Posted on 08/25/2014 4:12:21 PM PDT by dignitasnews
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is an intriguing figure on many counts. As Americans and as conservatives we owe the Senator heartfelt thanks and applause for bringing vital issues of privacy and governmental overreach to forefront of the national debate. He, better than most Republicans, has been able to reach out beyond the tradition party base, specifically among black, libertarian and younger voters. However, his continued insistence of playing the role of "dove" on foreign policy renders him unqualified to be our Commander-in-Chief and therefore Rand Paul should not be given the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination.
In comments made over the weekend, Paul quipped that if we were looking for a "transformational election" in 2016, "let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton," adding that we would witness a "transformation like you've never seen." While the actual quote references a transformation of the overall electorate, one that desired by so many on the right, Presidential leadership goes far beyond the business of politics and what a candidate says on the stump has consequences that are felt far beyond who voters cast their ballots for on election day. While the goal of defeating presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is of course ranks at the top of the conservative agenda, that victory will be hollow if it comes at any cost.
What leaders say is often as important as what they do. It is the message that a President sends out not only to the nation but the world, that often dictates the actions of our adversaries and allies alike. The art of diplomacy is the worlds greatest poker table and as any skilled card player can tell you, the first rule is to keep your opponents guessing. And when one has built a career and their entire political brand as being a leader who will exhaust every possible option to avoid the use of our military, the signal that this sends often has dire consequences.
According to his Senatorial website, Paul makes obligatory appeals to conservatives by noting that when engaged in combat that America should fight "only under US Command and not the UN," but then goes on to paint a foreign policy vision that could have been written by the most pacifistic staff member of the Obama White House, or a first-year intern for Code Pink.
He echoes the sentiments of the "Camp Casey" crowd when he bemoans that we are "waging war across the Middle East on a credit card," and that to "involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong." While conservative leadership should always be expected to weigh the potential human and financial costs of our military intervention, Paul's statements here are irresponsible to say the least. He is, in effect, acquiescing to the dangerous hyperbole of the left that our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan had no "vital" interest and he furthermore is sending to the adversaries of peace and stability around the world that a Rand Paul Administration would be as globally disengaged, if not more so, than the current White House occupant.
Have the last six years not taught Rand Paul anything about the tremendous cost of instilling nefarious forces around the world with the (often justified) belief that America has lost the will to lead the world? Has he not witnessed the dangers created around the world when the nation that led the fight against fascism and communism exchanges true leadership for hashtag diplomacy? Based on his comments over the past two years, its hard to believe that he will be any more forceful a leader than President Barack Obama. That he would use Occupy-esque rhetoric in describing Hillary Clinton as a "war hawk" leads this conservative to worry that if he is given the role of Commander-in-Chief, he will make Obama look like Churchill in comparison.
No reasonably minded American desires war simply for the sake of it. It is self-evident that our leaders should work to advance the goals of US interests with the smallest possible cost of life and treasure. History, however, teaches us that this feat is often best accomplished with rhetoric to the contrary. The brutal lessons of history also remind us that whether by design or consequence, the constant insistence of peace often leads to greater instability and loss of human life.
We need only look to the Reagan Administration for the perfect example of the "peace through strength" doctrine. While he earned the reputation and scorn among the global left as a "warmongering madman," President "Ronny Ray-Gun" Reagan actually utilized our military far less than anyone who has held the Oval Office since. Comparisons of this nature are often unfair given that the challenges facing our leaders are never exact, but the fact of the matter is he was as successful is striking fear into our opponents as he was the throngs that filled the streets in protest of his "aggression."
Strategically speaking, the instance on "peace as a last resort" is only a successful policy if one's true motive is to wage war. No Western leader of the past century spoke to his desire for peace as often and forcefully as Adolph Hitler. I'm in way suggesting Rand Paul shares a similar motivation as the German warlord, but just as Reagan proved you prevent war by making your enemies belief your fingers are ever at the trigger, Hitler demonstrated that by lulling your opponents into a false sense of security, they easy prey. As he noted in a speech to his high command shortly just prior to the invasion of Poland, referencing the now-infamous "peace summit" that was the Munich Agreement, "our opponents are like worms, I saw them at Munich."
