Posted on 12/19/2014 2:53:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Libertarian icon Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) embarrassed himself on Friday when he took to Twitter to respond to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who recently insisted that the junior senator from Kentucky “has no idea what he’s talking about” with regards to his support for lifting restrictions on bilateral relations with the Cuban government. By attempting to defend himself, Paul ably proved the Florida senator correct.
Paul began…
Hey @marcorubio if the embargo doesn't hurt Cuba, why do you want to keep it?
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
And this one got the libertarian supporters cheering in the stands:
Senator @marcorubio is acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a moat. I reject this isolationism.
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
He continued:
The United States trades and engages with other communist nations, such as China and Vietnam. So @marcorubio why not Cuba?
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
And, finally, Paul closed:
.@marcorubio what about the majority of Cuban-Americans who now support normalizing relations between our countries? http://t.co/0qhSOeD9Va
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
Paul’s arguments above were summed in an op-ed released on Friday in Time Magazine.
Where to begin?
First, as The Federalist’s Sean Davis pointed out, the parallels between the extension of diplomatic relations to Cuba and similar overtures toward China and Vietnam are misguided. The American interest in “opening” China was primarily political; exacerbate Sino-Soviet tensions, bifurcate the communist world, and provide America with a freer hand to prosecute the Vietnam War.
China under Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping engaged in dramatic market-oriented economic reforms in the 1970s, and there was no “normalization” of relations between Beijing and Washington until 1979 – well after Kissinger and then Nixon had famously visited the reclusive communist giant in 1971 and 1972 respectively. Reforms first, normalization second.
Moreover, the suggestion that the opening of bilateral diplomatic ties and business relations between America and China helped to transform the People’s Republic into a human rights paragon overnight is complicated by the 1989 massacre of peaceful pro-Democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. Even today, despite a booming and markedly capitalist economy, China remains one of the world’s leading human rights abusers.
Since bilateral trade relations alone cannot be counted on to spark internal democratic reforms, it must be – and traditionally has been — granted only as a reward for reforms undertaken preemptively.
As for Vietnam, a shift in policy in that country also preceded the normalization of relations with America. The most notable of these was Hanoi’s decision to withdraw its troops from Cambodia in 1989 following years of requests.
“Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia has been, along with the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, one of the major East-West issues,” The New York Times reported at the time. “China had vowed not to improve relations with Moscow until the Vietnamese left Cambodia. And Vietnam’s own efforts to obtain aid and recognition from the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam war were frustrated by Washington’s insistence that Hanoi withdraw its troops from Cambodia first.”
Reforms first, normalization second.
Paul has admitted, perhaps unwittingly, that he does not regard internal reforms as a necessary precursor to the normalization of Washington’s relations with communist nations; a break from previous American foreign policy upheld by all American presidents with the exception of Barack Obama.
In fact, Paul mirrored tired Obama’s rhetorical tactics when he erected the straw man of “isolationism” – a false equivalency that irritates both the junior Kentucky senator and his libertarian backers mightily – in order to slay it. He might as well have said that he “rejects this false choice.”
As for Paul’s contention that the majority of Cuban-Americans (as well as the majority of all Americans) support the normalization of relations with Cuba, he’s not wrong. But America is not a democracy. We elect the representatives with expertise in the fields of governance and international relations which are most qualified to manage America’s complicated foreign affairs. Should the American Congress decide that it is in the best interests of the United States to open relations with Cuba, it will reflect the will of the people. As it is, the president has unilaterally made that determination himself; an act well within his authority, but one so autocratic that it is shocking a self-professed supporter of limited executive power would support it so fervently.
Paul represents a libertarian wing of the GOP which provides the party with a critical infusion of youth and vitality. On the domestic front, libertarian policy prescriptions are often inspired and would if adopted produce the long-sought conservative goal of reduced governmental interference into American lives. Paul’s approach to foreign policy matters are, however, not nearly as well-founded as are his domestic reforms.
If Paul’s intention in this burst of tweets was to both reveal his ignorance of the history of normalizing relationships with communist countries and to almost perfectly echo the most liberal president in modern American history, mission accomplished. His judgment has, however, been exposed by this episode as rather questionable.
An earlier version of this article failed to note the premiership of Zhou Enlai.
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 Paul is wrong. Sorry, but appeasing the Castros on top of the massive victory the Norks just netted is just shy of treason.
To be clear, the Castro regime is responsible for thousands upon thousands of extra-judicial murders and forced drownings. Normalizing relations only helps them. For those who think this will ‘open Cuba up and turn it away from oppression’, I encourage you to look at Venezuela, which has gone from bad to worse over the years in spite of open trade.
I wonder if Obama and the leftists would employ the same argument against sanctions if it were apartheid SA we were talking about.
There are FReepers who side with Obama, Leahy, Rangel, Hillary, Carter and the entire cast of clowns at MSNBC over Rubio. Heck, even that mumbling dumbass Rick Perry knows this is not in the best interest if the US.
Who cares anymore? The country is in flames and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why not have a Cuban cigar while everything comes down around our heads?
When one sides with Obama, they need to turn in their Sanity Card
I hate Rand Paul.
LOL
Yeah, I wonder...
Say hello to the relentless betrayal of libertarians.
Rand Paul is wrong. I do not hate the illegal immigrants. What I hate is condoning law breaking. That is a slippery slope. Without adhering to laws, we become a lawless society. The illegals must go back and wait in line behind legal immigrants waiting in line. The only amnesty they can get is they will be allowed to apply legally.
I prefer self deportation by making it a felony to employ illegals AND doing business with any outfit headed by illegals.
And Paul needs a geography lesson or at least an atlas. Cuba is 93 miles away from (what used to be) our border.
Comparing Cuba to China and Vietnam is ridiculous.
Lol...that's gotta sting.
I agree. I can see liberals doing it, they do it all the time. Is it just a coincidence that this particular person is a Rick Perry supporter? lol I think not.
Better than propping up terrorist states
No fan of Rubio due to immigration but Paul shows he’s an amature with this position.
The ordinary Cubans can’t afford to buy American goods. Any business is govt owned.
Sanctions are there to punish not to force change.
Using Paul’s logic the death penalty should be ended because it hasn’t stopped people from killing.
The mere fact that we have a trade status with them and not Cuba is a laugh.
I don't care either way. Paul and Rubio are both pro illegal aliens.
Rubio is John McCain minus the military service but with a accent when he needs it.
Who cares about this?! The embargo should have ended decades ago. Engagement would have created change much quicker. Wasn’t 50 years enough to realize the policy was not working?!
Now, we can send Rubio, his family, and everyone from Cuba home. A reverse boatlift! Yes, and then maybe we can again raise the US flag in Florida.
I agree with getting rid of mandatory minimum drug sentencing. I feel like I’m losing my mind.
Libertarian iconPuked right there.
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.