Posted on 03/11/2014 7:11:13 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
If Sen. Rand Paul has any hope of capturing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, he'll have to convince the conservative base he can be trusted on foreign policy -- which is exactly why Sen. Ted Cruz is his most dangerous critic.
Though they have often been allies on domestic policy, anybody paying close attention knew that there was always a big gulf on foreign policy issues between Cruz, R-Texas, and Paul, R-Ky.
Whereas Cruz has a much more traditional Reaganite view of a strong role for America in the world, Paul seeks to advance his father's brand of non-interventionism, which advocates a more restrained U.S. role on the world stage. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that these disagreements have spilled into the open over the past week, with Cruz emphatically stating that he doesn't agree with Paul on foreign policy and Paul insisting Cruz mischaracterized his views.
It's important to keep in mind the broader historical context here. Though there has always been a subset of conservatives who have supported a more restrained, non-interventionist foreign policy, that generally hasn't been a mainstream view within the Republican Party. Over the course of two presidential campaigns, Rand's father, Ron Paul, raised his profile, but was never an actual threat to win the nomination, in no small part because his foreign policy views were out of sync with much of the party.
After winning his Senate seat in the 2010 Tea Party wave, Rand's challenge was to try to make his father's views more acceptable within the party and mount a more credible presidential campaign. To accomplish this, he's tried (with mixed success) to avoid the type of outrageous statements and controversies that doomed his father. At the same time, he's built up a following on fighting for limited government on domestic issues.
His best chance of making headway in a presidential race is to leverage the trust conservatives have for him on domestic issues to make his foreign policy views easier for conservatives to accept. If it's him debating foreign policy with the likes of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or other figures favored by the party's establishment, it would be much easier for Paul to muddy the waters. He could essentially argue, "Of course, big government establishment RINOs would smear my foreign policy views, because they're frightened of having a true conservative win."
That's much harder to do with Cruz in the picture. Cruz has at least as much credibility as Paul with the conservative base -- if not more. Whether or not Cruz runs, having him in the media amplifying the criticism of Paul's foreign policy views would make Paul's already difficult job of trying to appeal to a wider electorate that much harder. He cannot dismiss Cruz as just another establishment RINO trying to sabotage the candidacy of a genuine conservative. Anything Paul does to assert that he really believes in a strong role for the U.S. in global affairs risks alienating his father's energetic supporters, who favor a more restrained foreign policy. Anything he does to shore up support among this core group of his father's supporters would then feed into the criticism being lobbed by Cruz.
There's been a false impression created that Paul's non-interventionist views are gaining traction within the GOP. This idea has been based on trying to find superficial areas of agreement among Republicans (on issues such as opposing U.S. military action in Syria) that obscure fundamental disagreements. As I wrote in a column in September, a lot of conservative national security hawks opposed military intervention in Syria -- not because they shared Paul's views, but because they are more skeptical than neoconservatives of making democracy promotion a key tenet of foreign policy, and feared action would benefit Islamic militants. This is why Cruz opposed intervention at the time.
My working assumption has been that Paul isn't a serious threat to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, and his recent dust-up with Cruz only reaffirms that view.
Is it OK with you if we elect leaders who will ban abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, and who will refuse to recognize state marriages at the federal level if they don’t comply with federal law, and who refuse to recognize state abortion laws on federal land within the states?
I had hoped Rand had more common sense than his father of foreign policy, guess not.
See post 74. He’s outraged that I dragged the GA thread over here. I’m the incredible thread monster. LOL!
I am a Constitutional Conservative when I first came to this site in 1999, it claimed to support the Constitution. Life is the most important right any being has. Without the right to life one has no rights. I don’t know why you’re going after me, I have consistently been a Constitutional Conservative. Please let me know if Constitutional Conservatives are no longer welcome here.
I was pinged to this discussion, presumably, for my opinion. I stated it.
Ok, sorry. There is a serious effort underway to divide Tea Party conservatives. Our enemies (Rats, GOPe) are going all out to divide us. I am not going to fall into their trap, Paul has warts and so does Cruz but either is vastly better then anything the GOPe or the Rats have to offer. I see Cruz, Paul, Lee and Sarah as almost identical twins politically and I will support any of the above and will attack none of the above.
I think more that he's doing the best he can to be a good shepherd in trying to find words that will help unite people that he recognizes, as do you and I, are basically on the same page. We all want the same Right-Moral outcome -- we just disagree in how to go about getting it.
Clearly he welcomes Constitutional Conservatives -- the challenge is that obviously, the limited government small-l-libertarian Constitutional Conservative's idea of how to go about being pro-life and defending our God-Given unalienable rights, is a different animal than the all-small-l-libertarians-are-abortion-loving-drug-pushing-gay-marriage-supporting-liberals-whether-they-admit-it-or-not Constitutional Conservative.