With Vladmir Putin's Russia threatening to destabilize Ukraine and change he map of Eastern Europe, with six-year-old little Chaldean girls having their heads chopped off by ISIS thugs in an Iraq our desire for peace inflamed, with an expansionist China muscling one of our most loyal allies in the Philippines seas and Leopoldo Lopez rotting in a Venezuelan jail cell while it citizenry has their human rights violated with impunity, we can simply not pretend that our "vital interests" extend only to the edge of the shores of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Whoever is elected President in 2016 will inherit a world far less safe than it was on January of 2009. To continue with an ever more unrealistic world view and foreign policy than the one that got us here would be the height of Einstein-defined insanity. Unless he is able to properly articulate over course of the next two years how he plans to account for an increasingly dangerous world threatening which threatens to disrupt not only global commerce but the very future of our species, Rand Paul should not be given the GOP nomination in 2016, no matter how many new Republican voters his intriguing brand of politics may bring.
Opinion by Paul M Winters Editor in Chief, Dignitas News Service
Sources:
ShockDoctrin (via YouTube) SenatorRandPaul GoogleBooks
Anyone who looks upon Hillary Clinton as a “war hawk” is probably smoking that new Colorado pot not made for the tourists.
The nut didn't fall far from the tree.
Or discovered a new purpose for “Kentucky blue grass.”
How is he on abortion, amnesty, 2nd amendment, socialized medicine?
/johnny
In today’s disgusting political atmosphere, I would doubt that any candidate is going to come out swinging the “hammer” relative to war. Lest we not forget how much TALK is worth as it comes from DC.
Only actions count and most likely, we will get a candidate that has little to show in the way deeds relating to national security. We will only be able to tell once they get elected which right now is top priority when it comes to stopping the radical left agenda of destroying everything that is America.
What people are learning about Rand Paul, is how frivolous and scattered brained he is.
I am not confident they will. The RINOS running the party will sit it out, or give him a weak endorsement.
It will be fun to watch and see what happens.
Does no good to elect a republican that will enact or enable a radical liberal agenda.
McConnell is an example of a pub that enables the radical liberal agenda with his critical cloture votes.
/johnny
Dont get me wrong, Johnny, I dont dislike Rand Paul. I am not in the camp that questions him as a conservative overall. That said, he is WAY out there on foreign policy, and we cannot afford two consecutive Administrations that refuse to acknowledge the reality of the world.
Indeed ansel12. He seems to be hell-bent on appeasing those who, when push comes to shove, will still vote Democrat at the crucial moment anyway.
He sucks on abortion and the gay agenda and social issues in general.
Yes, well, Rand is heavily concentrating on the border issue. He’s been down there how many times already? The rest isn’t going to matter before long, so he’s working real hard. /s
Rand wouldn’t be my first choice, but he’s way better than the last two Pub nominees.
Nothing coming up is going to be fun, imho. Absolutely nothing.
Not on foreign policy. I don’t trust him.
I don’t trust him on domestic policy either
He won’t be given it...he will have to earn it, or so the story goes.
Whether he can mount a strong enough campaign to win it, is something else entirely. If we are presented with another Willard candidacy we have a huge problem.
There are some that I would like to see run, Cruz is one, though I don’t think he can win. But I would enjoy it thoroughly if he did.
Gingrich may, but he is problematic to say the least.
My personal favorite is Trey Gowdy, although I would prefer to see him as AG.
The rest of the list of potentials is uninspiring to put it mildly.
” I am not confident they will. The RINOS running the party will sit it out, or give him a weak endorsement.”
It seems as though the elites who really run the system, and direct both political parties behind the scenes, have three choices:
1) Run Hillary against another weak GOP candidate resulting in her victory and another “historic moment”. Hillary serves one term, paving the way for the Dems to run a Hispanic in 2020 and win a landslide victory with the millions of newly enfranchised voters.
2) Let the Republican win and then precipitate a financial disaster - collapse of the dollar and hyperinflation. This sets up the Republicans to be blamed and Hooverized for another 50 years and assures one party rule.
3) Precipitate a terrorist or financial crisis in late 2017 to be used as the rationale for Obama to declare a national emergency, suspend the Constitution, and commission the writing of a new modern Constitution.
Were Cruz to somehow win the nomination, unlike Reagan he would not have access to big money. Without money, the media and the Dems would define him as a demon and the low information voters would turn out in droves to vote against him. In any event I don’t see him or any real conservative having a chance to win the nomination. The GOPe has rigged the game and will block access to money for any conservative, will run multiple tertiary candidates in the primaries to fragment the conservative base as they did in 2012, and if all else fails they’ll work with the Dems to use the crossover vote to ensure election of Jeb, Christie, or whoever they determine is to be the compassionate conservative nominee.
Trey Gowdy would make a fantastic speaker or majority leader.
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.