Rand Paul

Wacko Birds vs. Angry Birds: This Time it's War

The Syria vote marks a key gut check in the GOP's-and America's-conflict of visions

|

Sen. Rand Paul
U.S. Senate

Last Thursday, about 30 hours before President Barack Obama abruptly changed his mind about seeking congressional approval to bomb Syria, I asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) about how the whole Wacko Birds vs. Angry Birds conflict within the GOP was playing out in Washington.

"We're losing, on a good day, 70/30 among the Republicans," Paul said. "But we win every day among the grassroots, probably 80/20, 90/10."

This coming week, which promises to be the most important and bitterly contested conflict of governing visions on Capitol Hill since the September 2008 votes on the Troubled Assets Relief Program, will put Paul's math—and lobbying abilities—to the test.

Like TARP, this battle features a second-term president rallying a do-something coalition of big-government conservatives, liberal interventionists, and D.C. establishmentarians against a less telegenic mix of Republican hotheads and progressive Democrats. As in 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) is playing a key role in supporting the White House and warning about the "catastrophic" consequences of inaction.

Only this time, there is a new political bloc called the Liberty Movement, comprised of GOP politicians such as Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) who came to office in opposition to both TARP and the imperial presidency, now leading the charge against Washington interventionism as usual.

As The New York Times put it Monday, "Republican divisions on national security have flared over the use of drones, aid to Egypt, and the surveillance practices of the National Security Agency, and the tensions have played out publicly in battles between Senator John McCain of Arizona, the former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the libertarian-leaning freshman."

McCain famously coined the term "Wacko Birds" in March to describe Paul, Amash, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) after Paul's historic 13-hour filibuster in protest of the Obama administration's drone policy. Paul since then has continuously referred to the McCainite wing of the GOP as "stale and moss-covered," suggesting that National Greatness Conservatism is yesterday's news in an increasingly libertarian GOP.

"Between Ted and [Utah Sen.] Mike [Lee] and I, that nucleus, I think, is becoming less the Wacko Bird conference, and more the future of the party," Paul told me. Or as Amash Tweeted yesterday, "GWB-era foreign policy is nearly extinct among GOP grassroots. Some Rs in DC either didn't get the memo or haven't been home in a while."

Since the drone filibuster, Paul has come under repeated attacks from the likes of putative 2016 GOP presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rep. Peter King (R-New York), the latter of whom has cited Paul's views on foreign policy and civil liberties as motivation for his potential candidacy. On Fox News Sunday this week, King, normally one of Obama's fiercest critics, took the extraordinary step of both supporting the Democratic president and lashing out at the Republican opposition: "Hopefully, the president can make his case, that he will be able to get a majority of the House of Representatives," King said. "Right now, it would be difficult. Also, we have an increasing isolationist wing in the party which I think is damaging to the party and to the nation."

GOP interventionists have been open to preferring Democrats to Rand Paul. McCain in a July New Republic interview said that a Paul vs. Hillary Clinton presidential race in 2016 would be a "tough choice" for him. Last week, Washington Post "Right Turn" blogger Jennifer Rubin concluded a piece titled "Why Rand Paul should never, ever be commander in chief" with this comment: "A Capitol Hill Republican mused that perhaps Rand Paul is concerned that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is 'stealing his thunder' on foreign policy isolationism. Maybe. In any event, their utterances demonstrate clearly why America would be at risk (more so than even under Obama) if either got into the Oval Office (except on a tour)."

This is all just prelude to the rhetorical pugilism likely to come out over the next seven days. But refreshingly for Washington, the dispute is anchored firmly in mutually opposing philosophy. Rand Paul and Justin Amash believe in a "constitutionally conservative" approach toward war, one that requires—instead of occasionally asking for—congressional approval before launching U.S. military action. They are far more skeptical about intervention, military or otherwise, than any other bloc in Congress. They worry constantly that the War on Terror has dangerously eroded constitutional liberties. And they think the last century of American history has featured a dangerous over-concentration of power in the executive branch. In every one of these beliefs, they stand in sharp contrast not just to John McCain and the neoconservatives, but to the dominant tendencies in Republican foreign policy since at least September 11, 2001, and arguably for decades before that.

"The president as commander-in-chief has absolute constitutional and statutory power to take military action," King insisted on Sunday. (Note the word "absolute.") McCain warned that with a no vote, "the credibility of this country with friends and adversaries alike would be shredded, and there would be not only implications for this president, but for future presidencies as well." And at The Weekly Standard, Editor William Kristol wrote a blog post recommending a James Ceaser essay that begins with this remarkable passage:

Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President's policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act.

