The latest Republican presidential debate showcased a stark divide within the GOP, with candidates presenting contrasting visions for U.S. foreign policy. The leading figures in the party have moved away from cooperation with Democrats and international allies, reflecting the sentiments of Republican voters who believe it is more important for the United States to be feared than loved, according to a recent CBS/YouGov poll.

During the debate, one group of candidates advocated for a militaristic and unilateral approach to engagement with the world, emphasizing the need to "finish the job" against Hamas, "take out" Mexican cartels, and "cut off the head of the snake" (referring to Iran). The other group argued for retreating, particularly in dealing with China, or even turning the country into a fortress.

The divisions displayed in the debate draw attention to fundamental differences in the GOP's approach to the world. Both factions claim to represent the party's true essence, and history has shown that the side prevailing in these debates could shape U.S. foreign policy for a generation if they win the presidential election in November.

Although former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican standard-bearer for 2024, did not participate in the debate, his views loomed large over the stage. The exchange between the candidates, including second-tier contenders, provided valuable insights into the range of divisions within the party and their areas of commonality.

Despite the disagreements, certain areas of agreement were apparent. Support for Israel against Hamas remained the dominant position within the GOP, with only one candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, opposing further U.S. aid to Israel. However, even candidates who criticized each other shared a consensus on issues such as being tough on China. Global climate change received little attention, while hard-line approaches dominated discussions surrounding immigration.

The most significant dividing line in the debate revolved around U.S. support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Candidates such as Nikki Haley and Chris Christie took a conservative internationalist stance, arguing that resisting Russian aggression in Europe is crucial for preserving U.S. power and preventing a costlier war in the future. On the other hand, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy advocated for pulling back U.S. support, with DeSantis prioritizing countering China and Ramaswamy seemingly advocating for pure isolationism, aligning with Trump's positions on Ukraine and NATO.

The level of division within the party on the purpose of foreign policy mirrors historical eras like the 1920s and the mid-19th century when Republicans and Democrats clashed over engagement with the world. These divisions led to significant consequences, such as the refusal to join the League of Nations and a racist anti-immigration law. The upcoming decade may witness transformations of a similar magnitude in America's role in the world, with potential repercussions on international politics and the U.S.-based system.

The November 2024 presidential election holds immense significance in determining the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The choice before the voters could be between rival forms of internationalism or a shift towards unprecedented retrenchment, with far-reaching consequences. The outcome will shape the United States' engagement with the world and its relationships with global powers, potentially altering the geopolitical landscape for years to come.