Putin, the Pauls, and the Direction of the GOP’s Foreign Policy — Troy Senik

 

Over the weekend, Politico ran a feature penned by Elizabeth Wahl, the American journalist whose Crimea-inspired on-air resignation from RT (the Russian television network dedicated to bringing Moscow-approved propaganda to the West) went viral —and, a cynic might note, earned her a measure of notoriety she had previously lacked.

The piece doesn’t leave Wahl in the best light — which is probably a sign that she deserves praise for her candor. What emerges is a picture of a somewhat naive young woman who was slow to wrap her head around the fact that RT functions primarily as an annex of the Kremlin, and slower yet to conclude that any such institution is inherently anathema to the practice of anything like real journalism. Still, if ever the phrase “better late than never” applies, it’s probably here.

One of the more compelling sections of the story is Wahl’s description of RT’s editorial priorities, which were invariably skewed towards whatever narratives cast America in a negative light. She notes, for instance, that RT became obsessed with the Occupy movement, hoping, apparently, that the French Revolution was coming to Zuccotti Park. 

And then there’s this, about the 2012 presidential election:

In RT’s eyes, only one candidate mattered: Ron Paul. I don’t remember Paul ever speaking to RT during campaign season, but that didn’t stop our obsessive coverage of the “rock star” candidate. After a while the bosses’ fixation with him seemed bizarre. Why were they pushing non-stop coverage of this long shot? Something tells me it wasn’t his message of freedom and liberty but his non-interventionist stance and consistent criticism of U.S. foreign policy. His message fit RT’s narrative—that the United States is a huge bully.

Now, let’s stipulate that there are limitations to judging a foreign policy just by who cottons to it. One could argue, for instance, that Iran stood to benefit from the war in Iraq by having the regime that functioned as its regional counterbalance defanged (that’s eliding, of course, the fear that something similar could happen in Tehran). That doesn’t mean that George W. Bush was the ayatollah’s man in Washington.

There’s a distinction, however, between a foreign policy that occasionally generates second-order effects propitious to regimes we don’t much care for (an inherent liability of the trade) and one that grafts so cleanly onto our adversaries’ worldview that they’re happy to repackage it for their own purposes. If you’re in the halls of power in Tehran, Moscow, Damascus, Beijing, or Caracas — or for that matter, holed up in a cave somewhere with a bad attitude and a C-4 surplus — you want America looking at the world through Ron Paul’s eyes.

I don’t write any of this to demonize Congressman Paul, who is, in any event, more or less off the public stage at this point. Indeed, I think the gravitational pull his presidential campaigns exerted on the Republican Party on the domestic front — moving us towards a more libertarian sensibility — was a net positive, even if he consistently lacked any prudential sense of a limiting principle.

The reason this matters is because of his son. Many GOP foreign policy hawks have gone out of their way to tar Rand Paul early and often with his father’s ideology. In one sense, this is unfair — Paul fils has never dangled out on the same kind of rhetorical limbs as Paul pere (who, recall, went so far as to second guess the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden).

In another sense, however, it’s understandable — if not necessarily justifiable. We know that Rand Paul has a more restrictive view of the use of American power than your average Republican officeholder. But we don’t know exactly what that means.

Paul’s foreign policy pronouncements have been consistently opaque. Read his major foreign policy address to the Heritage Foundation last year. It’s somewhat reminiscent of a 2008 Barack Obama speech — it feels as if it’s covering a lot of terrain as you read it, but you’d be hard pressed to give someone a paragraph’s worth of takeaway items. (To be fair, Marco Rubio’s big foreign policy address at the American Enterprise Institute last fall was even thinner on substance). 

That leads to one of two conclusions: (1) That Senator Paul hasn’t quite worked all of this out yet or (2) that he’s intentionally playing possum to conceal the similarities between his views and his father’s. Best I can tell, that’s six-to-five and pick ’em, but the critics automatically assume the latter. I see no evidence to suggest that’s true — but I also don’t see any to disprove it.

Normal

0

false

false

false

EN-US

JA

X-NONE

<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"

DefSemiHidden=”true” DefQFormat=”false” DefPriority=”99″

LatentStyleCount=”276″>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Normal”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”heading 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Title”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Subtitle”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Strong”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Emphasis”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Table Grid”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”No Spacing”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”List Paragraph”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Quote”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Intense Quote”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 1″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 2″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 3″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 4″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 5″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Shading Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light List Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Light Grid Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 1 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium List 2 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Dark List Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Shading Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful List Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” Name=”Colorful Grid Accent 6″/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Subtle Emphasis”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Intense Emphasis”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Subtle Reference”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Intense Reference”/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Book Title”/>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

 One of the reasons it’d be nice to see Senator Paul get more specific is that this is a debate the GOP desperately needs. There’s a lot of space on the Republican foreign policy spectrum between Ron Paul and honorary Spartan John McCain — and yet there’s no public official prominently articulating an alternative approach. That’s something that leaves a Jacksonian like yours truly out in the cold.

