The foreign policy hawk in the race? That would be Kamala Harris.

Don’t take my word for it. “It is a speech Ronald Reagan could have given,” Liz Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week” regarding Harris’s keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. “It is a speech George Bush could have given. It’s very much an embrace and an understanding of the exceptional nature of this great nation, a love of America, a recognition that America is a special place.” Cheney went on to condemn former president Donald Trump’s plan for across-the-board, massive tariffs that “will choke off global trade, will likely lead us down the path that we’ve seen before, for example, in the 1930s ... [to] a depression.”

Cheney said that when it comes to “fundamental alliances, when it comes to the importance of NATO, for example, and how important it is for the United States to lead in the world, we’ve seen a sea change.” In other words, those Republicans who during the Cold War ridiculed Democratic fecklessness, showed timidity toward America’s enemies and pooh-poohed the United States as a force for good in the world should now be backing Harris. Remarkably, Cheney affirmed that “if you’re talking about a national security set of issues and you care about America’s leadership role in the world, a vote for Vice President Harris is the right vote to make this time around.”

At the most basic level, Cheney recognized what disingenuous Republicans twisting themselves into knots to support Trump will not do: acknowledge that Trump does not see the United States as the leader of the free world in opposition to aggressive, antidemocratic regimes. Whether because he admires the dictatorial profile of figures such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, responds to their manipulative flattery or has financial conflicts of interest (or some combination of all three), Trump will not defend America’s interests. It is why he threatened to cut off Ukraine aid to get dirt on his 2020 opponent. And it is why, for example, he envisions lifting sanctions on Russia and Iran (!) — something in past years one might have expected of far-left protesters.

It is no wonder, then, that the Kremlin has set up an elaborate election interference scheme, enlisting right-wing, pro-Trump pundits. Last week’s Justice Department indictments of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva, employees of Russian TV network RT, plus pro-Russian foreign policy propagandist Dimitri Simes, a former Trump adviser, affirm the degree to which the Putin regime favors the easily manipulated MAGA candidate. As in 2016, when the Trump campaign had multiple contacts with Russian authorities, Trump’s 2024 campaign dangles the prospect of an American president who will undermine traditional alliances and allow Russia to regain its “empire” at the expense of its sovereign neighbors.

Harris, by contrast, aligns herself with a consensus running from center-right to center-left (with the notable exception of Trump) that has steered American foreign policy in the post-WWII decades. “As president, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs,” Harris said at the Democratic convention.

That is why Larry R. Ellis, a retired four-star general who served under President George W. Bush, plus more than 200 former Republican staffers (including Olivia Troye, homeland security adviser to former vice president Mike Pence) have endorsed Harris. In part, that move stems from their fear that Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), as they wrote in an open letter, will “kowtow to dictators like Vladimir Putin while turning their backs on our allies.”

Other foreign policy hawks such as former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta and former Illinois congressman and Air Force veteran Adam Kinzinger have condemned Trump’s denigration (“suckers,” “losers”) of military personnel who have sacrificed for our country. Like Reagan, Harris’s admiration for the military and “peace through strength” outlook makes her the only acceptable choice for those concerned about national security. (“We must also be steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad,” she said in her DNC acceptance speech, adding, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. And I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their service and their sacrifice.”)

For decades after World War II, Republicans stood with democratic allies in defense of an international world order that benefited the United States. They supported free trade, a strong national defense, adherence to international human rights and an array of bilateral and multilateral alliances that worked to our mutual benefit. There is no real dispute as to which presidential candidate comes closest to that foreign policy outlook. It’s not the one who lionizes dictators, threatens to leave NATO allies in the lurch, vows to lift economic sanctions against our enemies and attracts the support of Kremlin stooges. Those ostensibly searching for policy reassurance need look no further than Harris’s own words and those of her hawkish defenders.