Sunday, September 16, 2012

Rand Paul, Meet Timon of Athens

By William Grigg


Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul is flogging what he considers to be a brilliant idea: He suggests that the federal government should take “half of the $4 billion that we’re squandering” on foreign aid “to people who don’t like us … and put it towards the deficit, and take half of that aid and put it into Veterans Benefits.” 

His father had a much better idea: Since foreign aid is immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional, all of it should be ended immediately

In a September 13 floor speech, Senator Paul addressed criticism from South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham that cutting off subsidies would be tantamount to reckless disengagement from Pakistan, which has a nuclear arsenal.

 “I’m not saying don’t have relations with Pakistan,” Senator Paul insisted. “I’m not saying [to] disengage. I’m saying you don’t have to bribe people to be your friend.” Besides, he pointed out, the federal government doesn’t “have the money anyway. We have to borrow money from China to send it to Pakistan.”

What the senator describes could be called the Timon of Athens Doctrine of International Diplomacy, named after the tragic Shakespearean character who bankrupted himself in any attempt to purchase the superficial friendship of cynical people. He failed to explain why “we” (meaning the government that impudently presumes to act in our name) should be sending borrowed money to ruling elites in any foreign country – whether Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, or Israel. 

Furthermore, within a few paragraphs Senator Paul obliquely endorsed what he had explicitly disavowed.

10 comments:

  1. This article appears to really confused. On the one hand the author correctly notes that Rand Paul has criticized our policy as "Timon of Athens" policy, and then claims that he is wrong because our policy IS a Timon of Athens' policy.

    But all Rand Paul is saying is that foreign aid is a dumb idea, and it's an especially dumb idea when you give it to people who are working against you.

    If Rand Paul is arguing the opposite position of Lindsay Graham, I don't see who he can be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he isn't going the opposite position -- the article shows repeated quotes where Rand agrees with the policy standpoint of not giving money unless the nation acts a certain way. The opposite position of Graham is that foreign aid is immoral and unconstitutional and results in blowback. Rand is fine with foreign aid so long as the nations act in a certain manner as Rand himself clearly and explicitly says. Not sure how you could try and argue against what Rand himself has said.

      Delete
  2. A very good critique. Once again, Rand falls short of his father.

    I am sure Rand sees his foreign aid grandstanding as "smart politics" and that it is accomplishing something, but, as Grigg points out, his arguments to (only) cut off aid to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan all implicitly concede the political establishment's perspective, including that it is right to be sending US taxpayer money to foreign countries as part of an effort to manipulate the attitudes and policies of the targeted countries (though, inevitably, it doesn't work or it backfires on us).

    Attacking foreign aid in this manner leaves you fighting in the weeds about the merits of these foreign redistributions of US taxpayer dollars. For instance, is the Libyan government actually as anti-American as Rand claims it is? Perhaps, the Libyan government is unrepresentative of Libyan public opinion, but by all accounts I have read is the government is actually very pro-American, certainly one of the most pro-American in the Middle East (which is not surprising since we helped install it). Regarding Pakistan, the political establishment would answer Rand by saying simply Pakistan has nukes and terrorism problems galore, and we are fighting a war across the border in Afghanistan. Does Rand's argument that Pakistan doesn't seem too friendly to us after all the aid we have given really hold up with that sort of backdrop?

    I don't think so. I think you need to first challenge broadly the rationale for the US intervening in far flung places like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Rand didn't argue only for cutting off aid to those countries. He argued for cutting off aid especially to those countries. As the very first paragraph reads:

      "Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul is flogging what he considers to be a brilliant idea: He suggests that the federal government should take “half of the $4 billion that we’re squandering” on foreign aid “to people who don’t like us … and put it towards the deficit, and take half of that aid and put it into Veterans Benefits."

      That's why the article is so confused. He acts like Rand is arguing for foreign aid simply by particularly opposing it for some countries. But those countries merely exemplify more fully the pitfalls of the policy. Rand clearly opposes all foreign aid and the author clearly admits this which leaves his essential point unsupported by his own evidence.

      Delete
    2. Rand did not oppose foreign aid for certain countries - he opposed foreign aid in his statement based on the behavior of certain countries.

      Rand does not oppose all foreign aid bc he clearly says otherwise, and the author does not admit as such bc he quotes from Rand himself!

      “Egypt needs to act like our ally if they want to continue to cash our checks.”

      “My position is not one penny more for Libya or Egypt or Pakistan until they act like our allies,” Paul summarized. “Some say we’ve got to keep sending it. Fine. Let’s send it when they act like our allies. Let send it when they start behaving like civilized nations and come to their senses”

      Rand, is this you posting? Who the hell else could be seriously arguing that Rand "clearly" opposes foreign aid or that the author is somehow "confused" with quotes like that?

      Delete
    3. No. The author clearly states Rand's position in the very first paragraph and somehow concludes that that position is in conflict with Ron's though he never explains how this is so.

      Then, as noted above Paul says, “Some say we’ve got to keep sending it. Fine. Let’s send it when they act like our allies. Let send it when they start behaving like civilized nations and come to their senses.”

      "Some say we've got to keep sending it." It is quite clear that Rand does not count himself among those people. But, IF we've got to keep sending it, Rand is saying, then we should at least be more discriminating in whom we pass it out to.

      When Ron Paul opposes corporate welfare it does not mean that he endorses non-corporate welfare.





      Delete
    4. No.

      If Rand is against foreign aid as you claim, then instead of getting into "they should do this" nonsense, he shouldn't even accept the premise. He would be saying, "This is why we shouldn't have foreign aid. It doesn't work, and it is just like central planning of the economy and results in counterproductive results."

      You fell for exactly what Grigg is talking about - the Reagan/Clintonian triangulation of telling people what they want to hear and fooling most. Someone completely opposed to foreign aid would take that opportunity - as Ron has -- to say that this is exactly the problem with foreign aid. Even people like Cavuto are starting to catch on to this and make the connection.

      Delete
    5. As Ralph Nader said, Rand Paul is a liar. He has people like Robb fooled, but most of the Ron Paul backers aren't buying his nonsense.

      Delete
  3. Brilliant article by Will Grigg -- as usual. Please start reposting all of his stuff here. I think that he and Tom Woods are the best written defenders of the liberty movement, and Grigg is criminally underrated and nowhere near as popular as he should be.

    You can help change that, wenzel! How about Grigg talking about the police state on an upcoming podcast?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does anyone know how to download Grigg's podcast through Itunes? When I tried, all I got was a message about it not being available in the US stores. I did find that he is putting them on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/FreedomZealot/videos?flow=grid&view=0

    ReplyDelete