Perhaps Rand Paul can fill that void. Or perhaps he really is the pale pastel version of his father’s bold colors. We’ll never know until he tells us.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 158 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    DocJay: Klaatu, Rand Paul has courage, convictions, and leadership. You just don’t agree with him.

    Then why is he being, in Fred’s words, politically savvy and keeping his foreign policy views close to the vest?

    Because he’s willing to suffer the indignities that go along with being a politician–and potentially making a big difference–instead of playing it safe criticizing his representatives like many of us happily do from the sidelines (myself included).

    Now I’m really confused. How does hiding your views not qualify as playing it safe? He does not have to criticize anyone to express his own views

    In politics, selectively sharing one’s views isn’t playing it safe, it’s what one must do in order to get elected. Speaking the unvarnished truth is political suicide.

     Only if your views are questionable or unpopular.

    • #31
  2. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    DocJay:
    The answer to your first question should be obvious. Do you seriously need for me to spell out our domestic demise? The comment serious means we as a nation should be taking them seriously but we seriously do not. Listen to Sirius 125 for some ideas, seriously. I’m not answering your last question. Criticize the man when he announces his candidacy and has nothing tangible for foreign policy. For now, I consider Paul one of the few people who can right our sinking ship.

     I think you should be specific on these existential threats McCain, Bush, Christie, and Walker have ignored.
    US senators should not have foreign policy views?
    What is the basis for this assessment of Paul?  Surely not anything he has actually accomplished.
     

    • #32
  3. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    I’ll give you the biggest one of all and it dominates everything.   Economic stability.  All foreign policy will improve if we can become an economic juggernaut instead of maggots feasting on the rotting meat of what our great men of the past accomplished.   Paul will make our country energy independent.   I am positive this is coming anyway but the sooner the better.   Jeb Bush and Christie are stooges of the Wall St elite that helped us on our path to serfdom.   McCain worked for our big bank bailout.   I don’t know Walker well enough but the others are on the puppet strings of people who consider American citizens as pawns.   

    I’m done talking and won’t be checking this website for a while so no need to respond.   Take care and….Rand Paul 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • #33
  4. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    There is something that stinks when it comes to “libertarians” and Russia Today. The relationship isn’t just a passive one where RT simply supports their POV because of the inherent implications on US foreign policy. 

    “Libertarians” are in fact a steady diet on RT shows. The Reason and CATO boys are frequent and regular guests at RT. This isn’t some “innocent” relationship. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, CATO came out in defense of Russia by using Pravda-eque propaganda about ethnic and historical claims and rights of Russians. Again, in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, Ron Paul came out and said that Russia had the legal right to do so. (Imagine what Ron Paul…I mean, Dr. Ron Paul…would say if it were the US instead of Russia!). 

    I’m not calling them “useful idiots” of the Kremlin, but, well, I guess I am…

    So in my mind, for Rand Paul to be worthy of a Commander in Chief position, he needs to articulate his position very clearly. It’s the company he keeps…

    • #34
  5. user_75648 Thatcher
    user_75648
    @JohnHendrix

    &p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>Frank Soto: Give the American people a few years off from serious military engagements, or you will find them completely uncooperative at a not so future date when you really need them to be behind a military action.

     Hmmm… Put crudely, the American people seem have thought that they could vote themselves a holiday from history when they elected Obama in 2008.  (If only it were that easy.)

    In my view, by 2016 they will have had eight years of tranquilizing by Obama.  A president who acts as though every geopolitical thug is actually just as metro-sexual and effeminate and non-threatening as he is. ( I speak metaphorically.)   

    So, how much more time do the American people need before can stop being helpless? 

    More importantly, can we count every bad actor on the planet–none of which has ever done anything to assist America–to give it a rest until the American people awake from their multi-year nap?  Or, instead, will our enemies act as every aggressor in history has ever acted and close for the kill when they sense opportunity? 

    • #35
  6. user_75648 Thatcher
    user_75648
    @JohnHendrix

    [continuation due to 200 word limit]

    I say it is the president’s job to harangue the American people and explain to them why they have a stake in the robust defense of our national interest.   And now, not later after our strategic positions has eroded.  

