Saturday, September 6, 2014

"Rand Paul Has Thrown Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Under the Bus"

Brent Budowsky writes in The Hill:
Sen. Paul mocks President Obama over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and vows to be a super-hawk going after ISIS. I guess when it's time to raise campaign money for a presidential campaign, and time to court neoconservatives, and time to appeal to a GOP that does not favor extreme isolationism, the new Rand Paul now debates the old Rand Paul, while he throws under the bus the principled stand of the only true Ron Paul...

At various times Rand Paul has been against action on Syria before he was for it. He was for cutting aid to Israel before he was against it. At one point, he appeared to be for and against action against Iran at the same time. Rand Paul's views on national security are like the old soap opera "As the World Turns." What will Rand Paul believe tomorrow about war and peace? Who knows? In presidential politics, unlike Ron Paul, it is political calculation that determines Rand Paul's military policies in what may be titled "As Rand Paul Turns."...

[N]ow he throws Ron Paul's foreign policy position under the bus, which will not persuade neoconservatives or mainline Republicans that he is ready to be commander-in-chief, but may persuade many Ron Paul supporters that like father is not always like son.


  1. Politicians are merely responding to transient public opinions, this disturbing mob rule happens all the time in democracy but the issues with foreign policy seems even more fundamental.

    With rule of law we can attempt to define what is in fact an act of offence or a defense, classifications regarding human conduct can be subjective when there is no agreement on such shared rules. Market orders work because it employs shared rules of just conduct. What constitutes an act of disturbance or an aggression depends on such shared rules, thankfully within the western world laws are derived from private property rights.

    International politics gets difficult because without rule of law there exist only discretionary rule of force. When there is a knowledge problem then Individual perceptions are formed based on ideological biases, people who perceive the threat as real wants action and those who disagree prefer non-intervention. Only after reconciling such varying interpretations and can we even discuss NAP.