The excerpts published by Wyler suggest that the speech, rather than being a straight forward speech detailing what type of direction Rand believes the country should go in, is a sing-song back and forth attempt to obfuscate Rand's foreign policy positions rather than to make them clear.
Here's one excerpt that Wyler publishes:
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 policy that understands the 'distinction between vital and peripheral interests.A middle path? What the hell is a middle path, we are either interfering in the affairs of other countries or not. Note, Rand is not saying that such a path should be limited to diplomacy,
He says the US should be "reluctant and restrained," but that we should "not appease." Sounds like the meddling is on, especially in favor of Rand's new favorite concern, America's 51st state. Here's the real kicker that will seal the deal for neocons. He is calling for:
A policy that understands the 'distinction between vital and peripheral interests.'Wyler does note:
Paul will stop short of going full neocon, calling instead for a "middle path"[...]What that "middle path" would look like, however, remains unclear. Paul will stop short of offering any specific foreign policy proposals, and avoid answering questions about his own vision for the U.S. role in the world.Got that? A foreign policy speech that does not, as Wyler puts it, offer "any specific foreign policy proposals." Outside, of course, protecting "vital interests."
Somewhere in some back room, Bill Kristol is smiling.
Rand calls all this
"restoring the Founders' vision of foreign policy."