Rand Paul, foreign-policy realism, and Republican reform
What Paul seems to understand is that the Republican base doesn’t really have a detailed set of foreign policy positions: What it has, instead, is the cluster of sympathies and instincts (pro-Israel, pro-military, nationalist rather than globalist, fretful about radical Islam, skeptical of international institutions) that Walter Russell Mead has famously dubbed “Jacksonianism,” which can incline G.O.P. voters for or against different policy choices depending on how those options are presented. So if you want to reach the base, and move the party, you need to speak the base’s language and respect its basic outlook on the world — which is something that Paul has done much more successfully than many members of Washington-based realist community.
This means, for instance, talking about war powers rather than the U.N. when the White House is contemplating a war of choice. It means invoking the constitution rather than international law to critique Obama’s drone campaign. It means invoking Israel’s own internal debates, rather than just blasting AIPAC’s influence in Washington, to make the case for caution vis-a-vis a military strike on Iran. And it means finding ways to be a party loyalist on some votes in order to gain maneuvering room on others — as Paul tried to do, admittedly somewhat clumsily, by voting against cloture for Hagel but then voting to approve nomination.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
An important moral nit-pick….ALL wars are “wars of choice.” Someone punches me, there’s no fight, there’s only a “fight” when I punch back. Prior to that there was only an assault. Similarly, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, the US had the option of fighting or not…we chose to fight, hence there was a “war.” Had we chosen differently there would have been an aggression and a set of occupations thru-out Asia, but no war…all wars are wars of choice. A war of choice is no more or less moral than anything else.
I would further add that the United States and its predecessor haven’t faced an EXISTENTIAL threat since 1777/8. Ergo, all our wars since Freeman’s Farm have been wars of choice, which doesn’t make them any less moral or legal.
JFKY on February 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Rand’s hopes to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination rest on him convincing enough Republican voters that he’s not his father on foreign policy.
Grilling Chuck Hagel in confirmation hearings was one way of doing that. But turning around and then voting for Chuck Hagel’s confirmation after his miserable showing at the hearings comes across as a “words, not action” political maneuver. He says the right things for the cameras to convince voters he doesn’t share his dad’s Middle East foreign policy, but then votes in a way the seeks to assuage the Ron Paul core group that he is on his side.
It keeps both sides of the divide quiet at least for a while. but sooner or later he’s going to have to commit one way or the other, especially if Hagel turns out to be as bad a Secretary of Defense as feared.
jon1979 on February 28, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Japan attacked us.
Other than that, carry on!
astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Uh hellllooooooooooooooooooooo John Belushi…Animal House….
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I’m onna roll.
JFKY on February 28, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Apparently, Rand is the smart politican in the family. I don’t think that he will be able to win a Presidential election, but I do appreciate him tapping the breaks on things like drones. There is no reason why you cannot have a seroius foreign policy debate in the Republican Party. I ascribe to Rubio’s more internationalist view myself, but it is a useful thing to have.
Illinidiva on February 28, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I supported Iraq and the Transformation of the ME, BUT this is different…Bush and the US were transforming, playing an ACTIVE role in the transformation….
Just sending guns or ammunition or radios is NOT actively participating or guiding the outcomes, it’s just enabling Islamic Fundamentalists.
Replacing Mubarak or Gaddafi didn’t introduce any real democracy, and neither will replacing Assad with a junta/Revolutionary Council of Salafists.
So to me it’s not about change, but can we guide the change, and we can’t afford to try in Syria, or Libya or most anywhere else…right now. And giving the So-called moderates assistance isn’t going to prevent the radicals from coming to power…
JFKY on February 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Rubio’s whole argument is that we need to make sure that the more responsible actors win. He was also critical of Obama’s lack of presence and help in post-Qaddafi Libya. It actually was a responsible, well thought out presentation, and he did come off quite knowleagable and well in it. I think that Rubio and his staff are emphasizing foreign policy to close the gravitas gap ahead of 2016.
Illinidiva on February 28, 2013 at 12:26 PM
I guess, but here’s the thing, UNLESS you ae going to place US troops there, all you are doing is ensuring the ancien regime departs, BUT you caNOT know what will take their place…..
In Syria, we would be backing “moderates” well HOW moderate? We’ll only take gays houses and throw them out of the country…we won’t stone them, just humanely shoot them? Womyn can walk ONE PACE behind their men, rather than the customary three?
And even if moderates are moderate, I’m betting the radicals win, because they are ruthless…again Kerenski’i in 1917, Bakhtiar in 1978, or the Secular Protestors in Tahrir Square….who finally came to power? Lenin, Khomeni, and the Ikhwan Muslameen.
JFKY on February 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM