Rand Paul

Can Rand Paul Become a New Leader for Republican Party Foreign Policy?

And can you accurately chart the GOP's foreign policy future without dealing with Trump?

|

Can Rand Paul, a defeated presidential candidate, reclaim the power of reshaping the Republican Party's foreign policy commitments from his seat in the Senate?

Daniel McCarthy of American Conservative, long an intelligent watcher of the Pauls' long march through the GOP (he worked briefly for Ron Paul's 2008 campaign) is hopeful in a long, educated take on the topic, optimistically titled "Rand Paul's Fall and Rise."

McCarthy explains some Republican Party history, showing how without any willed image of being dovish or reluctant to use or defend American power, the Party's executives from Eisenhower through Reagan were not quick to start wars or refuse diplomacy with at least our powerful adversaries. (Nixon's record as very slow to actually end hostilities in Vietnam, which McCarthy avoids, complicates this picture somewhat, but the GOP at least didn't really start the problem there.)

But the GOP foreign policy brand's meaning has been changed by George W. Bush to one of feckless bellicosity without much intelligent worry about effectiveness or cost.

While the leading two Republican candidates this time around were willing to at least admit that the lengthy Iraq invasion and occupation was a mistake, that belief doesn't seem to settle on any coherent Paulian sense of the general foolishness of going overseas seeking wasps' nests to stick our hands in, or a coherent sense of constitutional or fiscal limits on the role of the U.S. military, or Ron Paul forbid, the idea that sometimes we actually are plain misbehaving when we wage war overseas. Bellicosity, rather than intelligent disengagement, as a default mood remains dominant.

McCarthy sums up Sen. Paul's mission moving forward if he wants to be his Party's foreign policy conscience:

Rand Paul's task, and that of a new generation of Republican realists, is to go further—to not only reveal the flaws of their party's foreign policy but to work out a practical alternative. That task comes before winning the White House, and it has to begin on two fronts: one involves devising and articulating policies to strengthen American security through greater restraint—rather than weakening that security by touching off conflagrations around the world—and the other involves building the networks and institutions to support a return to conservative realism. The materials for creating a post-neoconservative center-right are already available. Talented young conservatives—not least among evangelicals—are clear-eyed about the disasters of the Bush years, and they dearly wish to find an alternative. A leader has to provide one—which is what Rand Paul, or someone like him, must do. 

What McCarthy says makes sense, if somewhat tautologically: to shift from just one guy to a leader Rand Paul needs to convince people that he's right that American security can come with American restraint, and he has to get people and institutions other than just himself and his team promoting and practicing those ideas.

To get a full circle picture of what Rand Paul and the foreign policy thinkers around him mean by a new foreign policy conservative realism, check out my July 2015 profile of Paul's foreign policy ideas and team.

That article concluded that unlike the clarity of Ron Paul's anti-empire stance, Sen. Paul's foreign policy commitments couldn't always help you predict exactly when and where he'd see the flexing of American muscle overseas, or resistance to diplomacy with our perceived foes, as the conservative realist thing to do.

Such history lessons as McCarthy provides are interesting, but are they telling about the present and future?

That depends on the Party as represented by its voters, its congresspersons, or its president, caring much or feeling bound in any way by the Party's history, either distant or near. Political or cultural historians can intelligently note patterns and influences whose importance might be muted by the people who actually are going forward making new political and cultural history not knowing or caring much about the history.

It's risky to make any guesses about the Republican Party's near future without considering the Donald Trump factor, a name McCarthy does not drop in his thoughts about the Party's foreign policy future. What kind of a foreign policy might a President Trump want, or try to demand, from his partisans in the House and Senate?

Knowing the answer to that requires knowing a lot of things about how Trump would govern that I can't pretend to know. Lacking core ideological convictions that make sense to political intellectuals, does he at least have core attitudes? And would the attitude that foreign invasions can be costly mistakes, or the attitude that America must "win," dominate a Trump administration?

Will a President Trump still feel the need to reflect his sense of his fans' feelings back to them, and will that sense be a "what's in it for us"? attitude about intervention? Or a "let's get our enemies who are keeping us from winning" attitude? Or will Trump just snatch the power and influence the past decades of executive power grabs when it comes to foreign policy make available to him, and do whatever he wants and dare Congress or the people to stop him?

Non-interventionist libertarians have tried to make much of Trump's winning willingness to call out past interventions as obvious mistakes and to mock and deride the leaders who pushed us into them, and to question the notion that U.S. force must always weigh on Israel's side in any conflict.

But Trump's more than occasional references to the vital importance of "winning" and not being restricted to different rules than ISIS and to making sure we profit from interventions inspire no confidence he represents some supposed ancient American populist imperative to take care of our own patch of land and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

Decades of constant intervention, and the fact that on occasion extranational forces or people inspired from them actually do harm Americans (rare occasion, but we have a long, scared memory) make following the will of the people—especially a people pretty disconnected because of endless deficit spending and lack of a draft from the real costs of intervention—no strong restriction on an overbearing foreign policy.

We are a quiet coiled snake keeping to ourselves until we aren't anymore, and that has happened an awful lot to this supposed keep-to-itself coiled snake, and we seem to mostly settle in at least for a few years to cheer any war that our political elites tell us is necessary. And a President Trump would suddenly be our newest and most elite of political elites.

So, a "conservative realist" Sen. Paul may have something of an ally in a President Trump. But maybe not. And because of all the willing ceding of foreign policy authority, a giveaway that Paul has wonderfully decried for years now, from the legislative to the executive, all Paul may have in the end is the bully pulpit of the Senate seat from Kentucky, up against a president who knows from bullying.

