Rand Paul – a new foreign policy

For the past few years, we in the liberty movement have had the luxury of being able to stand on the outside and lob in grenades at America’s corrupt foreign policy.  But now, with one of our own, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as a potential president, we have to face the reality of how to govern.  What would a Rand Paul presidency look like?  We got the answer this morning when he delivered a speech before the Heritage Foundation.

Keep in mind, Rand Paul spent seventeen years as an Ophthalmologist.   Nevertheless he preformed what can only be described as Rhinoplasty – or a nose job – at the Heritage Foundation, outlining before the stuffy G.K. Chesterton conservatives in the audience a new foreign policy for the Republican Party, one that offers a better fit for new realities.  Some Rinos will like it, some, who are growing fat as lobbyists for government subsidies, won’t.

Rinos (Republicans in name only) is the acronym applied to liberal Democrats who became Republican during the Reagan years, at the height of the Cold War.  They agreed with Reagan that communism was dangerous and America should not accept its inevitable ascendancy and should contest it.  Although less enamored by Reagan’s supply side economics and totally rejecting of Reagan’s social agenda they became an important part of Reagan’s winning political coalition.

But when the Cold War ended the Rino wars kept going.  They lobbied for a bigger budget for the CIA, a bigger budget for defense, with newer and better weapons and more interference around the world.  And all of this was before 9-11.  What had been a moral imperative, to stand down an aggressive, criminal communist gerontocracy, morphed into a role of America as moral guarantor for the world.

“We have the power,” the Rinos pointed out, “it is unconscionable for us not to use it against injustice.”  Of course, Rinos and their corporate friends made money off of this new arrangement.

Today, with the added impetus of the war on terror, American accounts for 42% of the world’s military expenditures.  We have 50,000 jets, while our nearest rival, China, has 5,000 jets.  We borrow money from China to put boots on the ground in Australia to defend Australia from China.  Feeling safe?  And, ironically, the strategy we used to bring down communism is destroying us as well.   Our arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and now we are close to bankruptcy ourselves.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are locked into a fiscal death embrace, Democrats spending programs to reward their political constituencies and Republican spending money to reward their pals in the military industrial complex.  Both sides are eating at the pig trough of public money while the rest of us are taxed to death, handing over our hard earned money to government favorites.

The deadly solution? The insidious hidden tax? “Quantitative easing.” It has wiped out the wealth of a whole generation and made a tiny oligarchy of rich and powerful.

Most of us in the liberty movement have really offered no solutions to foreign threats.  Our foreign policy has been to close down all of our military bases, end all of our wars, mind out own business, and curb the power of the presidency.  This we hoped would help restore the economy and turn our enemies into friends.  Eventually.

In the meantime, what would our policy be if one of us were president?  Are these ideals only fodder for our blogs and books and newsletters?  Would we really ignore a nuclear Iran and pretend it will go away?  Would we ignore terrorist attacks on our allies and say it is none of our business? While we all abhor the loss of civil liberties, how far would we go to use government intelligence to pre-empt a terrorist strike against us?  Where do we draw the line?  And is there a safe path back to that liberty movement ideal, without us getting ambushed along the way?

The Senator began by defining the current foreign policy crisis.  The enemy, he said, was not terrorism, which is after all a tactic, but rather radical Islam, something that many politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge.  Rand pointed out that it is not the tiny percentage it is often alleged to be by politically correct, wishful thinking, American politicians.  Rather it is a “robust minority.”

Part of Rand Paul’s new foreign policy was a list of liberty movement basics, although couched in language that Rinos, who now dominate the Heritage Foundation, can swallow.  And more often than not they were posed as questions.  He called for an end to war by executive order.  He quoted Madison who warned that war is always more favored by the chief executive.

He complained about the irrelevancy of congress pointing out that the president sought permission to use force in Libya from NATO, the United Nations, from anyone but the US Congress where the power belonged.

“The debate over war is the single most important debate in this country and it should not be glossed over.”

Invoking his recent trip to Israel he pointed out that the debate about a nuclear Iran is underway in Jerusalem but not in Washington.

“Where are the calls for moderation, restraint?”

He alluded to the “unintended consequences” of war, a favorite subject of his father, Dr. Ron Paul.  “Why are we so quick to supply weapons for Syrian rebels?  Will they respect the rights of Christians in their new government?“

Rand Paul asked the room full of Rinos, many of them lobbyists for corporate arms manufacturers, “Should we keep sending weapons to countries that are hostile to Israel and the United States?”

But if the Senator called for fewer military bases, less soldiers overseas, a less trigger happy foreign policy with less power residing with the presidency, he also called for a more coordinated and ambitious strategy in the war against radical Islam.  This will be a tough pill to swallow for some diehard Libertarians.

