GOP Debate Review

I break down the first GOP Debate.

Welcome back to The Burnett Breakdown. If you have been on the edge of your seat waiting to read about my reaction to the GOP Debate, then you should probably like, subscribe, share, and comment to ensure others can wait in suspense with you. Also, The Burnett Breakdown podcast is available on all podcast platforms including YouTube.

Big Picture Thoughts

I’ll start by talking broadly about my thoughts regarding the debate. I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of substance that was talked about during this debate. While everybody’s favorite debate pastime is to complain about the moderators, I thought there were significantly fewer “gotcha” type questions than is typical.

One of the most evident aspects of this debate was the deep divisions that exist within the Republican Party. For example, there was a substantive disagreement between Nikki Haley and Mike Pence over how to approach abortion. Both candidates are pro-life, but Haley was concerned that a federal ban was simply impractical right now, so there was no point in making abortion a make-or-break issue for GOP voters. Haley emphasized the need to build consensus around abortion-related issues that the majority of people agree on, such as banning late-term abortions, encouraging adoption, etc.

Mike Pence, on the other hand, believes “building consensus” is the opposite of leadership. A leader, in Mike Pence’s opinion, should take a moral stance and immovably advocate for that moral stance. He mentioned a federal ban on abortions after 15 weeks as a position “whose time had come” while noting its popularity with “70% of Americans.”

Haley responded with the impracticality of such a federal ban. There simply are not enough pro-life Representatives and Senators to pass such a federal ban, so Republicans need to stop promising it and making voters decide on that issue. Regardless of which position one supports, this is a worthy discussion to have: How much should practical politics be considered in addressing abortion? That is a question that pro-lifers will be debating for years to come.

Another area of significant disagreement was a moment between Vivek Ramaswamy and Mike Pence regarding just how bad the current time in America is. Ramaswamy criticized Pence for “having a morning in America speech” but that this is actually a “dark time in America.” According to Ramaswamy, we are in the middle of a “cold, cultural civil war.”

Pence claimed that Americans are the “most faith-filled, freedom-loving, idealistic, and hard-working people the world has ever know.” What is wrong in America, according to Pence, is that our failed government does not reflect the American people.

At its core, the debate between the two candidates is just how far gone are the American people? Are we so depraved and unmoored from our Judeo-Christian values that the clock is ticking on this great nation? Or, are we still, at our core, a good people who believe in good ideals and want to live up to those ideas? How different are the Americans that lived in the 1980s to the Americans that live in 2023?

If America is so far gone today, then the Reagan playbook of the 1980s doesn’t apply anymore. We need “revolution” as Ramaswamy said earlier in the debate. If America is still a great nation, then we just need to make sure that the government does not get in the way of our flourishing.

Finally, there was the expected disagreement on giving aid to Ukraine. Ramaswamy and Desantis were the isolationist in the pack saying they would not send any more aid to Ukraine. Haley and Pence were two of the most passionate defenders of sending aid to Ukraine.

As I have talked about before, Ukrainian aid really comes down to a disagreement on what is America’s role in the world. How isolated or interventionist should we be? For decades, the Republican Party believed that America should take an active role in world affairs through aiding countries fighting communism, building alliances, and even protecting countries from invasion, as in the case of Kuwait. In recent years, this more interventionist approach has been replaced with an “America First” foreign policy that thinks America has gotten too involved in the affairs of other countries.

Pence and Haley both made it clear in the debate that they believe America can both support Ukraine and take care of its own border. Ramaswamy and Desantis both see the failure to institute stricter border policies as evidence that America actually cannot do both.

No matter what eventually happens in Ukraine, this debate within the Republican Party will continue. Whether it’s Iraq, Afghanistan, or Ukraine, there will inevitably be a situation in another country that beckons for American involvement, and the Republican Party will continue to debate.

Questions From My Preview Newsletter

Now, I want to briefly answer the questions that I mentioned in my preview newsletter.

How many people are going to watch? 

According to Nielson, 12.8 million people watched the debate. This was not as many people as watched the first GOP debate in 2016, but it was a higher number than I think most people were expecting. I’m not sure though if it was high enough to make much of a difference. 

This means that everybody will likely be left to interpret the debate through the media highlights and lens that they already watch. For example, somebody who watches media that is pro-Desantis will likely think Desantis won the debate based on the coverage that they will be exposed to.

I believe this just means that Donald Trump will continue to dominate in the polls like he was before the debate.

Was it a good idea for Donald Trump to skip the debate? 

I don’t think it actually will matter much, but I do think Trump certainly did some harm to himself by not being there. There were likely at least some Republican voters that tuned into the debate and were exposed to somebody (Haley, Pence, Desantis, Ramaswamy) for the first time and liked what they saw. Those are now people that Trump is going to have to work for their support instead of having by default.

Plus, Trump’s interview with Tucker Carlson did not get very much attention (despite what Twitter/X’s inflated view count says). Again, I don’t think it will matter much in the long term, but I would not be surprised if Trump reconsiders participating in a future debate. I also would not be surprised if he chooses to continue to skip as well.

I do stand by my side note last newsletter that the debate was infinitely more substantive and enjoyable to watch without his participation.

Will Chris Christie do any real damage to Donald Trump?

Simply put, no. I was completely wrong in my prediction that Christie would come out the winner. I think his strategy is to almost entirely focus on winning New Hampshire, which is why he was more subdued than in the past. 

New Hampshire is a much less friendly place to the bombastic style of politics that Trump has made so popular. As a result, I think Christie was purposely more subdued in an attempt to win over voters in New Hampshire with the belief that winning the second Republican primary will give him the momentum he needs to make a run.

Also, I do think that Vivek Ramaswamy genuinely bothered Christie and that threw him off his game. Not to mention, it has to be tough getting booed by an audience full of Republicans, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that had an effect as well.

Either way, I was wrong that he would come out the winner, so I will own that.

How much are the 2020 election and Trump indictments discussed?

Hardly at all and not until the 45 minute mark. I think this is objectively a good thing. I know that others think that the candidates should have gone after Trump since they are so far behind, but I think not giving him attention when he isn’t there is actually the way to go. I’ve come around to the Kemp strategy of criticizing Trump when it’s necessary but to try and avoid talking about him otherwise. 

What are the candidates’ positions on Ukraine?

I discussed at length up above, but I was pleasantly surprised at the level of remaining hawkishness within the GOP. As I wrote a couple of years ago about isolationism,

Platitudes such as “bring the troops home” and “end the forever wars” sound great but are ultimately empty. They stem from childish naivety that if America just minds its own business then it won’t have any enemies. As evidence from Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11, the United States cannot afford to put its head in the sand and ignore the affairs of other countries. When it does, the affairs of other countries are forced upon the United States and American citizens are often killed in the process… It is on conservatives to rediscover their hawkish roots and call out isolationist tendencies for the childish dreaming that they are.

Needless to say, I am not a fan of more isolationist policies and the debate gave me some hope that there are some Republicans who agree.

Most Impressive

In sum, I was most impressed with Nikki Haley. I have struggled with Nikki Haley for a while as I wrote about when she announced her run for president. I wrote her name in for president in 2020, and I have had a soft spot for Nikki Haley ever since she stood in the front of the United Nations and gave them the business. However, she handled the post-Trump years terribly, as she was clearly trying to be everything to everybody and not take a stand on what she believed.

I think the debate was the first time since Trump has been out of office that I have seen Nikki Haley actually stand firm on what she beliefs. She had plenty of substance and was firm in her conviction, but she was poised and respectful. If she continues to do, then I will gladly vote for her if given the opportunity.

God Bless,

Hunter Burnett