relevant fields. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that most existing conservative non-university supplementary educational institutions overwhelmingly focus on teaching conservative political philosophy, to the detriment of other subjects. This affects foreign policy factional composition. For example, there are far more paleocons than pragmatists, relative to the general population. Particularly rare are Republican Diplomatists with experience living abroad or serving in the State Department. The overall resulting lack of expertise and experience means that Republicans, and especially the NatCon movement, face an uphill battle.

Fifth, restrainers are constrained by the fact that major key institutions and talent pipelines—Congressional offices, think tanks, major publications, government agencies, and so forth—remain politically dominated by primacists. Pragmaticists suffer from the same issue but to a lesser degree, as they can collaborate with and take advantage of primacist-dominated institutions and programs. Although both factions have begun building new rival training programs, policy journals, popular magazines, professional associations, and policy-focused think tanks, along with efforts to change existing institutions, these will take time, financing, and concentrated effort. Moreover, worries over who specifically controls these new institutions and the agenda-setting process may hamper overall efforts.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Republicans’ inability to advance from agreement on underlying foreign policy principles has left them stuck, unable to formulate and implement a coherent foreign policy. In the meantime, the party has become vulnerable to being outflanked by Democrats, who now take NatCon/Republican ideas and pursue them with vigor.

For instance, though the Trump administration reintroduced protectionism and industrial policy into public discourse, arguing such measures are necessary to bring back manufacturing jobs from China, it is Democrats who have marched ahead with these changes. See no further than the Inflation Reduction Act, de facto a $500 billion green industrial policy bill, or the CHIPS Act, which two commentators accurately described as a “market-shaping measure designed to eliminate systemic geopolitical risk to the supply of critical goods, while also recasting the socioeconomic geography of domestic industrial production.” In other words, the sort of stuff that Republican national developmentalists advocated for during the Trump administration.

Other examples abound. The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) essentially builds upon the Trump-era 2018 NDS. The Biden administration’s trade policy is a continuation of Trump’s policy, with some improvements. Likewise, the push toward great power competition, pioneered by the Trump administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy, has been kept and expanded.

Republican restrainers are in an increasingly awkward position: unable to fully claim credit for restrain-oriented policies—such as Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the potential forthcoming repeal of the Iraq War authorization for the use of military force. Their positions are being normalized, but by Democrats. Meanwhile, restrainers are also confronting the reality that the present Republican Party gridlock has created an opening by which primacists can reassert themselves. This is playing out in debates over U.S. support for Ukraine, what should be done about Mexico’s drug cartels, the contours of U.S. China policy, and so on. Pragmatists, on the other hand, are growing frustrated by the situation and a perceived lack of Republican seriousness on various issues—and are reconsidering their options, especially in light of Democrats’ newfound interest in adopting pragmatists’ preferred policy prescriptions.

Much can still change in the coming months, especially as the U.S. Republican presidential primary begins to heat up. The campaign trail will force both candidates and their supporters—including would-be foreign policy advisors, key institutions, and others—to become serious about their foreign policy agenda. Whether this will be enough to overcome existing divisions and disagreements, however, remains to be seen.

Carlos Roa is the Executive Editor of The National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.