I figure that Jim has to walk a fine line, and I can respect that. On the other hand, I have contempt for so-called "conservatives" who call for the Right's version more and bigger government to counteract the Left's more and bigger government and accuse those on the Right who instead advocate to SHRINK government to achieve the same outcome, of "siding with the left," an exact quote from one of them.
It could be that Jim is between a rock and a hard spot.
As you try to alter our preference in what kind of candidates we will vote for, and try to influence us to rewrite the GOP party platform, what about the candidates described in post 81?
Is it OK with you if we elect leaders who will ban abortion and gay marriage for the federal level, and who will refuse to recognize state marriages at the federal level if they don’t comply with that federal law, and will refuse to recognize state abortion laws on federal land within the states?
Life was declared an unalienable right in our founding documents, no Constitutional conservative could ever hold the opinion that abortion was not denying the unborn their right to life. If you are not pro life you are not a conservative of any flavor.
Other people define "pro life" as advocating for a change in the Constitution that would provide for Federal law specifically addressing abortion.
The problem isn't lack of pro-life, anti-abortion folks.
The PROBLEM is with pro-lifers who will only settle for a new Constitutional edict specifically listing abortion and consider as enemies fellow pro-lifers who instead advocate for the overthrow of Roe v Wade. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE -- The PROBLEM is also with pro-lifers who balk at the idea of a change in the Constitution and consider as anti-Constitutional statist enemies those who ask for new Constitutional specifications addressing abortion (a form of murder that existed at the time the Constitution was written).
Me, I consider anyone who understands that abortion is murder and an abomination to God and decency, Pro Life.
It isn't that there aren't enough pro-life folks. It's that the two approaches weaken their total rightness and strength by wrongly considering each other enemies.
What is "pro life" in your definition? Me, I would like to start with overthrowing Roe v Wade because that's the most faithful to the Constitution. Am I pro life -- or not?
I asked you about abortion in post 88, you didn’t want to address abortion on federal land and from federal doctors and hospitals.
The fact is that libertarians and libertarianism are pro-choice, do some not agree with that portion of their political agenda, sure, but that is merely their personal preference and where they stray from perfect alignment. Variations and dissent are within every political philosophy, but it doesn’t change the philosophy or political movement.
Libertarianism is pro-choice.
I see pro-life politics as at the minimum, wanting to outlaw it, you don’t.
You appear to want Federal abortion policy and federal gay marriage policy to remain as it is, with conservatives not resisting or opposing them through legislation.
The feds have been performing abortions since at least 1973, and recognizing gay marriage for the military, and federal employees, and in immigration, for at least months.
I want to support candidates who will fix that, and change law to end it and prevent it.
After looking through your posting history on abortion I can see that you are pretty indifferent to abortion, you just don’t want taxes paying for it, your typical argument against pro-lifers is that laws can’t prevent abortion anyway, it is between the woman, her conscious, and of course the abortionist.
Abortions for the military are also paid for with taxes.
“”Abortion is not a legal issue. The right to bear arms IS. There is no comparison between the two, and the Second Amendment question is the important thing Republicans AND conservatives (whoever’s going to vote to keep the Democrat out of the White House) should weigh.””
Yes, abortion is a legal issue that we can fight through law and politics, and elections.
BLA-BLA-BLA
:)
I am curious, why do you continue to attempt to divide conservatives? The time will come to pick a candidate for 2016 right now we should be focused on holding the House and winning the Senate, not bashing one another over minor flaws.
I’m just pointing out that libertarians and libertarianism is pro-abortion.
I didn’t mention the party, as you strive to fight conservatism here, I understand that you say you differ from libertarianism on abortion, fine, that doesn’t alter libertarianism, the political philosophy that you embrace instead of conservatism.
I would think the person trying to divide conservatives would be the one who devotes himself to defeating conservatism here and tries to always bump it over just a touch to the left, not those of us who are the conservatives you are always arguing with.
Well I think that abortion should be outlawed at the federal level. I would make an exception for the life of the mother. This would not require a change to our Constitution. Congress could simply declare that an unborn child is a person and has a right to life second only to the mothers right to life.
For the record -- 100 percent DITTOS.
Maybe even 200 percent.
Paleoconservative is a term that describes an academic or scholarly conservative who emphasizes religious heritage, national and Western identity, tradition, civil society and classical federalism, the importance of demographics, and an anti-interventionist policy of Robert Taft. Paleoconservatives oppose immigration, communism, authoritarianism, social democracy and entitlement programs.
Many paleoconservatives identify themselves as "classical conservatives" and trace their philosophy to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period, which helped keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations, reduce immigration with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and oppose Franklin Roosevelt.
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.