    • #36
  7. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    This could actually have been two separate posts: one about Elizabeth Wahl, RT, and the promotion of Ron Paul, which I find fascinating, if only because if one can accept that a foreign power’s news service pushes U.S. candidates, giving them more influence than is due, how much more domestic news services? Eh?

    Secondly, as regards the Pauls, this post doesn’t really do much more than say “Hey, we don’t really know what Rand believes, but let’s worry that he’s exactly like Ron.” This seems unfair, Troy. I thought Rand Paul laid out a perfectly good foreign policy approach a few weeks back when he discussed Reagan’s approach. I’d link to the thread we had here, but I can’t find it in 2.0.

    EDIT: Here’s his bit that was on Breitbart that prompted our discussion here. I recall he also did the Sunday Talking Head Shows on the same topic.

    • #37
  8. Fricosis Guy Listener
    Fricosis Guy
    @FricosisGuy

    I love this point Troy…where’s the “Goldilocks” foreign policy? One of the reasons we’re so war weary is that the more interventionist side hasn’t explained why interventions have failed (e.g., pursued half-heartedly, intermittently, or in the wrong places). Yet the non-interventionists wave away the threats of aggressive regimes and ignore examples from the past.

    To that end, the GOP is delusional if it believes it has a reservoir of foreign policy credibility remaining. When Bush 43 was reelected on fighting on winning the GWOT — then pivoted to entitlement reform, bankruptcy “reform”, and other non-war distractions — Iraq nearly was lost before the surge (which McCain staked his reputation on).

    The GOP forgets the legacy of this breach of faith at its own peril.

    Troy Senik, Ed.:
    One of the reasons it’d be nice to see Senator Paul get more specific is that this is a debate the GOP desperately needs. There’s a lot of space on the Republican foreign policy spectrum between Ron Paul and honorary Spartan John McCain — and yet there’s no public official prominently articulating an alternative approach. That’s something that leaves a Jacksonian like yours truly out in the cold.


     

    • #38
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    From the op-ed I linked above:

    I met Ronald Reagan as a teenager when my father was a Reagan delegate in 1976. I greatly admire Reagan’s projection of “Peace through Strength.” I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.
    There is no greater priority for Congress than defense of the nation.
    I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve. 
    What America needs today is a Commander-in-Chief who will defend the country and project strength, but who is also not eager for war.

    Anything wrong with that? Does that guy sound like an isolationist?

    • #39
  10. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    More from Rand Paul’s column above:

    Regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, there is little difference among most Republicans on what to do. All of us believe we should stand up to Putin’s aggression. Virtually no one believes we should intervene militarily.

    So we are then faced with a finite menu of diplomatic measures to isolate Russia, on most of which we all agree, such as sanctions and increased economic pressure.

    Yet, some politicians have used this time to beat their chest. What we don’t need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.

    America deserves better than that. So do our soldiers.

    More than any other category of voters, our men and women in uniform understand the anguish that comes with their ninth and tenth tours in battle zones. These brave young patriots do their duty, they do as they’re told, but they don’t mistake their heroism for a love of war.

    • #40
  11. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    And still more:

    Many agree with General Eisenhower who said, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

    There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11. There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.

    This is something Reagan always knew.

    Reagan said his greatest regret as President was sending those Marines to Beirut in the first place. 

    How many leaders were as great as Reagan, willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them and put their country before their own reputation and legacy?

    Sorry, I would have put all that in one post, but . . . 200-word limit for me.

    • #41
  12. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    So it seems that people who say they just don’t know what approach Rand Paul would take are being willfully ignorant. He’s already said what his approach would be.

    This is in stark contrast to someone like Obama whose approach is simultaneously intervention and sweeping it under the rug. (cf. “Red lines,” Obama’s calls for immediate military intervention in Syria, and completely dropping the subject a week later.)

    Dropping bombs or putting boots on the ground are the only approaches that Obama and those like him can conceive of. They treat our military like an inner-city thug treats a gun. Woo hoo! I’m a big man now because I have a weapon! And because that’s how they’ve always viewed the military, that’s how they use it. Never a last resort. Always the first thing they think of. (There doesn’t appear to be an anti-war left anymore.)

