The legitimizing of Rand Paul
I still tend to think the legitimization of Rand Paul as a right-wing folk hero has implications that extend beyond the narrow hypothetical where he chose to plant his filibuster flag. That’s because, as I’ve argued before, the relative sterility of the foreign policy conversation on the right doesn’t reflect a deep conservative uniformity on national security questions; rather, it mostly reflects the fact that the potential standard-bearers for a less interventionist worldview have been relatively easy for hawks to delegitimize as cranks, Israel-haters, RINOs, etc. And so the fact that a lot of the support for Paul from his fellow Republicans is opportunistic and confined to a narrow policy hypothetical matters less than the fact that the support exists at all — that a politician who has consistently advocated a more militarily-restrained foreign policy is suddenly being supported, elevated, and extolled at the expense of his more interventionist critics within the party.
None of this means that the entire party is about to tilt dramatically toward realism. But legitimizing, as Real Conservatives (TM), politicians who advocate restraint is a necessary precondition to broader policy change.
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
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 12, 2013 at 7:54 PM
Rand simply saw the places his father’s ideology, which he likely is in lock step about, caused him to be easily ridiculed and marginalized and has his acting classes up to date with appearing sane. Then again, he might surprise.
astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM
When there is a vacuum of leadership, don’t be surprised when someone steps up and people gather around them.
portlandon on March 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM
Yeah, bout Senator Paul. Hes a fiscal conservative. Thats about it. Unless he appeals and attracts the other 2 legs of the stool of Conservatism, he’ll be drummed out of the primaries very easily. Yes, not easy for his HA fans to absorb. But thats whats gonna happen. And being pappys son ain’t helping.
tommy71 on March 12, 2013 at 8:03 PM
This.
JFKY on March 12, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Iron Pyrite
Knott Buyinit on March 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM
I think he just might be.
BigWyo on March 12, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Mark Levin made resounding defense of Rand Paul’s filibuster last evening: http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
petefrt on March 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM
I’ll tell you why Rand Paul has captured conservatives’ imagination: Because feeble, feckless interventionist policies against radical Islam are useless, and have gotten way too many American soldiers killed. I have spent a lifetime being as pro-military as a person can be, but I no longer want anyone I love in this man’s Army…or Navy or Air Force or Marines. What the hell are they “fighting for” anyway? Freedom? Democracy? Their commander in chief loathes those twin concepts. Why in the hell should American soldiers die for ideals their own commander in chief is determined to undermine and destroy?
Rational Thought on March 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM
If I didn’t think Rand Paul was just as much a crank as his father, I’d love him. As it stands, I’m very wary that he learned his lesson from his father, and that he’s covering most of his crankier beliefs for political gain.
John_Locke on March 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM
What will it take for you to be convinced?
cptacek on March 12, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Actions that actually repudiate his father’s side instead of carefully threads the middle ground of not approving and not condemning would be nice. A little black and white.
astonerii on March 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Not voting for Brennan would have been a start. Others include calling Islamists our enemy, standing firm with Israel, and maybe a nuclear deterrence policy.
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Fair enough…though I don’t think he hasn’t stood with Israel…and I haven’t seen where he is against Nuclear Deterrence…
But right ow he’s a hot property…you have Rubio-Amnesty, McCain/Graham-Old School, Sticks-in-the-mud not running for POTUS,and not a lot else…so the stage is kinda his.
IF Palin/Rubio/Jindjal/Ryan want to run, thye might think about making some noise too, OR just concede the stage to Paul for the next few years. Either is a useful approach.
JFKY on March 12, 2013 at 9:09 PM
He didn’t vote for Brennan.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00032
cptacek on March 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Ok, I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me. My other charges stand. Just do those 3 and he’ll have the defense hawks on his side. As for the social conservatives, I’d have to look into his beliefs before I see what he should do.
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 9:22 PM
In the view of conservatives Rand Paul made a mistake by voting for progressives Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, who, like Paul, are non-interventionists who have no issue cutting defense. After the votes, he said he voted for them because the President gets leeway to choose their political appointees, another mistake because it sounds like he believes the senate’s role is to be a welcoming committee for presidential appointees. After getting hammered by conservatives for those votes, he went on a filibuster rant over a straw man issue that served to change the subject. Rand Paul voted for Hagel, Kerry, and Lew, Cruz voted no on all three. Rand Paul is conservative on a number of core issues, which is good, but he is no Ted Cruz and the jury is out on whether he will distinguish himself as not just another Ron Paul and establish a full set of conservative bone fides that conservatives will embrace.
