Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Jennifer Rubin has an op-ed in the WaPost today bewailing the possibility of a libertarian/Paleo-conservative GOP candidate for President. The upshot would be a fiscally conservative candidate who wants to decrease American overseas involvement, running to the right of Obama on fiscal issues and to the left on national security issues. Rubin says that three candidates in the debate in South Carolina last week were taking that position -- Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul. She also indicates that Haley Barbour probably would have taken that position and Mitch Daniels might as he has called for defense cuts just as President Obama has.
Rubin seems to think this would be a disaster for the GOP:
A nominee sporting such an outlook, I would suggest, will tear the GOP asunder. Religious conservatives (who take seriously the unique role and obligation of the United States in the world) and defense hawks would be aghast to hear a Republican nominee trying to match (or even outbid) Obama’s defense reductions. And those Republican lawmakers who are bravely resisting the drumbeat in favor of slashing defense would be undercut by their party’s standard-bearer, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Democrats eager to throw the presidential nominee’s positions up in their faces.
In sum, there are substantive and political reasons for Republicans to resist the temptation to abandon modern conservatism’s foreign policy (one that is grounded in moral values as well as a canny assessment of the danger of inaction). Whether they will do so depends in large part on the quality of the candidates and the strength of their arguments. If the internationalists are not forceful and effective in debunking the isolationists, as well as successful at the primary ballot boxes, the country and the party will suffer.
Do you think such a candidate would be disaster for the GOP? For the nation?
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I very much enjoy Jennifer Rubin's writing for the Washington Post. But I'm all for someone who wants to decrease American overseas involvement and rein in the size and scope of the federal government.
And, in fact, I think that the disaster for the GOP would be the nomination of another big government candidate.
May '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
And, in fact, I think that the disaster for the GOP would be the nomination of another big government candidate. · May 9 at 9:58am
Agreed. Nominating another big govt. conservative would destroy everything the Tea Party has worked towards this past year. Right now, the GOP is the stronger party on the economy/fiscal issues. Nominating a big government conservative would weaken that, and give the Democrats and the media a big stick with which to hit Tea Party Congressmen with and paint them as radical and extremist. Not to mention I can imagine quite a few Tea Party folks staying home or backing a third party candidate, which would make Obama's reelection chances skyrocket.
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I've got to agree with Molly, too.
The last thing I want is a candidate who gets away with Big-Governmentism just because his reluctance to audit defense spending earns him the title "hawk".
Moreover, it should be obvious to conservatives that wanting to reduce defense funding isn't the same as being anti-defense. The same way wanting to reduce education funding (or scrap the Dept of Ed altogether) isn't the same as being anti-education. True, defense is a necessary function of government while education (to my mind) is not. But why should we be able to see through the illusion in one case and not the other?
May '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
In my opinion, it's not hawkish at all to simply give the Pentagon whatever they want, because, as we've seen that simply leads to huge waste of taxpayer dollars. An argument an be made that those who want to reduce military spending are the real hawks because it will fore them to innovate and get their act together and leaves more money for later (just as long as they don't take that money and blow it off on education or housing or something).
Sep '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Agree with all above, plus I want to say that if we don't get domestic spending and welfare statism under control, there will BE no need for a strong military. To protect what exactly? A thieving, big brother federal government? My patriotism is on its last legs as it is. Any more leftist solutions and my patriotism will be pure nostagia.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Mollie says it.
Jennifer Rubin is out of touch with a rising consensus among conservatives that we ought to be out of the nation-building business and we don't want to expend blood and treasure every time some despot decides to throw a little bloodbath among his own people.
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
To quote the Ricochet podcast: "everyone's ox needs to be gored."
(Spoken, bizarrely, by Paul Rahe, who wants Defense exempted from budget cuts.)
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 8:53pmSep '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I'm not sure national security issues are so easily placed on a left/right template. Certainly most leftists want the USA to be less involved in the world militarily, but this isn't a left-wing exclusive position. I take issue with "running to the left on national security" ...
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Dan, you made my second point better than I did. Thanks.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Franco
I'm not sure national security issues are so easily placed on a left/right template. Certainly most leftists want the USA to be less involved in the world militarily, but this isn't a left-wing exclusive position. I take issue with "running to the left on national security" ... · May 9 at 11:08am
I take exception to that formulation, as well.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Entitlements and defense spending are killing us. We spend far too much money on procurement and personnel costs for the military -- particularly procurement -- and there's a whole continent's width of efficiency improvements that we can make in both. Besides which, isn't this the same thing we rightly chastise the Left for, the refusal to consider reforming their bedrock programs? Ms. Rubin, whose clarity of thought is usually the only thing that brings me to crack open WaPo, is wrong on this one.
