What is odd about this defense of Rand is that although Logan states that Rand is not an isolationist, Logan never tells us what exactly Rand's foreign policy view is.
Logan writes:
Rand Paul, Rep. Justin Amash, and other skeptics of reckless foreign wars and secret government spying on Americans aren’t isolationists. They’re prudent conservatives who take the Constitution seriously and rose to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration, which destroyed the GOP advantage on national security and provided a good example of how not to conduct foreign policy.
Okay, so what does this mean? Is Rand against support for ALL foreign countries, including Israel? Logan never says. Does this mean that Rand only wants to see the US involved in commerce with all foreign countries? Logan never tells us.
Logan does tell us though that:
[I]n fact Paul & Co. do represent a moderate third way that breaks with the failed bipartisan policies of the recent past. Paul’s views are also better in line with public opinion and America’s thinning pocketbook. Cutting military spending and aid to the Egyptian junta isn’t isolationism –it’s common sense.Logan never really tells us what this third way is. Is he suggesting it is just the cutting of military aid to Egypt?
Very odd stuff, which causes one to wonder if he is afraid for some reason to make clear how he sees Rand's complete foreign policy view. Isolationist, it is not, but what is this "third way" in its full glory?
No comments:
Post a Comment