    • #42
  13. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    DocJay:
    I’ll give you the biggest one of all and it dominates everything. Economic stability. All foreign policy will improve if we can become an economic juggernaut instead of maggots feasting on the rotting meat of what our great men of the past accomplished. Paul will make our country energy independent. I am positive this is coming anyway but the sooner the better. Jeb Bush and Christie are stooges of the Wall St elite that helped us on our path to serfdom. McCain worked for our big bank bailout. I don’t know Walker well enough but the others are on the puppet strings of people who consider American citizens as pawns.
    I’m done talking and won’t be checking this website for a while so no need to respond. Take care and….Rand Paul 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Energy dependence is an existential threat to the Republic??  From a quick glance at Paul’s Senate website, it looks as if his energy policy proposals are standard Republican fare with nothing to distinguish his from McCain’s or Romney’s.
    Whether Bush or Christie is a stooge of Wall St.(??) is irrelevant to whether they have or will ignore existential threats to the Republic.
    As for Rand in 2016, I’m not sure a one term senator with no notable legislative achievements or executive experience is a good idea.  Look what happened the last time we tried it.

    • #43
  14. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    DrewInWisconsin:
    So it seems that people who say they just don’t know what approach Rand Paul would take are being willfully ignorant. He’s already said what his approach would be.
    This is in stark contrast to someone like Obama whose approach is simultaneously intervention and sweeping it under the rug. (cf. “Red lines,” Obama’s calls for immediate military intervention in Syria, and completely dropping the subject a week later.)
    Dropping bombs or putting boots on the ground are the only approaches that Obama and those like him can conceive of. They treat our military like an inner-city thug treats a gun. Woo hoo! I’m a big man now because I have a weapon! And because that’s how they’ve always viewed the military, that’s how they use it.

     Paul was rightly and roundly criticized for attempting to equate his foreign policy views with those of Reagan.  Reagan understood strength came from firmness backed up by capability.  He fought to increase our military capability while Paul has shown a willingness to cut military spending.  Reagan knew that diplomacy was effective when there was a credible threat of force behind it.  Paul fought to ensure the Iran sanctions authorization clearly prohibited military action.  Reagan worked with allies to confront our enemies by arming, training, and supporting those who fought against Soviet expansionism.  Paul argues we need to have a respectful relationship with Russia in the face of Russian expansionism.  Reagan would never speak of ‘blowback’ with anything other than contempt.
    Paul is about as far from Reagan on foreign policy as is possible.

    • #44
  15. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    DocJay: Klaatu, Rand Paul has courage, convictions, and leadership. You just don’t agree with him.

    Then why is he being, in Fred’s words, politically savvy and keeping his foreign policy views close to the vest?

    Because he’s willing to suffer the indignities that go along with being a politician–and potentially making a big difference–instead of playing it safe criticizing his representatives like many of us happily do from the sidelines (myself included).

    Now I’m really confused. How does hiding your views not qualify as playing it safe? He does not have to criticize anyone to express his own views

    In politics, selectively sharing one’s views isn’t playing it safe, it’s what one must do in order to get elected. Speaking the unvarnished truth is political suicide.

    Only if your views are questionable or unpopular.

     With the current makeup of the electorate, most of the founding fathers couldn’t be elected today. Ronald Reagan couldn’t be elected today. Popular doesn’t equal correct or true. And immoral individuals do not magically become moral when choosing who to vote for.

    • #45
  16. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Klaatu, were you a sniper in the military.  Because that’s how you argue.   It’s obvious where you stand and discussing issues wih you is rather pointless.

    • #46
  17. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Klaatu:

    DocJay: I’ll give you the biggest one of all and it dominates everything. Economic stability. All foreign policy will improve if we can become an economic juggernaut instead of maggots feasting… 

    Energy dependence is an existential threat to the Republic?? As for Rand in 2016, I’m not sure a one term senator with no notable legislative achievements or executive experience is a good idea. Look what happened the last time we tried it.

    Does DocJay really need to reiterate through the list of economic and moral calamities destroying this country? 100+ million on the various forms of welfare, government chokehold on our educational and health options!, Byzantine tax laws and regulations, 1+ million Americans legally slaughtered each year, people who speak up are targeted by the IRS, our continually inflated currency, low skilled workers labor is outlawed (minimum wage laws), the national debt, the unofficial debt (health and retirement benefits promised to the elderly), I could go on but for the 200 word limit.

    How can we be economically strong or taken seriously by foreign tyrants when Americans are doing a fine job of destroying the country?

    • #47
  18. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    DocJay: Klaatu, Rand Paul has courage, convictions, and leadership. You just don’t agree with him.

