Ramaswamy and Bolton Debate America’s Foreign Policy

Ramaswamy, Bolton Debate America’s Foreign Policy

Two visions for America’s global role clashed on stage at VMI.

(W&L students stand with John Bolton. | SOURCE: The W&L Spectator)

On the evening of October 3, 2024, The Steamboat Institute sponsored a debate pitting former Republican presidential candidate and conservative commentator Vivek Ramaswamy against John Bolton, who served as National Security Advisor under the Trump administration and Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush.

They debated the following resolution: “The United States should use its diplomatic and military power around the globe to ensure America’s national security.”

The event was hosted at the Virginia Military Institute by the Center for Leadership and Ethics.

John Bolton, with decades of experience and representing the “hawkish” old guard of the Republican Party traditionally supportive of American international involvement, was in favor of the statement.

Vivek Ramaswamy, representing the Republican party’s new isolationist inclinations, was in opposition.

In a clash of concepts and ideologies that reflected a national debate for the direction of America’s foreign policy, the two men presented their arguments and engaged in, as Ramaswamy later described, a “sometimes heated but respectful” debate.

The Steamboat Institute had the audience answer in a poll whether they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure with the resolution before the debate commenced. Sixty-five percent of the audience initially backed the resolution, 19 percent disagreed, and 17 percent were uncertain.

Bolton offered an opening statement, strongly advocating for America’s global involvement as “common sense,” using historical examples to illustrate. He elaborated how many don’t understand American national security, explained how the world got soft after the Cold War, and warned about the re-emergence of isolationism.

The audience seemed more responsive to Vivek’s opening statement. He agreed that the U.S. should strive to be a strong nation, saying that he “wouldn’t disagree” with the resolution “as it’s drafted” but asserted that the resolution’s “core meaning” really asks whether the U.S. should be the world’s policeman.

To this newly framed question, he answered an “absolute no.” He described how American wars in the Middle East “failed miserably” and argued that the financial and human costs of wars were not worth the effort. “The evidence suggests that the interventionist foreign policy of the twenty-first century has been nothing short of an abysmal failure,” he said.

Ramaswamy also noted that China strengthened as the U.S. became overdependent on the Chinese economy. According to his view, the interventions around the Middle East distracted America from addressing China’s rise properly.

Throughout the debate, the two candidates at times addressed one another directly as they debated how best the U.S. should project influence abroad.

Asked whether violent force should be used against Iran, Bolton advocated for joint Israeli-American nuclear facilities. Ramaswamy, echoing J.D. Vance’s answer in the Vice Presidential debate, said that Israel ultimately had to make decisions on its own, although maintaining that the United States needs to support the nation.

The Russo-Ukrainian War seemed to be the most contentious issue for the two speakers, as they frequently interrupted each other. Their differences ranged from NATO expansion to terms of negotiation.

Ramaswamy pointed to the strengthening of the Russia-China relationship multiple times, saying that it was in the United States’ interest to keep the relationship from blossoming. He asserted that the war in Ukraine was doing the opposite, bringing the two nations closer together.

He argued that given NATO’s expansion, Russia became more hostile to the United States. Ramaswamy suggested that NATO had broken a promise made by former Secretary of State James Baker that the alliance would grow “not one inch to the east” of a reunified Germany.

Bolton disputed the “not one inch to the east” comment, asserting that Baker never made any such guarantee and that Mikhail Gorbachev actually refuted the supposed statement. “I do think I have some ground to say I know what happened because I worked for [Baker] at the time. I don’t rely on historians. I was there,” he said.

Bolton went on to argue that NATO expansion was justified, and that NATO let in Eastern European countries because they wanted membership, not to pressure or encroach on Russia’s sovereignty.

Ramaswamy then asked Bolton on what terms the war in Ukraine should end. The former national security advisor responded: “A full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

“Now let me ask you a question,” Bolton continued. Both then spoke over one another, as Bolton told Ramaswamy, “this isn’t a campaign event!”

Bolton’s question to Ramaswamy centered around Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance’s proposal for an end to the war in Ukraine, which includes Russia keeping conquered territories and a Ukrainian promise of guaranteed neutrality, along with a demilitarized zone.

Ramaswamy first clarified Bolton’s stance on the restoration of pre-war boundaries, calling them unrealistic. “It is lunacy!” he said.

Vivek then explained that in 2022, Ukraine went to the negotiating table “before the United States goaded” them away from a potential peace deal. Arguing that  the continued war and increased engagement damaged not just U.S. but also Ukrainian interests, he highlighted the unrealistic possibility of Bolton’s post-war vision.

Both men seemed to be in agreement when referring to President Biden as “the worst president we ever had,” bashing him on his weakness in foreign policy. They agreed on the need to defend Taiwan, although Ramaswamy suggested that America’s focus on other regions of the world distracts it from doing so effectively.

Ramaswamy also broached the “deep state,” which electrified the debate. He described the presence of an unelected foreign policy establishment that does not care what the American people believe, and he argued that bureaucrats should instead play a more limited role in American policymaking.

Bolton, when asked about the presence of a deep state, said that “we’re not smart enough to be a deep state. If there were a deep state, we wouldn’t be having this debate.” “The idea that we’re run by a deep state is deeply paranoid,” he said.

Ramaswamy persisted, though, arguing that only officials elected by the people should run the government and foreign policy. “Those leaders should owe their sole moral duty,” he said, “to the citizens of this country and not another one.

Both speakers then took the stage for closing statements.

Bolton emphasized America’s role in ensuring security around the world, not just benefitting the U.S. but the global community as well. “The fact is, since 1945, what little order and stability there is in the world has come because of the United States and our alliances, not because of anyone else.”

Bringing back classic American themes of “peace through strength,” he mentioned the old Roman proverb, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Recognizing a need to combat threats and an axis of rogue nations worldwide, Bolton noted the need for a presidential candidate who understands the growing threats.

Ramaswamy’s closing statements also highlighted “peace through strength,” but he differentiated himself by supporting peace through actual strength, more than the appearance of it. He noted the generational divide in foreign policy, a repeated theme throughout the night.

Ramaswamy also discussed the deep deficit in national pride, the decay of the U.S. military, and realistic goals in Ukraine. “Decline is a choice. I believe we can still be a nation in our ascent,” he said.

After closing statements, facilitators again polled the audience and found a large shift: 41 percent agreed with Bolton’s position while 55 percent now supported Ramaswamy, with 4 percent uncertain.

(The debate surveys showed a shift toward Ramaswamy’s stance. | SOURCE: The Steamboat Institute)

The debate reflected changing attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy not just among conservative youth, but American youth in general.

“We require a new way forward that’s different, from copying methods from the last 20 years that got us here,” Ramaswamy said. “If the shining city on a hill no longer shines, what hope does the rest of the world have?”