Posted on 12/21/2014 12:26:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Ron and Rand Paul have complained about being wrongly dubbed “isolationists” even though that name arguably fits whatever passes for their foreign policy.
Now Rand Paul has decided that opponents of bailing out the Castro regime are isolationists. All this proves is that Rand Paul doesn’t know what an isolationist is.
“I think a policy of isolationism toward Cuba is misplaced and hasn’t worked,” Paul writes in Time Magazine.
Isolationism is a policy that the United States would adopt toward the larger world. An embargo on an enemy state in response to its actions against the United States is not isolationism.
Rand Paul is trying to talk about foreign policy using terms he doesn’t understand. That’s a problem for a guy who wants to run for president based on a foreign policy that he seems to make up as he goes along.
“I support engagement, diplomacy, and trade with Cuba, China, Vietnam, and many countries with less than stellar human rights records, because I believe that once enslaved people taste freedom and see the products of capitalism they will become hungry for freedom themselves,” Paul writes.
How one might ask, has that worked out in China?
But Rand Paul doesn’t think through the implications of his arguments. Like Obama he delivers smug one-liners and expects the media to tag along. Except it doesn’t work that way for Republicans.
“Communism can’t survive the captivating allure of capitalism. Let’s overwhelm the Castro regime with iPhones, iPads, American cars, and American ingenuity,” Paul writes.
But the Communist Party is still in charge in China. And our iPhones and iPads are made in China. So are a whole lot of our products.
Rand Paul is arguing against a Cold War policy using outdated Cold War arguments that even a child who reads a Made in China label can poke apart.
It’s embarrassing to watch.
“Trade and relations also make it less likely that we ever go to war with China, because the two countries have become economically intertwined,” Paul writes.
Paul ought to tell that to China which is building up its military and keeps threatening to go to war with us. But as usual, Rand Paul isn’t hobbled by the existence of such petty things as ‘facts’ and ‘reality’.
“After 50 years of embargo and no evidence of tyranny losing its grip, maybe it’s time for a new approach,” Paul writes.
Except there was actually plenty of evidence of it. But Rand Paul doesn’t actually pay attention to foreign policy. He makes cynical arguments based on his political calculations. He has no idea what’s going on in Cuba or China and doesn’t care.
Then whatever machine powers Rand Paul begins glitching and this happens…
Doug Bandow, of the CATO Institute writes that proponents of the embargo have it all wrong when they make the fear mongering claim that diplomacy with Cuba will make America less safe. Bandow argues that “America has engaged in years of on-and-off discussions with North Korea’s Kim dynasty stretching back to the Clinton administration. Under President Obama Washington has been negotiating with Iran’s government for months: most people recognize that a diplomatic settlement, no matter how difficult to achieve, would be better than war.”
I don’t see an argument there that shows that negotiating with North Korea and Iran doesn’t make America less safe. The negotiations allowed North Korea to go nuclear. The current negotiations with Iran are doing the same thing.
Whoever writes Rand Paul’s speeches just got bored and began cutting and pasting gibberish from CATO into his articles.
The diplomatic settlement being better than war is a classic Obama argument. It’s also meaningless. A diplomatic settlement is only better than war when it’s a real possibility. When it isn’t, it leads to war on worse terms. See Munich.
“For 70 years we had diplomatic relations with Russia, despite the gulags, despite the atrocities of Stalin and others,” Rand Paul argues.
He seems unaware that opening diplomatic relations with the USSR was controversial, done by a Democrat and led to disastrous results. Like his China argument, it only really shows that Rand Paul knows very little about history.
“Let’s hope cooler heads will ultimately prevail and we unleash a trade tsunami that washes the Castros once and for all into the sea,” Paul concludes.
I hope the intern he didn’t pay to write that had a good time coming up with that line. In the real world, the trade tsunami will keep the Castros in power. Just as it did the Chinese Community Party.
Can’t Stand Rand
Cruz 2016
Then they make deals that build power, wealth and security for themselves.
It's usually best not to pay any attention to what they say (they obviously don't pay any attention to what they say). Watch what they do.
Rand Paul and his father are liberals.
They always have been, except on fiscal policies.
Once you understand that they become predictable.
IMO I trust Paul as much as I trust Jeb Bush.
Rand Paul interprets all politics in terms of economic benefits and power. He has no deep seated political or moral beliefs to ground his opinions, only personal gain.
In this, Rand Paul is no different than the RINOs in WA DC or Harry Reid.
Looks like the nut didn’t fall far from the tree...
Nothing like asking a rhetorical question with no attempt to answer it. The truth is the average Chinese is much freer than they were under Chairman Mao. They don't have political freedom, but they aren't being murdered in the tens of millions anymore, or punished for being educated and can own private property. The government is just an old fashioned crony capitalist dictatorship that uses communism as an excuse to hold power. Nobody really believes in Karl Marx anymore.
YEP! He’s his Daddy Ron’s boy!
Here’s the problem with a lot of Paul’s reasoning: the mind of an addictive gambler, or a delusional iedalogue, is one that people, especially those in power, can have. In reality, business people and heads of state can be delusionally benefitting themselves with their decision, even when in reality, it can very well be suicidal, at face value, the ideal of everyone working for their own best interest sounds good. But in reality, it’s idealistic.
Isolationism means not having diplomatic relations. Rubio and the neocons are definitely being isolationist here. They should own it.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
There was no uptick in freedom during his time and next to none in his successors time.
When the USSR went belly up the Chi-coms realized it was on a matter of time before they did as well.
So they changed what they needed to so as to survive.
Had nothing to do with "trading".
Wow. Greenfield completely dissects Paul on this article.
"Let's hope cooler heads will ultimately prevail and we unleash a trade tsunami that washes the Castros once and for all into the sea," Paul concludes.Yeah, and we need to erect a tariff so high, exporting countries' economies will be forced into prosperity.
You are correct. Nixon’s opening to China may have been good cold war politics, but it did nothing for the freedoms of the Chinese people, which, limited as they still are, came about much later and for other reasons.
Xi Jiping has instructed the Party Higher School to teach the elite Confucius.
I have a feeling China will look a lot like Singapore over the next few decades - a highly developed authoritarian country guided by traditional Chinese values.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.