Rand Paul

Rand Paul Pulls Rhetorical Judo on Foreign Policy Foes, Calling Them "Isolationist"

|

Libertarian Republic reports on a foreign policy speech by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul this week:

Senator Rand Paul detailed his views on diplomacy Tuesday in a speech before the Center for the National Interest…..The US, he said, should employ trade and diplomacy whenever possible while scaling back overseas police action…

The Senator criticized neoconservatives for having forsaken this tradition, arguing that they really promote "not a neoconservatism but a neoisolationism in which diplomacy is distrusted and war is, if not the first option, the preferred option."

"Neoconservatives brag of their desire for engagement, but increasingly preach a doctrine that is hostile to diplomatic engagement," said Paul. "To this crowd, everyone who doesn't agree with them is the next Chamberlain. To this crowd, anyone who doesn't clamor first for the military option is somehow an isolationist. The irony is that the crowd that claims they want to engage often opposes diplomatic engagement."

Funny because it's true! I wrote in September a compare and contrast of Obama's foreign policy vision and Paul's, in the context of Syria.

NEXT: FTC Dissenting Commissioner: Apple Ruling "Without Merit"

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.

  1. Senator Rand Paul is getting started staking out his 2016 policy positions.

  2. The irony is that the crowd that claims they want to engage often opposes diplomatic engagement.

    PWN’D

    1. The neoconservatives deserve the mantle of being the left’s outcasts for more reasons than one, not the least of which being that they have no real belief in capitalism, only a reflexive opposition to communism because the wrong people believe in it.

    2. Oh they do want to engage, want to engage sooo hard. Engage you with a bullet to the head that is.

  3. To this crowd, everyone who doesn’t agree with them is the next Chamberlain. To this crowd, anyone who doesn’t clamor first for the military option is somehow an isolationist. The irony is that the crowd that claims they want to engage often opposes diplomatic engagement.

    It’s like Taft rose from the grave. Rand is far from perfect, but he’s the best Senator we’ve had in a long while when it comes to the big issues.

    1. That he is a thorn in the ass to everything I hate about the Republican establishment is as attractive feature as that he scares the fuck out of the primitive anti-market tribalist on the other team.

      1. “he is a thorn in the ass to everything I hate about the Republican establishment”

        Seconded. Bravo.

        1. In the end, that’s what really matters.

  4. There is nothing more isolationist than bombing the shit out of someone else’s backyard.

  5. That’s Libertarian Republic, not Libertarian Republican.

    AKA Donderoooooooo

    1. Yeah, let’s not invent oxymorons if we don’t have to.

  6. This is like the only place that covers anything related to Rand Paul. It’s Christiegate everywhere else.

    Rand still loves Israel, and he hasn’t argued in favor of closing down every military base like his dad. The “hawks” will still vote for him, no love lost.

    What Republican would say yes to some random military intervention, especially ones proposed by Obama? BTW, I heard the Assad regime missed some deadlines regarding chemical weapons. Obama couldn’t delay it? Too bad.

    1. In his position, I wouldn’t make it a bad habit to single them out either. They are not the problem even though neocons like to use them as an excuse for an expansive definition of national security when they scaremonger about isolationism. His dad was right about that, our money is more of a chain on Israel for leverage than anything else. If we ever took a blase attitude about ‘Peace in the Middle East’, dropped all funding in the region, it’s Israel’s enemies that should be the most worried.

    2. Ron wouldnt have closed down every military base.

      When we bring all the troops home, they will need somewhere to stay.

      We would only have needed to close every foreign base.

  7. SHUT UP AND TAKE MY VOTE

  8. Rhetorical judo: ‘Judo know what I gonna say. You gonna be very confused.’

  9. A few days ago he sent a reposte to some bullshit the WSJ wrote about him and Snowden. Can’t wait to see how butthurt the WSJ editorial board gets over this.

    That being said, he’s a little off the mark. It’s simply not true that America hasn’t used diplomacy. Bush and Obama have both diplomacied Iran to death and they’ve only given lies and terror in exchange.

    1. Bush and Obama have both diplomacied Iran to death and they’ve only given lies and terror in exchange.

      I think Rand is more attacking the Bill Kristol/Max Boot sort of Neocon who think we should bomb just about every country on the planet. Those are the sort of people who have been attacking him over his supposed ‘isolationism.’ Pointing out that someone like Bill Kristol legitimately seems to believe that diplomacy should start and end with carpet bombing campaigns seems to be pretty accurate.

      It’s also laughable to claim Rand Paul is isolationist when he’s in favor of total free trade and wants to ease up the free movement of people. It seems to me that wanting to put up trade restrictions is more isolationist than being opposed to warfare.

      1. Don’t forget McCain in your list.

      2. Fair point.

        the Bill Kristol/Max Boot sort of Neocon who think we should bomb just about every country on the planet.

        You give them too much credit. The Kristols don’t even usually stake out a specific course of action, instead they can only resort to buzzspeak like ‘global leadership’, ‘supporting our allies’, because they have such a weak intellectual framework. They suck.

        Rand Paul is an isolationist in the same way Obamacare is a penaltax in the same way the Fullerton verdict was jury nullification.

      3. the Bill Kristol/Max Boot sort of Neocon

        That is 100% of neocons.

        There isnt a split amongst the Neocons.

    2. . . . and they’ve only given lies and terror in exchange.

      Lies certainly, but who are they terrorizing again?

      1. They are major funders/backers of Hamas and Hezbolla. They also back Shia militant groups in Iraq.

        1. So, not us, not us and us only because we decided to wage a preemptive war.

          GOT IT!

  10. I don’t want to become a fanboy, because I’ll surely end up disappointed.
    But it’s heartening to see someone actually pushing forward a solid non-interventionist agenda.

  11. Dude seems to know which way is up.

    http://www.AnonGlobal.tk

  12. Bravo, Rand! Peter King and John Bolton are going to harrumph so hard!

    1. You mean, Peter King (T-NY).

      The T is for Terrorist.

  13. Late to the party, just want to add that the play on Free Trade with everyone should be the play against the “isolashunizt!!!1” card every time from now on.

    “Oh, let me get this straight: You want to bomb (insert shithole here), but you don’t want to sell them anything? Who’s the isolationist again?”

  14. Rand, you dirty dog!

  15. Violence is the last refuge of the extrasupercompetent.

    1. And Top. Men.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.