He compared this crisis to the challenge of the Cold War. And called for a modern version of Cold War containment, a policy that is not entirely military but not all diplomatic either.  Countering radical Islam, the Senator declared, demands a worldwide strategy.   When there is war, we should go into win it and we should not go in alone.

Rand Paul said, “What the United States needs is a policy that finds that middle path.”  He called for a “foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries because of the fear of what they might do.”  But also one that legitimately acts decisively when danger is known.

He pointed out that “A foreign policy that is everywhere all of the time is an extreme [policy] on the other hand a foreign policy that is nowhere, any of the time, is also an extreme [policy].”

How will liberty movement leaders accept this call for a foreign policy more engaged than our ideal?  How will neo-conservatives and Rinos accept a future where American doesn’t bomb first and ask questions later?

Rand Paul ended his speech with these words, “I will be a voice to those who want a saner and sounder foreign policy.”

Nietzsche once said that “In individuals insanity is rare.  But in nations it is the rule.”  We can only hope that our nation will come out of its stupor and find the wisdom in Rand Paul’s clarion call.

About these ads

18 Responses to Rand Paul – a new foreign policy

  1. Thomas says:

    I really do not understand why you support the Paul’s Doug. Haven’t you read Ron’s newsletter?On page 2 of the October 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report he claims that YOU (Doug Wead) was FIRED when you protested a White House invitation to gay leaders. Is what Ron says true? Are you such a homophobe you are willing to lose your job over those convictions? If what Ron says is not true why would you work for him instead of suing him for slander? Here is a scan of the issue in question/ You (Doug Wead) are mentioned in the 3rd story on page 2.
    http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/october-1990-the-ron-paul-political-report/

    • Doug Wead says:

      Well, that was what was reported in one of the newspapers at the time, so I can’t blame them for repeating it. For the record, it was not true. My own brother, Bill, was gay. As a “born again” Christian reporters always assumed things. If you were a Christian you had to be anti-gay. And at the time I was a Bush team player. When Andy Card asked me not to comment or respond to the news story, I obeyed. It was probably to protect what we believed to be our own gays in the White House at the time.

  2. Phil Gerber says:

    “Radical Islam” was never a problem for America until America started bombing and blockading Muslims countries. It is disheartening to see Rand Paul get sucked into the orbit of the Israel Lobby.

    • Brian Shea says:

      Islam has always been a problem for Christians and Jews alike as Mohammed tried to wipe them off the face of the planet. America, being a Christian nation and a fierce defender of Israel, means we have always been a target for Muslims. It wasn’t until our puppet kings and puppet presidents were overthrown by a Muslim population tired of not being heard and acknowledged that we’ve actually had to deal with the harsh reality that Muslims hate Christians and Jews.

      • Rich Grise says:

        Mohammed never tried to “wipe” anyone “off the face of the planet” until after the Crusaders invaded and started murdering Muslims “for Christ.”

        It’s been revenge ever since.

        Only a fool sticks his fingers in the hornets’ nest twice.

        And anyone who refuses to see that is very probably a Zionist dupe.

  3. Kumar says:

    without ethnic cohesion among white people, constitutional govt is impossible.

    the wars never end, the welfare keeps growing.

    Before 1913, white people were united and aggressive, they did not fight useless foreign wars, there was no welfare state, and standard of living was rapidly rising.

    Now Whites are divided and weak, their heritage savaged in schools and universities, their incomes stagnating, their neighborhoods turning into 3rd world ghettos.

    Blacks, Browns, Asians are aggressively advancing their interests, their fertility, their territory, at the expense of white people.

    unless white fertility and unity is restored, this will be the end of western civilization.

  4. Thomas says:

    Ron Paul Calls on United Nations to Confiscate Domain Names of His Supporters!
    http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/
    First Paul claims soldiers who serve their country deserve violent deaths and now this? Boy he sure know how to bite the hands that feed him!

    • Jeff says:

