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
I wonder if he is breaking into the dim wit voting block. I think this is part of a strategy to attack the dim voting block. The next president and his congress will have to rebuild the economy. Then the military. Then fix the border problem. Then fix the spending problem...IMHO we are not ready for massive foreign intervention. Did I mention rebuilding strategic weapons. Getting the budget under control... I know we have the means but do we have the will to address the issues simultaneously? We will have to see.
I don’ Trey is ready just yet. He will be in time but not yet. Of the other three I would be happy to support any of them but I think Newt is the best for our present time. Then Cruz and Paul respectively. Though they both need additional seasoning also.
But he is in tune with the millenniums.
Flower child : ‘Lets all smoke a doobie and whatever happens between two adults when they are high is none of the government's business’
Let Dr Paul prescribe you some ‘medicine’
Just like Dr Robert would : The Beatles - Doctor Robert
I don't care what a liberal republican wants to do with respect to the dem voting block, or the liberal (R) whatever voting block.
Neither one is conservative enough for me.
I'll vote for someone that is pro-life, for Americans first, pro-second amendment, for privatized medicine, and has a track record of being for smaller government.
/johnny
According to his website:
Immigration
I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12
I understand.
And according to this website, I'm a 6'2" Nordic god.
None of which is true.
Ignore what politicians say. Watch what they do.
What did Paul do on the immigration votes?
/johnny
He should prescribe his dad some anti-psychotics.
Valid point. And he has a solid voting record on immigration, voting no on SB 744, for one example. I didnt take him to task on his immigration record. And Im not a Rand Paul “hater.” But when you consider he basically proudly proclaimed himself to the left of Hillary on the same week that Bernie Sanders, of all people, when toe to toe and shouted down pro-Hamas supporters at a town hall, it doesnt bode very well for him as we look for the next President to clean up the mess of Obama’s hashtag diplomacy.
I will vote for him over a Democrat any day.
His Daddy Ron is like Paul Atreides in Dune .
The spice (high ) opens his mind to both the past and future.
Ron is the all knowing prophet who sees it all from ingesting the spice.
He says his son will be king.
He would be the same as voting for a democrat.
I think Rand Paul is good decent patriot. He is valuable in the Senate standing up for our constitutional rights. I don’t think he has found himself fully yet and is not ready for the Presidency.
I’m looking for Rick Perry and Ted Cruz to push on through in the primaries.
Perry is a liberal who will never get my vote. His big-government liberal positions don't match my conservative agenda.
Cruz so far has met the test on abortion, 2nd Amendment, amnesty, socialized medicine, and big government.
/johnny
Perot was a paranoid flake.
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.