    Then why is he being, in Fred’s words, politically savvy and keeping his foreign policy views close to the vest?

    Because he’s willing to suffer the indignities that go along with being a politician–and potentially making a big difference–instead of playing it safe criticizing his representatives like many of us happily do from the sidelines (myself included).

    Now I’m really confused. How does hiding your views not qualify as playing it safe? He does not have to criticize anyone to express his own views

    In politics, selectively sharing one’s views isn’t playing it safe, it’s what one must do in order to get elected. Speaking the unvarnished truth is political suicide.

    Only if your views are questionable or unpopular.

    With the current makeup of the electorate, most of the founding fathers couldn’t be elected today. Ronald Reagan couldn’t be elected today. Popular doesn’t equal correct or true. And immoral individuals do not magically become moral when choosing who to vote for.

     No one is arguing popularity equates to morality.  However a courageous man states his position whether it is popular or not.  My problem with Paul is he seems unwilling to do so and I am being told that is the politically savvy thing to do.  Perhaps it is bit it is not indicative of a leader or a courageous man.

    • #48
  19. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    DocJay:
    Klaatu, were you a sniper in the military. Because that’s how you argue. It’s obvious where you stand and discussing issues wih you is rather pointless.

     No, I was never a sniper but I did work closely with some for awhile.  I did love to go to the range with them though.
    I admit I have no idea what you mean by I argue like a sniper.

    • #49
  20. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    DocJay: I’ll give you the biggest one of all and it dominates everything. Economic stability. All foreign policy will improve if we can become an economic juggernaut instead of maggots feasting…

    Energy dependence is an existential threat to the Republic?? As for Rand in 2016, I’m not sure a one term senator with no notable legislative achievements or executive experience is a good idea. Look what happened the last time we tried it.

    Does DocJay really need to reiterate through the list of economic and moral calamities destroying this country? 100+ million on the various forms of welfare, government chokehold on our educational and health options!, Byzantine tax laws and regulations, 1+ million Americans legally slaughtered each year, people who speak up are targeted by the IRS, our continually inflated currency, low skilled workers labor is outlawed (minimum wage laws), the national debt, the unofficial debt (health and retirement benefits promised to the elderly), I could go on but for the 200 word limit.
    How can we be economically strong or taken seriously by foreign tyrants when Americans are doing a fine job of destroying the country?

     The question is not whether we have economic problems, we do.  We also have social problems irrespective of economics.  However, what Docjay claimed was Paul would address issues Bush/Christie et al have or would ignore.  I do not see anything on your list Republicans in general have ignored.

    • #50
  21. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Troy Senik, Ed.: What emerges is a picture of a somewhat naive young woman who was slow to wrap her head around the fact that RT functions primarily as an annex of the Kremlin, and slower yet to conclude that any such institution is inherently anathema to the practice of anything like real journalism. 

    Who’s being naive? Don’t we have this self-same problem in the American corporate media and the White House? 

    Speaking of which, why the pic of Ron Paul when you say “I don’t write any of this to demonize Congressman Paul, who is, in any event, more or less off the public stage at this point. ” 

    • #51
  22. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    There’s a distinction, however, between a foreign policy that occasionally generates second-order effects propitious to regimes we don’t much care for (an inherent liability of the trade)….

    An inherant liability that is continually ignored and dismissed, even demonized, by National Security Republicans. Here’s an inherant liability: Maybe the Democrats successfully demonize your war because they control the media, then a left wing Democrat gets elected and then all your efforts are moot – not only moot, but your country is in a worse position than before. How about that for “inherant liability of the trade”?

    Requiring Rand Paul to lay out specifics in order to allay your fears that he might be like his father when most politicians know better than to be prematurely pinned down doesn’t seem friendly. Every Democrat tries to get any Republican on record as advocating some specific, then they beat-up on that specific (and vice-versa). It’s politics 101. What exactly are you afraid of? 

    “…and one that grafts so cleanly onto our adversaries’ worldview that they’re happy to repackage it for their own purposes.”

    I would submit that the propaganda war is better fought here at home than in Russia or anywhere else. Our adversaries across oceans aren’t nearly as threatening as the one who are here.

    • #52
  23. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Klaatu: No one is arguing popularity equates to morality. However a courageous man states his position whether it is popular or not. My problem with Paul is he seems unwilling to do so and I am being told that is the politically savvy thing to do. Perhaps it is bit it is not indicative of a leader or a courageous man.

     Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected. Do you think a Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell could be elected to the Presidency today (for the record, they’d lose a lot of “conservative” votes too for being too “radical”)? They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness.