      It’s called private justice system. It’s very libertarian.
      When someone registers a domain name (for use with http, ftp, smtp, pop, ssl, among other technologies) you accept the terms and conditions of the ICANN, the institution that manages the DNS (domain name system) of the Internet (an institution that is non-governmental, non-for-profit, private, non-UN owned). Among other things, it establishes a method for dispute resolution, called arbitration, which does not involve the (expensive and clogged) US Courts, but an arbitration organization which exists in the UN realm, but that could very well exist outside it, and offer its services to individuals, organizations and governments everywhere in the world.
      The registrars of “RonPaul.com” are actually leeches, not true supporters of Ron Paul. Leechers and rip-off artists, because they are trying to get a buyout, and are not trying to help. After the Alex Jones interview in which Ron Paul himself said that “ronpaul dot com was, unfortunately, not available”, he would put his new homepage in the domain “ronpaulfrontpage.com”. Then the psy-ops at the “ronpaul.com” wrote that the whished to give the domain to Dr. Paul, and that they were only keeping it warm and safe so that nobody with bad intentions would use it. Yeah, right. Then they asked a quarter million for it. Grassroots, my a$$. Did the paid 250k to ICANN or some random ISP to register the domain? No! They paid much less, and by using Ron Paul’s name and fame, they put together a business, I don’t know whether profitable or not, selling ad space, mugs, t-shirts, books and whatnot, I suppose in order to pay for the expenses of the site, and, maybe get a little monetary compensation for their work. Now, they are tired of this game, and want not to simply give the domain name to its legitimate (but naïve) owner, Ron Ernest Paul, from Texas.
      I remember that until june (more or less) 2012, ronpaul.org was the official site of Ron Paul. His people failed to renew the lease on the domain, and it disappeared, and we the followers had to do with only his excellent house.gov site, and the official campaign site, and the campaignforliberty site. Also, the different youtube channels, and this blog, and the dailypaul.com were great places to get hot info in those terrible months between march and august, when Romney camp lost the election thanks to their bullying to Paulians. (I think they really wanted to lose the Presidential Election since the beginning, but that is just my evil baseless suspicion).

      What is this weird “JNR Corp” from Panama? Just resellers? Datacenter providers?
      Does “DN Capital Inc.” hold any grudge against the Liberty movement?

      So, please, Thomas, grow up already, get the facts straight and don’t go lying for money. You got no style.

      • Thomas says:

        Jeff writes:
        “I remember that until june (more or less) 2012, ronpaul.org was the official site of Ron Paul.”
        I do believe is was “RonPaul2012.com” oh wait here is proof:

        http://web.archive.org/web/20120829093512/http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

        Note: the date says August 29, 2012

        Jeff writes:
        “get the facts straight and don’t go lying for money. You got no style.”

        I always enjoy when Libertarians engage in mature and civil discussion without offering any proof to back their claims. Classy.

    • Jeff says:

      Jesus Christ was definitely not a good American Patriot. Get over it.
      By the way, Chris Kyle was not serving his country in the right manner. Instead of defending the border, or fighting domestic criminals or fighting terrorists he was wasting time fighting in a war which the US must never have started. Thanks to President Bush and VP Cheney twisted minds, now all those iraqis who were not likely to become terrorists desire, out of vengeance instinct, to come to the US and kill some american civilians as a retaliation to what was done to their families and friends by American Armies following American Government orders and American People “consent”. He, unwittingly, have helped the creation of more enemies than what he personally killed.
      A hero is someone who solves problems. Chris Kyle was simply another misguided American citizen. A victim of the most tragic swindle scheme of all times: War. And a victim who of an accident, a mental breakdown or something worse.

      Ron Paul’s boldness, like Jesus’ boldness, are meant to make people use that fatty lump people have inside their cranium.

      Of course, those who make money by mangling the basest emotions don’t wan’t the audience to use reason. What they want is a lot of attention, devotion and moneys. Like Radio an TV personalities.

      I don’t know why I’m writing this, since your are clearly not a reasonable person, but an agitprop operative. Who you work for?

      • kumar says:

        100% agree. kyle believed he was a patriot. but he was gullible fool.

        he was being used by jewish lobby to bleed and bankrupt american families in wars and war debt.

  5. Paul says:

    This is a bit strange, Doug. I LOVE Rand and Ron. But, it is fairly obvious Rand has chosen to use another “buzzword” smoke screen of “Radical Islam”. I just hope he is doing it to not dupe the American people into more war, but dupe the war profiteers somehow. The sketchy events around 9/11 most, if not all, politicians must be aware of – including Rand. They must know that details surrounding it are under question. So to blame “Radical Islam” with an “expanded focus” or “policy” sounds like another version of the “Crusades” where we go look for people to kill for no reason. Hopefully he is just saying this to get elected. Similar to the way politicians say they AREN’T going to war in order to get elected. The bigger question will be how he would go about getting us OUT of war after the Congress, which is bought and paid for, decides we need to – against the will of the people, and simply to pad the pockets of all who profit. A huge, disgusting industry that is probably the worst thing that America has ever “given” the world.

  6. Jeff says:

    Hey Doug. Great post.
    So you think it’s time to compromise between the ideal and the world’s reality.
    I think those of us who are not willing to give in to the ideal of policing the world will simply not support Rand Paul. But probably there’s more than 60+ million voters willing to accept such severe hit in the pride that is shrinking the US Global Army somewhere between 5% and 10%, which is what Rand’s words can actually accomplish. That, by the way, will not solve the deficit problem, nor the terrorist problem. So this orphaned bunch of newly born libertarians (around one million and growing) will, once again, abstain, and try to expatriate to some artificial island in the Caspian sea of Azerbajan or in the Atlantic ocean, and forget about the dream that was America.
    Dark times.

