Charles Krauthammer on The four foreign policies

WaPo  Outline below:

. . . "Herewith, four candidates and four schools: pacifist, internationalist, unilateralist and mercantilist." . . .

"(1) Bernie Sanders, pacifist."

. . . "Emblematic was the Nov. 14 Democratic debate , which was supposed to focus on the economy but occurred the day after the Paris massacre. Sanders objected to starting the debate with a question about Paris. He did not prevail, however, and answered the first question with some anti-terror pablum that immediately gave way to an impassioned attack on his usual “handful of billionaires.' ” . . .

"Don’t be surprised if President Sanders hands Guantanamo Bay over to the Castros, although Alaska looks relatively safe for now."
"Closest historical analog: George McGovern."

"(2) Hillary Clinton, internationalist."

"The “Clinton/Obama” foreign policy from Ukraine to Iran to the South China Sea has been a demonstrable failure. But in trying to figure out what President Clinton would do in the future, we need to note that she often gave contrary advice, generally more assertive and aggressive than President Obama’s, that was overruled, most notably keeping troops in Iraq beyond 2011 and early arming of the Syrian rebels." . . .

"Closest historical analog: the Bill Clinton foreign policy of the 1990s."

("3) Ted Cruz, unilateralist. 
"The most aggressive of the three contenders thus far. Wants post-Cold War U.S. leadership restored. Is prepared to take risks and act alone when necessary. Pledges to tear up the Iran deal, cement the U.S.-Israel alliance and carpet bomb the Islamic State. 

"Overdoes it with “carpet” — it implies Dresden — although it was likely just an attempt at rhetorical emphasis. He’s of the school that will not delay action while waiting on feckless allies or farcical entities like the U.N.

"Closest analog: Ronald Reagan."

"(4) Donald Trump, mercantilist." 
". . . "You could put the Sanders, Clinton and Cruz foreign policies on a recognizable ideological spectrum, left to right. But not Trump’s. It inhabits a different space because it lacks any geopolitical coherence. It’s all about money. He sees no particular purpose for allies or foreign bases. They are simply a financial drain.
". . . "Thus, if Japan and South Korea don’t pony up more money for our troops stationed there, we go home. The possible effects on the balance of power in the Pacific Rim or on Chinese hegemonic designs don’t enter into the equation.
"Same for NATO. If those free-riding European leeches don’t give us more money too, why stick around? Concerns about tempting Russian ambitions and/or aggression are nowhere in sight.
This last commentary finishes with Trump's threat to bomb the ---- out of the Islamic State, but does revert to his business goals:. . . "Yet even here he can’t quite stifle his mercantilist impulses, insisting that after crushing the Islamic State, he’ll keep their oil. Whatever that means."
"Closest historical analog: King Philip II of Spain (1556-1598)."

"On Jan. 20, one of these four contenders will be sworn in as president. And one of these four approaches to the world will become the foreign policy of the United States.
"Don’t say you weren’t warned."