    If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

    • #53
  24. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Klaatu:The question is not whether we have economic problems, we do. We also have social problems irrespective of economics. However, what Docjay claimed was Paul would address issues Bush/Christie et al have or would ignore. I do not see anything on your list Republicans in general have ignored.

     Here’s the big difference between Rand and the others—Rand understands he doesn’t have to sign every bill that reaches his desk. He’s also smart enough (I hope) to realize that if he started  signing bad bills, he’d be a one term president because his biggest supporters would leave him in droves.

    • #54
  25. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    “Indeed, I think the gravitational pull his presidential campaigns exerted on the Republican Party on the domestic front — moving us towards a more libertarian sensibility — was a net positive, even if he consistently lacked any prudential sense of a limiting principle.”

    Really? You think Ron Paul had the effect of moving the Republican Party toward a more libertarian sensibility? I don’t see it reflected anywhere but in the rank and file. The GOP elite is clearly petrified of any movement toward libertarianism. This is why we see so much push-back and smearing of Rand Paul from this faction.

    • #55
  26. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    AR:

    Klaatu: No one is arguing popularity equates to morality. However a courageous man states his position whether it is popular or not. My problem with Paul is he seems unwilling to do so and I am being told that is the politically savvy thing to do. Perhaps it is bit it is not indicative of a leader or a courageous man.

    Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected. Do you think a Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell could be elected to the Presidency today (for the record, they’d lose a lot of “conservative” votes too for being too “radical”)? They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness.
    If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

     Klaatu just wants to apply a higher standard to Rand Paul than to other candidates because he’s a threat. I think that’s what Doc Jay means by the “sniper” analogy. It is unwise for a presidential candidate (and even more unwise for a potential candidate) to go on record on foriegn policy specifics for a host of reasons. Requiring Paul to do so at this point is patently unfair – especially coming from people who should know better.

    • #56
  27. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Franco:
    Our adversaries across oceans aren’t nearly as threatening as the one who are here.

     Franco, this is what some on our side cannot or refuse to understand. If Obama’s time in office hasn’t woken them up, I’m not sure anything can.

    • #57
  28. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    AR:

    Klaatu: No one is arguing popularity equates to morality. However a courageous man states his position whether it is popular or not. My problem with Paul is he seems unwilling to do so and I am being told that is the politically savvy thing to do. Perhaps it is bit it is not indicative of a leader or a courageous man.

    Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected. Do you think a Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell could be elected to the Presidency today (for the record, they’d lose a lot of “conservative” votes too for being too “radical”)? They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness.
    If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

     Maybe that is why I prefer politicians with records and accomplishments.  They do not need to lay out their positions, they have demonstrated them.

    • #58
  29. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Franco:

    AR:

    Klaatu: No one is arguing popularity equates to morality. However a courageous man states his position whether it is popular or not. My problem with Paul is he seems unwilling to do so and I am being told that is the politically savvy thing to do. Perhaps it is bit it is not indicative of a leader or a courageous man.

    Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected. Do you think a Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell could be elected to the Presidency today (for the record, they’d lose a lot of “conservative” votes too for being too “radical”)? They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness. If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

    Klaatu just wants to apply a higher standard to Rand Paul than to other candidates because he’s a threat. I think that’s what Doc Jay means by the “sniper” analogy. It is unwise for a presidential candidate (and even more unwise for a potential candidate) to go on record on foriegn policy specifics for a host of reasons. Requiring Paul to do so at this point is patently unfair – especially coming from people who should know better.

    Unfair??  Asking a politician to explain his positions is unfair?

    The fact is Rand Paul has clearly inherited many of his father’s supporters, it is not applying a higher standard to ask him to lay out where he differs from his father.  

    • #59
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Rand Paul:

    What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path.  A policy that is not rash or reckless.  A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by Constitutional checks and balances but does not appease.  A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of radical Islam but also the inherent weaknesses of radical Islam.  A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries on what they might someday do. A foreign  policy that requires, as Kennan put it, “a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of . . .  expansive tendencies.” [5] A policy that understands the “distinction between vital and peripheral interests.”[6]
    No one believes that Kennan was an isolationist but Kennan did advise that non-interference in the internal affairs of another country was, after all, a long standing principle of American diplomacy . . . [that should be excepted only when: A) “ there is a sufficiently powerful national interest”  and B) when “we have the means to conduct such intervention successfully  AND can afford the cost.[7]

    Sounds pretty Jacksonian to me….

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.