This important philosophical divide, which Reason has been tracking for a long time now, has been tilting steadily these past six months in the Liberty Movement's direction. First Rand Paul's filibuster made national headlines and hinted at a new bipartisan coalition of civil libertarians. Then a series of leaks originating from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden repeatedly put the lie to 12 years' worth of White House claims about the surveillance state. As a result, for the first time since pollsters have been asking the question, more Americans fear government's encroachment on their civil liberties than they do a terrorist attack. Meanwhile Obama's poll numbers among tech-savvy young voters has taken a double-digit tumble.

The biggest legislative moment in this shift—at least prior to this week's Syria debate—occurred at the end of July, when Justin Amash came within just 12 votes of passing an amendment to substantially roll back the powers of the NSA. Most worryingly for interventionists of both parties, support for the Amash amendment was bipartisan: 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted aye. When you consider that more than 70 of those yes votes co-signed a letter to Obama last week demanding a congressional vote on Syria, the president's sudden flip-flop toward the Constitution looks a little less surprising. When a budding bipartisan coalition is aligned with a 79 percent majority of public opinion, that's an opportune time to remember the principles that vaulted you to office (before they were dropped like a hot rock).

So in many senses, Liberty Movement politicians, and the voters supporting their efforts, have helped create the reality that Obama is grudgingly responding to. That is a noteworthy feat on its own. But the real fight, cutting straight to the heart of life-and-death policymaking, is now upon them. And us.

As far as the Wacko Bird contingent has moved the needle on American politics the past three years, and particularly the past six months, they have yet to win a vote that truly matters. Usually, as Paul said, they are on the losing side of 70-30 battles. Already, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) have announced their support for the Syria authorization, leaving House Republican opposition up to a ragbag group of upstarts led by Amash.

Amash, frequently touted as the House's successor to Ron Paul, has been poking his thumb in Boehner's eye ever since last November's election, for which he has been repeatedly slapped down. For now he is ringleading mostly from afar, holding a series of town halls in Michigan on Syria and lobbing the occasional social-media taunt in Boehner's general direction about the persistent unpopularity of a Syrian war.

It is in that latter phenomenon, and not in any kind demonstrated skill at arm-twisting, that Rand Paul and Justin Amash will ultimately win or lose this momentous struggle. Leadership is bound to lead (or do the Washington facsimile thereof, which is to bury the partisan hatchet and support the president's war), but backbenchers have to face disgruntled electorates not just in November 2014 but in possible primary fights before. Will the same limited-government, primary-exploiting activists who brought the Liberty Movement into existence be willing to punish Republican congressmen for favoring unpopular wars? So far there's no hint of any such thing.

As in the TARP vote, that leaves a disorganized group of people's representatives in the uncomfortable position of opposing the establishment while better representing Americans' views. Surely, if they vote no, they will be called "nihilists" and "appeasers" and much worse. Sen. Paul, for one, is confident that public support will protect the anti-interventionists' political fortunes.

"We have 50,000 soldiers at Fort Campbell," he says. "If you were allowed to do a poll of them, and ask 'How many of you guys are ready for your next tour in Syria?' It would be zero."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

25 responses to “Wacko Birds vs. Angry Birds: This Time it's War

  1. Good article. The tide might just be turning. We will know much more in 14 months.

    1. What exactly will we know in 14 months?

      1. Whether people are willing to toss out the reps who vote in favor of action in Syria (2014 is the mid terms).

  2. Whether it’s about military action abroad, domestic spying or budget concerns, in a fight between the conservatives and the libertarians in the GOP it will be the former that has the crucial backing of big journalism. Anything close to anti-statism is so anathema or misunderstood by talking hairdos that they will give cover to the hated neocons before trying fair critical analysis of the policy offerings of small government advocates.

  3. I think that Paul could have better said it like this:

    We’re losing in congress, but we’re gaining ground with the people.

    That’s more accurate, in my opinion.

  4. I don’t know where my rep will come down, one of my Sens is a lock as a no, the other, don’t know. There is no reason, sense, or benefit to military action in Syria. None.

  5. This is great coverage of the looming civil war in the Republican party. The interesting thing of note here is that it’s the interventionists who are being disloyal to the party. Paul, Amash, Lee, et. al. aren’t taking pot shots at the likes of McCain, King or Graham and threatening to defect in favor of the other Team, but vice versa. And, following even conservative sources, support for the interventionists is increasingly dwindling. Five years ago, guys like Paul would have been marginalized. Increasingly, it’s the warboners who are in the marginal position.

  6. What happened to Congress representing the will of the people? Or has that been a joke ever since the TARP bailouts passed when 80 percent of America was against them?

