Thursday, December 6, 2012

Major Rand Paul Foreign Policy Speech Coming?

Oh boy, historian Tim Stanley writes in the UK's Telegrapgh about Rand Paul:
There are two things you need to know about the son of antiwar maverick Ron. First, he’s running for president in 2016. The talk of DC is that he doesn’t much enjoy being a senator and his actions since election have suggested he’s more interested in courting the Tea Party than legislating. Second, he’s going to soften his father’s message in order to do it. The word is that he’s building up to a significant speech outlining an approach to foreign policy that distances himself from Ron Paul’s legacy. The events of the last few days seem to confirm the gossip.
As I have pointed out before, Rand, in order to expand his base, will continue to move farther away from libertarian principle and his father's positions. Stanley is correct in also noting:
Then there’s the question of, “is he picking the right issues on which to redefine himself?” Reform of foreign aid doesn’t have a huge constituency. For those who want to see it scrapped in its entirety, the idea that it might be retained in limited cases won’t appeal. Moderate voters might balk at the humanitarian impact of cutting aid, and foreign policy hawks will hate any talk of cuts. On Israel, it’s rather myopic to think that softening on one part of the issue will gain Paul many friends. Support for Israel’s right to exist doesn’t stop at rhetorical backing for its right to defend itself but would necessitate a recalibration of much of Paul’s foreign policy. Would he support or even involve America in a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities? Would he militarily defend Israel if it was attacked?
Rand will, of course, eventually be asked these questions. His answers will be informative. If my views are correct about the direction Rand is heading in, the answers will be disappointing to hardcore libertarians. Further, it is doubtful the Rand move away from libertarian principle will be limited to positions about foreign entanglements, it will involve domestic issues. Given the attitudes and understandings of the American masses, there is no way at present that a person will be elected    to the White House by holding hardcore libertarian positions. The only question that thus remains is  on which issues will the sellouts occur.

15 comments:

  1. "Given the attitudes and understandings of the American masses, there is no way at present that a person will be elected to the White House by holding hardcore libertarian positions."

    Absolutely. That's why I believe Rand is just talking the way the establishment wants him to talk but deep down he is like his father. He is playing the game of politics to get elected but once in office he can make policy decisions that are 100% libertarian philosophy. I know most of you here think he is a sell out and a traitor but I am holding out hope that he is just like his dad but just more cunning.

    I admit I may be wrong and it may even be probable that I'm wrong but what else do we have to lose. If Rand is the real deal I am willing to take that chance. If Rand is made POTUS and is truly a sell out its not like he could be any worse that Obama/Bush. That's how I feel.....let the bashing begin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand Paul rode his father's grassroots coattails to get a cushy Beltway Libertarian gig, which involves living off of DC while publicly railing against DC in order to solicit checks from hopeful fools like you.

      Delete
    2. I think the danger that your missing is Rand might convince people in the liberty movement to adopt non-libertarian positions. For example, look at my comment below. That girl doesn't see his vote as "playing the game". She believes that he took the principled approach with that vote. We don't want people in our movement who are convincing people to abandon our principles.

      Delete
    3. I used to think that but now I more suspect that he's playing the game for his own personal benefit, rather than for the cause of liberty. In other words to make a lot of money for himself. I still think it's important for libertarians to be involved in politics and not abstain from voting but I don't think Rand is our candidate. I mean maybe if I lived in Kentucky I would vote for the guy but he isn't worth campaigning for or donating to or anything.

      Delete
  2. Robert I think you will enjoy this.

    Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming -- 'Escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his UN credentials

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-evicted-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think Rand gets it. Being an acceptable guest on Fox News isn't what people are looking for. If it were, Romney would be president-elect right now. All he is doing is further alienating people like myself (and the proprietor of this web site) who loved his father and see no reason to alter his father's policy stances--particularly in the foreign policy realm.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And cue the Randroids to come and defend their All Mighty Senator Paul. "Why, he's just saying these things to get an in, and then he'll show his true libertarian colors!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just don't see the point. He has thrown away his solid base snd replaced it with...what exactly? The neocons already have Jeb Bush and many other reliable statists, so why would they bother with rand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The neocons are delusional if they think that Jeb Bush will ever get elected to the Presidency after the mess that Bush caused. The general public despises the man, so anything with the last name of Bush will not come within 100 miles of the Presidency. The neocons are more likely going to try to annoint another big government RINO like Chris Christie. There's still a long ways to go, but it will likely come down to Rand vs Christie.

      Delete
  6. In terms of electioneering, foreign policy (so long as it's within the range of allowable opinion) will mean diddly-squat. As the past two elections have shown, it's really all about social issues and social welfare- and I think Rand will fail on both. Hillary 2016, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't understand how libertarians who can clearly see the hijacking of the Tea Party by neocons, or the hijacking of the Occupy Wall Street movement by liberals, can't see Rand trying to hijack the liberty movement with his crunchy-con approach.

    In your post from yesterday about Rand voting in favor of the $600+ billion "defense" spending bill, there was a girl with the tag KateforRonPaul (or something like that) defending this vote as the right thing to do. She wasn't arguing that he had to do it to "play the game", no, she was arguing that this was the correct vote based on principles. That is why Rand is dangerous. He is convincing many Ron Paul supporters that his anti-libertarian votes are the correct positions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think in the case of this girl/woman, there is the possibility of her being one of two types:

      The small government hawk, who supports small government domestically but really thinks blowing up brown people on the other side of the world is important.

      Or the "cult of personality" type, who puts blind faith in politicians regardless of WHAT they do, once they've become completely enamored with them. Obama is one perfect example of this on the left side. Some people are enamored with Rand Paul really for no other reason than he happens to be Ron Paul's offspring.

      Someone who is "forRonPaul" but then thinks it is a principled position to spend more money on the military, clearly is a "cult of personality" type.

      Delete
  8. Let him run, I will not be voting for him.

    He is not his father and he reminds us of this every time he opens his mouth.

    I do not vote, and am a Libertarian. I registered to vote in the Primaries for Ron Paul. That was the first and last time I will ever vote again. I'm not foolish enough to believe that the Government is the answer to solving the problems with the Government.

    With what I have seen and heard from Rand Paul, I am not impressed. The pressure got to him and he broke the first time he was put under the magnifying glass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Government has control over us, like it or not. They don't care if you consent or not. Simply not voting won't make them go away as Rothbard said.

      Delete
    2. And if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

      Not voting at least gives more self-respect.

      Voting is like being a slave and getting to vote on how the shack you're chained in has its furniture arranged.

      Delete