The FINANCIAL — WASHINGTON — For much of the 20th century, the Republican Party stood as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, a resolute defender of Western values rooted in democracy, individual liberty, and collective security. Today, that legacy is fraying. Under the influence of former President Donald J. Trump and a growing populist wing, the party is tilting toward a posture that not only tolerates Russia’s belligerence but, at times, echoes its hostility toward NATO—a shift that some warn imperils the very foundations of the Western alliance.
The rejection last week of a bipartisan Senate proposal to bolster NATO funding, led by a bloc of Trump-aligned Republicans, underscored this transformation. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, a vocal skeptic of American entanglement abroad, framed the move as a rejection of “endless wars and blank checks.” Yet critics see a deeper rot: a party once defined by its Cold War hawkishness now flirting with alignment to a Kremlin that thrives on destabilizing the West.
A Storied Past Unravels
The Republican Party’s strongest era in safeguarding Western civilization arguably peaked during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. Reagan, who famously branded the Soviet Union an “evil empire” in a 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, cast the struggle as a moral crusade. “We will never compromise our principles and standards,” he declared, vowing to confront Moscow’s expansionism with military might and ideological clarity. His administration’s massive defense buildup, including the Strategic Defense Initiative, and support for anti-communist movements from Poland to Afghanistan helped hasten the Soviet collapse—a triumph that cemented the GOP as the party of Western resolve.
That era stood in stark contrast to today’s ambivalence. Historians point to Reagan’s clarity of purpose—bolstered by NATO’s unity—as a high-water mark. “Reagan saw the Soviet threat as existential, not just to America but to the idea of freedom,” said Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “He’d be horrified by what’s happening now.”
Ronald Reagan (1983): In a speech, Reagan called the Soviet Union “the focus of evil in the modern world,” highlighting its threat to Western democracy (Ronald Reagan: Foreign Affairs).
The seeds of the party’s weakest moment, unfolding in real time, were sown during Mr. Trump’s tenure and have taken root since. His presidency marked a rupture: where Reagan rallied allies against a common foe, Mr. Trump openly admired President Vladimir V. Putin, calling him “smart” and “savvy” during Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. “I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO members not meeting spending targets, he said at a rally in February 2024, a statement that sent shudders through European capitals. This anti-NATO streak—once unthinkable in GOP circles—has gained traction, threatening the alliance that has underpinned Western security since 1949.
Voices of Dissent and Devotion
The shift has not gone uncontested. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, has been a rare voice of continuity. “Russia remains our number one geopolitical foe,” he said during his campaign, a stance he reiterated last month in a speech at the Hudson Institute. “Putin’s aggression—whether in Ukraine or through cyberattacks—endangers the free world. We abandon NATO at our peril.” Mr. Romney’s warnings echo the party’s Cold War giants, yet they struggle to resonate in a GOP remade by populism.
Contrast that with Mr. Vance, now a standard-bearer for the party’s “America First” faction. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” he said on a podcast in 2022, shortly before Russia’s invasion escalated. His skepticism of NATO, shared by figures like Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri—who has called for a pivot away from Europe to focus on China—reflects a broader retreat from the internationalism that once defined Republican foreign policy.
Former leaders from the party’s stronger days see the change as a betrayal. John Bolton, who served as national security adviser under Mr. Trump before breaking with him, minced no words in a recent interview with NBC News. “Reagan would have said NATO has kept the peace for 80 years—it’s reckless to risk that,” he said. “Trump’s people don’t slap Russia around; they slap our friends instead.” Ken Adelman, a Reagan-era arms control director, was blunter: “It makes me sick what’s going on right now.”
Admiration for Authoritarian Strength
Some Republicans view Mr. Putin’s strongman style as a model, a stark departure from the party’s democratic ethos. “There’s a segment that admires Putin’s decisiveness, his rejection of liberal norms,” said Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official under Mr. Trump, speaking to CNN last month. This allure is evident in comments from figures like Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, who in 2022 said, “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” signaling indifference to Russia’s threat to democratic neighbors.
A growing faction argues that China, not Russia, is America’s primary rival, diminishing Moscow’s perceived threat. “Russia’s a distraction—China’s the real game,” said Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri in a 2023 Foreign Affairs essay, advocating a pivot away from Europe. Experts like Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution counter that this underestimates Russia’s capacity to destabilize the West. “Putin thrives on our divisions,” Mr. Kagan told NPR in February. “Ignoring him because of China is a false choice.”
“Trump sees Putin as a guy he can negotiate with, not an adversary to confront,” said Angela Stent, a Russia expert at Georgetown University, in a recent webinar. His February 2024 remark—“Putin’s a tough guy, he gets it. I get along with him fine”—underscores a belief that personal rapport can override strategic differences, aligning U.S. policy with Russia’s interests.
George W. Bush (2022): “Russia’s attack on Ukraine constitutes the gravest security crisis on the European continent since World War II,” (Statement by President George W. Bush on Ukraine).
A Threat to the West
Russia’s current posture amplifies the stakes. Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, now in its third year, has exposed NATO’s fault lines, with Moscow’s propaganda casting the alliance as an aggressor bent on encircling Russia. The Kremlin’s cyberattacks, election meddling, and support for far-right movements across Europe aim to fracture Western unity—a strategy that finds an unwitting ally in the GOP’s anti-NATO drift.
The party’s weakest period, experts argue, is this moment of indecision and division. Where Reagan’s GOP unified around a vision of Western strength, today’s Republicans are split between a shrinking internationalist wing and a populist base wary of foreign commitments. A Pew Research survey last year found 71 percent of Republicans favor focusing on domestic issues over global engagement, a sharp reversal from the 1990s, when the party backed interventions in the Balkans under President Bill Clinton.
“This isn’t just about Ukraine—it’s about whether the West holds together,” said Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official under Mr. Trump. “Russia senses weakness, and parts of the GOP are giving them an opening.”
Donald J. Trump (February 10, 2024): “We’re like suckers—paying for everyone else’s security while they laugh at us. Putin’s a tough guy, he gets it. I get along with him fine.”
Echoes of History
The irony is thick: a party that once toppled a totalitarian empire now risks abetting its successor. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first Republican president of the Cold War era and NATO’s inaugural supreme commander, warned in 1953 that “the forces of tyranny and oppression” thrive on disunity. “We must stand together,” he said, a call that rallied the GOP to NATO’s cause. Today, as Mr. Trump eyes a return to power and his allies push to scale back America’s role, that unity hangs in the balance.
For now, the Republican Party teeters between its past and an uncertain future. Mr. Putin, watching from Moscow, may see not an adversary, but an opportunity—one the West can ill afford.
Discussion about this post