Matthew Feeney on Why Rand Paul Should Highlight the Economic Case For Non-Interventionism


Credit: Gage Skidmore/Foter

Polling shows that most Americans agree with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) when it comes to foreign policy. Much of the American public, who have endured years of deadly American military adventures overseas, believe that the United States should be less involved in the rest of the world's affairs. 

The results of this polling should be good news for Paul, who is widely expected to run for president in 2016 and has made a name for himself as one of the GOP's most prominent non-interventionists since being sworn in back in 2011. On the intervention in Libya, the response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and the crises in Ukraine and Egypt, Paul has demonstrated that he is far less keen to get the United States involved in other countries' affairs than many of his Republican colleagues. However, not many Americans consider foreign affairs to be a priority. Reason's Matthew Feeney writes that Paul will be able to make the case for non-interventionism if he does run for president in 2016 by making it an economic issue, highlighting the vast amount of money spent on implementing U.S. foreign policy.