    Unless Rand lies and gets in the bag all Neocons, from hysteric evangelicals to media lunatics, while also winning some hardcore progressive zombies, only to later treason his “base” and actually implement liberty-friendly solutions to all the issues on the table, I don’t think a Rand Paul presidency could actually change anything.

    On the other hand, as much important as the President is the majority of the House. If in 2014 could appear a libertarian contingent of 50 representatives or more, then the liberty movement will really start looking good.

    ——–

    Doug, what’s your opinion on Walter Block’s “Evictionism”? I always thought that the birthing jars of “Brave new world” where actually a good idea, although very difficult to implement.

  7. Paul says:

    Hi Doug,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I am very concerned that Rand is being co-opted and “lumped in with the crazies” AKA Tea Party as a way to be marginalized by the “mainstream” as he seemingly was last night with the SOTU Rebuttal.

    Again, the media ignores and marginalizes a “Paul”, but this time they’ve talked this particular Paul into spouting off some of their buzzwords, and forced him to fall in line (in my opinion – I think Rand is playing the game, so to speak).

    So, the Party and Ginsberg, etc. and everyone else wins. They don’t have a Ron Paul who is absolutist and pointing out all of their obvious nonsense. They put a carrot up in front of Rand’s face and tease him with a shot at the Presidency, and then they marginalize him by lumping him in with the “whacko” wing of the party that no one should take seriously in “the mainstream”.

    They win both ways.

    At least with Ron, they could marginalize him, but his views were so honest that he couldn’t be ignored and people gravitated towards him because he was 100% genuine and told the ABSOLUTE truth.

    I fear that Rand might lose both ways… not embraced 100% by the “establishment” and sort of teased and brushed aside, and not embraced 100% by the “liberty movement” who would continue to grow in masses if the same message of “Ron” Paul was out there.

    Would thousands and thousands stand out in the cold to see Rand? I’m not so sure right now.

    And would the “establishment” and Ben Ginsberg allow him to have a shot at winning – allow him to be featured on the cover of Time Magazine, etc. – I would say no to that as well.

    So it is a bit of a tough position for Rand, you guys, and us.

    I would suggest that 50% of the liberty movement is on board with Rand based on my analysis of various indicators online and offline. They SHOULD be 100% on board with him, in my opinion, but they don’t see the big picture.

    Also, the establishment – or what can be salvaged of it… those who actually want the Republican party to win, not those who would rather lose and have someone they can control in power anyway (Obama, Hillary) … well, they need to be convinced that no one but Rand can win.

    I would say that Rand has to secure his base and GROW the liberty movement further before trying to appeal to a “larger portion of the mainstream party” that will IMMEDIATELY screw him over without a problem.

    How many candidates to they prop up with the media in the primaries? 7, 8? (everyone but Ron). They discard them instantly. They can and will do it to Rand.

    But, the ONLY REASON they would NOT be able to do that is if Rand GREW the liberty base even MORE than Ron did.

    And, I would say the way to do this is to actually revert back to even taking a HARDER stance on ALL THINGS that were important to Ron.

    That part of the party was on a torrid pace towards takeover in many places. In many regards, by attempting to go more “mainstream” the growth has been stunted. And, the “mainstream” portion of the party is out of touch anyway.

    Why not try to expand a base that was rapidly expanding more and embrace it instead of trying to work it “into a fold” that seeks only to devour it so they can prop up others who they will TRULY allow to win.

    I think Rand needs to get back to Ron’s roots, grow his base at a more feverish pace, and screw trying to impress a “party mainstream” that is on a RAPID decline. Rubio and the “establishment” has no chance to win as-is. Rand does NOT have to cooperate. He controls, or could control, the MAJORITY of voting Republicans. That base needs to expand to a point where it cannot be ignored.

  8. Rich Grise says:

    Making war on a religion is criminally insane.

    People whose families aren’t immolated in their sleep have very little motivation to go to the trouble to learn and implement terrorism.

    I say, pull back all the troops, from everywhere except where expressly directed BY CONGRESS. That would not only immediately save the lives of those who would have been killed in a prolongation of the invasion(s), but I’d bet real money that the “Radical Islamists” would be a LOT less motivated to bother ousting the invaders from their country (Hmm – Nobody to oust!), and/or seek revenge for the “collateral damage,” which are actual flesh and blood people, with names and loved ones and everything, and those loved ones will very likely want some kind of revenge.

    They didn’t just up and decide out of the clear blue sky to attack us!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: