christie-millionaires-tax-sweeney.jpg

Chris Christie: It looks like he won't be the political genius who unites the Republican Party on foreign policy

(Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Up until now, our governor has kept his views on foreign policy to himself.

That was wise, given what Chris Christie said when he finally shared those views with the voters.

That revelation came at the Champions of Jewish Values International Awards Gala in New York on Sunday. In his first major foreign policy address, Christie invoked all the stale phrases and discredited clichés associated with the so-called "neo"-conservative position on foreign policy. The speech culminated in this burning question:

"Who’s out there that you will nominate to make sure that justice is done around the world, that lives are protected, and that liberty and freedom is not only protected where it is but is pushed forward in places where people merely dream of it?"

Good question. Christie clearly intends that the person who will be nominated as the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 will be none other than a certain man from Mendham.

But I’ve got a better question: Where did the governor get the idea that it is the role of the chief executive of the United States to run the entire world?

I got the answer from another New Jersey Republican with aspirations to national office. That’s Murray Sabrin, one of four Republicans running in the June 3 primary for the right to face Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Cory Booker.

Sabrin pointed out that neoconservatism has its roots in the foreign policy of another onetime New Jersey governor with an alliterative name and aspirations to the White House.

"That foreign policy is based on Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s liberal internationalist view of the world, how we have to make the world safe for democracy," Sabrin said.

It is indeed. And that philosophy didn’t work out so well, either for Wilson or for his ideological heirs such as George W. Bush.

Wilson famously got outsmarted in the aftermath of World War I. As for Bush, he managed to lose 4,500 American lives and a trillion dollars turning Iraq into Iran’s firmest ally.

Yet there was Christie promising to take up where Bush left off. He went through the entire neocon litany, including the obligatory shot at the Obama administration for failing to follow through on the so-called "red line" that the Syrian regime supposedly crossed with its use of chemical weapons.

But what really stopped the administration from invading Syria was the reaction of the American public to the thought of yet another misguided Mideast adventure. Congressmen of both parties reported calls and emails coming in at a 9-to-1 ratio in opposition to U.S. military action in Syria.

The age of intervention is over. Its demise can be traced to the 2008 Republican presidential primary, when then-Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (see video below) revived the traditional conservative philosophy of non-intervention now advanced by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is expected to run in the 2016 GOP primary.

Sabrin, who was an early Ron Paul backer, points out that it’s impossible to advocate economic conservatism while also pushing a policy that requires the United States to spend trillions invading foreign countries.

"This foreign policy not only is counterproductive because we cannot shape other nations in our image. Financially, we are still running hundreds of billions in deficits every year when our roads and bridges are crumbling and our schools are not educating our kids," Sabrin said.

Then there’s the fact that the foreign policy Christie embraced is indistinguishable from that of the man Sabrin hopes to replace in the Senate. Booker, who has embraced every aspect of neocon foreign policy, received an award in absentia from the group, which is headed by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

The news reports made much of Adelson’s penchant for making big donations to politicians who advocate U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel. But Sabrin, whose father was a Jewish resistance fighter in Poland in World War II, argues that Israel can protect itself.

"I take Benjamin Netanyahu’s word for it when he said in an address to a joint session of Congress that Israel can take care of itself," Sabrin said.

There’s the real red line. The differences between the interventionist and non-interventionist wings of the Republican Party could not be more extreme.

There’s room out there for some political genius who can figure out how to court both sides in this debate. But it doesn’t look like that genius will be emerging from Morris County.

ADD: Much of the news coverage of this appearance focused on Christie's effort to recover from what was considered to be a gaffe when he referred in March to the "occupied territories."

That left the impression that Christie was sucking up to potential big donors. He was, of course, but that's not the best impression to make.

He thus passed up a chance to have a "Sister Souljah" moment, a phrase that describes the boost Bill Clinton got in the 1992 Democratic primary when he went to an event featuring a rap singer of that name and instead of fawning over her lectured her on values.

Christie had stood up to some of the more extremist members of the audience by telling them the truth: Americans are tired of seeking out endless wars in the Mideast and, as Sabrin said, Israel needs to rely on its own resources. That might have sprung him loose from the pack.

Instead he's just one of many neocons who will be taking votes from each other as Rand Paul solidifies the conservative vote. That's assuming Christie runs, of course - a safe assumption after this obsequious performance.