Apr '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Ditto Mollie. I think we should not fear a candidate who is willing to rethink our overseas involvements. Indeed we should welcome the discussion. This is not a losing issue for conservatives.
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Fredösphere: To quote the Ricochet podcast: "everyone's ox needs to be gored."
(Spoken, bizarrely, by Paul Rahe, who wants Defense exempted from budget cuts.) · May 9 at 11:04am
In the podcast, I expressly indicated that Defense is an exception. I am sympathetic to Jennifer Rubin's argument. In the domestic sphere, the federal government should be much smaller and less intrusive than it is. In foreign affairs, it is our only instrument, and very great care should be taken not to weaken it.
As I have said more than once in the past on this site, anyone looking to cut the Defense budget should be asked to specify what missions we intend to abandon. To be more precise, that person should be asked where we should give up our capacity to intervene. The worst of all options would be to have a military insufficient to make good on the commitments we have made. That is where we are headed right now.
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 8:52pmJun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
What's galling is, in many cases, because we maintain bases on a foreign country's soil, or nearby, they're free to spend their money on other things...like competing with us economically. If they're going to treat us like mercenaries, and they still want us there, maybe they should pay us like mercenaries. And Israel is not one of those that's signed over their defense to us. With foreign aid, we end up paying for a lot of their arms, American arms, but they don't expect us to be the ones using them. They're pretty good at using them themselves.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Good to hear this from someone like you Casey who was until recently active military. I strongly support an agile, right-sized military but "defense spending" has a low correlation with that goal. Congress treats "defense spending" as a jobs program and pork for the district with no regard for the priorities of the war-planners. The service chiefs are not "joint" enough to be able to weight the needs of another service above those of their own. Too many O-6's and above end up on the payrolls of the M-I complex post-retirement for me to have confidence in their properly adversary relations with vendors while active.
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 8:51pmAug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Agreed on the idea that defense is part of big government. In his great new book, Francis Fukuyama frequently invokes Chuck Tilly's aphorism that "states make war and war makes states."
Speaking of which, when can we expect an Uncommon Knowledge w/ Fukuyama?
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Fredösphere: To quote the Ricochet podcast: "everyone's ox needs to be gored."
(Spoken, bizarrely, by Paul Rahe, who wants Defense exempted from budget cuts.) · May 9 at 11:04am
One more comment. Federal expenditures on education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, etc. These are species of patronage. These are oxen waiting to be gored. Defense has to do with the common good. We could mess up at the federal level with regard to education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, and the like, and the damage would be limited. If we fall short with regard to defense, we will all suffer, and then we will pay in ways that we have never known.
I ask again: What parts of the world should we put ourselves in such a position that we could not intervene?
Defense appropriations are not responsible for the deficits that we are running. The percentage of the federal budget spent on defense has gone down and down. It would not be hard to balance the budget without raising taxes if we were willing to roll back entitlements spending and the size of the civil service. The last thing we need is an American Stanley Baldwin.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Paul A. Rahe
One more comment. Federal expenditures on education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, etc. These are species of patronage....
... Defense appropriations are not responsible for the deficits that we are running. The percentage of the federal budget spent on defense has gone down and down.
Professor Rahe: Would you care to speculate on the percentage of defense apppropriations are that are precisely "species of patronage?" I agree with you that we need to be able to respond to any plausible threat but there has to be some limit on the defense budget which forces the Pentagon to make the hard choices.
And, the defense budget for the O-Club golf course is as responsible for the deficit as Grandma's extra money for bingo night and her hoverround. Just a matter of priorities.
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Paul A. Rahe
One more comment. Federal expenditures on education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, etc. These are species of patronage.
If you believe that the spare engine for the F-35 (in John Boehner's district) or our submarine bases (in Joe Lieberman's state) are entirely about providing the common defense with no concerns for patronage then I have a bridge to sell you.
The reason that base closure is drafted by an autonomous commission and then put to and up/down vote is because this is the only way to minimize the pork barrel instincts of Congress to put the selfish interests of their districts above the national "bang for the buck." Similarly, parts sourcing for major defense contracts is absurdly geographically diverse, and this has more to do with Boeing or Lockheed's political strategy of making sure there are enough votes to protect a program than with Boeing or Lockheed's engineers thinking that Minnesota's second district is a really great place to locate electrical subassembly manufacturing facilities.
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 9:24pmJul '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Paul A. Rahe
Fredösphere:
I ask again: What parts of the world should we put ourselves in such a position that we could not intervene?
I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: under what circumstances should we be prepared to deploy military assets?
I would maintain the answer to that question is:
1. To protect our supply of strategic materials and our trading routes.
2. To protect our vital allies (who are fewer than one might think).
3. To defend our homeland.
As for the more advanced of our "allies", such as Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, it's long past time to tell them to stop free-riding on the United States and pony up for their own defense.