Tripwhipper on March 12, 2013 at 9:31 PM
What exactly do you mean by “stand firm with Israel”? Foreign aid?
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM
I mean, make it clear that we are an unabashed ally of Israel. No money need be involved.
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Then ou’re not a staunch ally…not trying to pick a fight here…Israel relies on the US for a huge amount of aid, moeny mostly, that is recycled into hardware and logisitc support….Erertz Ysrael manufactures a large amount of its gera, but by no means all of it, and even the “Israeli” Gear has signigficant US percentage of origin, especially in the Navy and Air Force….
JFKY on March 12, 2013 at 10:11 PM
I think both Ron and Rand Paul have stated as much. Their beef is with foreign aid. Did you know Israel has free college and nationalized health care? If they can afford that…
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Rand voted for sanctions against Iran…I disagreed with that but I would think that would be worth some Israel-lovin’ bona fides.
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Lets try it this way: A NUCLEAR attack on a FRIENDLY COUNTRY allied with the US SHOULD be met with annihilation. That better?
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM
You think Israel wouldn’t do that on their own? They do have nukes you know…what do they need us for? We won’t be able to “nation-build” in a country that is nothing but cinders.
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Nobar oddly enough, in the case of Israel, no….Israel can deal with a Nuclear Attack from Iran, w/o the US intervening….what it needs is Sa’ar 5 Frigates, US-built, and Chetz ATBMS systems-also US funded…Much of it’s aviation ordnance is US and much of it’s air force is supplied and hence will require US maintenance/logistic support.
So really being willing to employ nuclear weapons against Teheran is NOT something Israel needs from the US. Israeli Jericho missiles, Israeli Pop-eye Sub-Launched cruise missiles, and Israeli F-16I’s can neutralize Teheran.
Not trying to pick a fight, but anyone who thinks that “allies” don’t do more than threaten is missing the point of most alliances.
JFKY on March 12, 2013 at 10:22 PM
Of course Israel will do that on their own. The point I’m trying to make is that when the whole world calls for Israel to be ostracized, we don’t abide by it. And who said we needed to “nation build”? AFAIC (as far as I’m concerned), the recipients of MAD don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM
So what is it that makes you believe that Rand would support ostracizing Israel? Has he said that? I think he has had to jump through some hoops (unfairly) to demonstrate his comity with Israel. Why wouldn’t he want to be friends with Israel, much less support “ostracizing” them? Doesn’t make any sense.
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Pretty decent column on/interview with Sen. Rand Paul:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342813/rand-paul-s-big-fight-robert-costa
onlineanalyst on March 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM
He may, but again he may not. But WHEN, not if, Israel is attacked, and WHEN, not if, they respond with total destruction of the attackers, the world WILL hold them as the aggressor. Sen Paul must make it clear that he is an unabashed ally, even if that means earning the scorn of the world community.
nobar on March 12, 2013 at 10:34 PM
1) He didn’t vote for Brennan
2) Rand Paul has stated Any Attack on Israel is an attack on the USA.
That’s a pretty clear endorsement of Israel defense.
I was completely turned off by Ron Paul’s stubborn isolationism, but Rand Paul has a much more balanced approach. I realized recently that I am not a Neocon, but support what is referred to as a Jacksonian foreign policy which puts forth a strong national defense, like the neocons, but is used sparingly and absolutely crushes the enemy when used.
If you want a good idea of his Foreign Policy, watch his speech at the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NptVgiY2Oxc
Daemonocracy on March 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM
How could he possibly satisfy your hypothetical? Does he need to say that if Israel is attacked, and then reduces their attackers to ashes (very likely) that they are still good? I don’t think Rand (or Ron for that matter) has any problem whatsoever with a country defending itself from attack or retaliating after its attack or PREEMPTIVELY attacking an aggressor nation that poses an IMMINENT threat. I don’t speak for either, obviously, but I have not heard them say anything that would make me believe that Rand wouldn’t vigorously defend Israel’s right to defend itself.
iwasbornwithit on March 12, 2013 at 10:52 PM
Indeed. I’m continuously impressed by how little most Rand skeptics seem to know about his actual positions.
Inkblots on March 12, 2013 at 11:35 PM
This is the correct analysis
Rand is feted because he made a supposed end run around the same RINOs who are telling the base to shut up
No, but he has more respect than the current thugs orchestrating the party, simply because he refused to kneel at the altar
Is it real? His ‘I heart amnesty’ chorus at the SOTU contradicts the independent performance. Only time will tell, assuming we have the time
entagor on March 13, 2013 at 12:11 AM