  7. The sad thing is that should the good Dr. Paul become president, all of his high-flying libertarian and anti-interventionist rhetoric will eventually go out the window. It might not happen immediately or it might take fully three years into his term but he will do it. And it will be for crass, selfish, completely political reasons. There is nobody who aspires to hold the power that is the Office of the President who will not at some point use the powers that have been delegated/surrendered to it.

    Rand Paul is no savior. Latching unto him like he will save this country is akin to the giggling 25 year olds who flocked to Obama in 2008 based on “Hope and Change”.

    1. The one ring that binds them all, eh?

      That said, not believing that Dr. Paul will be a panacea (I don’t think any politician is.) isn’t the same as not giving full-throated support to him while he is on the right track.

    2. Nonsense. Obama had enough of a track record to know he was untrustworthy for people willing to look at the matter objectively, rather than buy into media hype and preferred to project their own ideals onto him.

      Paul doesn’t have much of a political track record, and I’m hopeful for him but maintain a realistic skepticism for now. I see no one making unrealistic claims about Paul or what he would or could do in office.

      Nor is it necessarily true that non-interventionism will go out the window. We have had a few non-interventionists elected president who upheld those principles, like Coolidge and Cleveland.

    3. No, he is no savior, and the “One Ring” comment has a point – there have been very few Washingtons.

      But even a single term, with a couple of SCOTUS picks, could fundamentally improve the country.

      But, the odds of him becoming POTUS are about the same as Obama admitting that just about everything on his agenda is unconstitutional.

      Besides, I’d rather have him where he is for a bit longer, forming a solid bipartisan libertarian group of a couple dozen senators.

      Just the same:
      Paul-Amash 2016!

  8. Outside of the congressional circle jerk, I don’t see where all this mythical conservative support for attacking Syria is.

    Has any prominent conservative commentator come out in favor of it? The WSJ editorial folks seem sort of vaguely in support of it, and National Review did so in an unsigned editorial–with which all their named contributors seem to disagree.

    The GOP had 2014 handed to it on a silver platter, and they screwed it up! What a bunch.

    1. Well, they don’t call them the stupid party for nothing.

  9. “Bipartisanship” = Bend over, you’re getting double-teamed

    I guess it’s too much to hope that Assad (or more likely, the opposition) would use chemical weapons on D.C.

    Fuck all you Cold Warriors, chickenhawks, and pro-war pricks.

  10. I believe there is a difference between ragtag and ragbag.

  11. You know, maybe it’s going to sound a little (okay, a lot) self-serving, but this entire episode at least makes me feel just a little better about my earlier stupidity in buying the line of bullshit that was fed to us about the Iraq War. In that case, at least I can console myself that I was buying into a marginally coherent line of bullshit. If you bought into the scaremongering premises, it at least followed that there was a rational case to be made to go to war. “If we don’t go get Saddam Hussein, he’ll have terrorists blow up a dirty bomb in New York harbor!” Okay, yeah, it was stupid. Those premises merited a MUCH more careful examination than I gave. But, this? This doesn’t make any sense. Even if you buy the premises, even if you buy the bullshit, it still has no effect on us. No one in their right mind is pretending even for a minute that Bashir al Assad is going to have Hezbollah launch a sarin attack on any U.S. assets. No one even remotely honest is pretending that our intervening won’t help a rebel coalition that includes Al Qaeda. I mean, it’s one thing to be stupid. It’s quite another to be stupid and irrational.

    1. Well said!

    2. It’s not the US that the neoconservatives are worried will be attacked by Assad. It’s a country much closer to Syria that feels threatened.

  12. Basically no wholesale the things any essence, you should order a fabulous Celine back pack you should abatement for adulation by means of ” the good news is great bringing to find right from, handbags, baggage, hobo. The next necessities promote your business apart all the smartest, in which Celine Bags Sale office you’re able to many times not enough all the adventitious to invest in all the important back pack you will be rush. Casually apple-pie all the width for babyish annular movements through to the marks have ended. If you happen to for agnosticism for the important Celine Bags 26CM adumbration about the country’s color choice, accessories just for portraits via the internet useful to make sure you contrast. Basically no respect it’s always legitimate taken while it should acquiesce you to ultimately behavior any big-ticket looking around pack in a atom about the majority of a fabulous Celine back pack basic.

    1. rgd: this should have been adumbrated.

  13. my classmate’s step-sister makes $84/h hourly on the internet. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $20791 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site… …

    http://www.Rush60.com

  14. eres un encanto besitos

  15. new political bloc called the

  16. be the most important and bitterly contested conflict of gov

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.