NEXT: Maybe This Time the Democrats Will Talk About Foreign Policy at the Debate

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. But Trump’s more than occasional references to the vital importance of “winning” and not being restricted to different rules than ISIS and to making sure we profit from interventions inspire no confidence he represents some supposed ancient American populist imperative to take care of our own patch of land and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

    I think that Trump is against some recent wars not because they were stupid, or costly, or unjustified, but because they weren’t his wars. Trumpwar TM will be awesome and for the winz.

    1. It’s gonna be uuuuuuuge

      1. And the winning – so much winning you’ll be tired of it.

    2. Winning wars makes them more popular.

      Trump!!11!! for the LULZ.

  2. Hey Reason, you could use some of this

    http://m.slashdot.org/story/308325

    1. Holy shit, slashdot! Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a loong time.

      Also, AdBlock makes Reason homepage quite zippy. Archives are still butt-slow, though.

      1. Kind of amusing that that page took forever to load. Oh, and it’s still spinning as I type this.

        +1 AdBlock – reason loads in a snap for me.

      2. I learned to troll at slashdot.

  3. Public Service Announcement: I go to the American Conservative site occasionally, and there is some good stuff there.

  4. Benadryl kicking in. Toodles.

    1. Percocet for me. The chemo just outran the long-release morphine again….

      Drugs are good but…..drugs are good.

      Peace to you and sweet dreams!

  5. Man, I just don’t care any more.

    I haz an ennui 🙁

  6. Rand Paul: President Donald Trump’s Secretary of State

    1. Make him Secretary of the Treasury.

    2. Rand and Assad could talk eye to eye, if you know what I mean.

    1. Now you know why Trump never sold Trump brand pork chops.

  7. The whole Syrian thing is about a Qatar to Lebanon pipeline.

    1. Right now, it’s about Qatar to 11, Denver time.

  8. Rand Paul is 1/100 of 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government.*

    He won’t have an opportunity to be the leader of anything until he runs for President again.

    He should have run for the governor of Kentucky in December.

    Opportunity missed.

    *For those of you who aren’t so good at math, that makes Rand Paul 1/600 of the federal government.

    1. And if pure voting math mattered, he’d be ignored. But he’s not ignored, is he? When he filibustered until Obama admitted that the president doesn’t have the authority to done American citizens on US soil, he made a difference, to cite one example.
      His position in the senate is worth far more than 1/600th of the government.

      1. We pay more attention to him than average people. I want to see him be President, not some firebrand symbol like his father was.

        Historically speaking, governors are taken more seriously as candidates. Prove you can run a state, and you’ve got a leg up on everyone who hasn’t done that.

        If he were the governor of Kentucky for the next four years, he would be in perfect position to challenge Trump for the nomination in four years–or other Republicans should a Democrat win.

        Now he’s got some other Republican in the governor’s mansion in Kentucky who’ll be there for another four years.

        Blown opportunity.

  9. Oh, good! The libertarian moment is still alive!!!

    1. HIHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNN

    2. Yep, having principles is just such a drag, right Mike? I mean, we could all just buddy-up to the Trump loud-mouth bandwagon and have access when he wins.
      Or we could ignore the corruption and pat ol’ HRC on the butt and ride her wave. Or Bernie; how about a dose of socialism, Mike? Would that make you smile?
      Exactly what is it that you believe in Mike, other than just begging for attention?

      1. Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.

        1. B. Woodrow Chippenhaus
          Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.

          1) The one that humiliated you?
          2) Do you have a more recent equivalent?
          3) Why do you say libertarianism has DECLINED since then?
          4) Who gives a shit about a a thug who glorifies feeding people into wood chippers?

          1. No, we’re not humiliated by words.
            No, because it’s nonsense.
            No, it’s about the same. Few people want to be in charge of their own lives.
            You have the same feeling preet does. He’s an imbecile.

            1. Another bully!

              Do you have a more recent equivalent?

              No, because it’s nonsense

              (lol) The goober’s “nonsense” is a survey commissioned by Cato. Goobers’s HATE it for exposing them. So they run like cowards, as we see here I provide links to the proof but they deny it. Like Birthers.

              http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

              In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”…

              The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

              For any other slow-witted bullies, the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians, mostly the thuggish behavior we see here, disgracing the movement

              Chippenhaus — earlier humiliated by it — now dismisses it as old. Any excuse. (lol)
              So I challenge him to prove it … another bully jumped in with pure trashhmouth cowardice, REFUSING to. Instead of proof, he bullies. Shouts people down. Hissy fits.

              Will he deny the proof? Will I be labeled a Kenyan? (yawn)

          2. Hit a nerve there, did I?

            1) The one that humiliated you?

            Citation needed.

            2) Do you have a more recent equivalent?

            No because I find the original statistic irrelevant.

            3) Why do you say libertarianism has DECLINED since then?

            As I’ve never said such a thing, I don’t need to explain why I said it.

            4) Who gives a shit about a a thug who glorifies feeding people into wood chippers?

            Citation needed. Just because I now associate your name with rank insanity doesn’t mean I think your name glorifies it.

            1. Hit a nerve there, did I?

              I enjoy crushing bullies and liars. And baiting fools.

              In psychology, we call this “suffering denial” Also runs away from his original excuse. (typical).

              Do you have a more recent equivalent?

              No because I find the original statistic irrelevant.

              OMG Now it’s “irrelevant” … instead of being a decade old (snicker) and humiliating … that 59% of voters are “Nolan libertarians” …. and 91% of them reject the libertarian label (reject HIM) Now watch the thug collapse

              3) Why do you say libertarianism has DECLINED since then?

              As I’ve never said such a thing, I don’t need to explain why I said it.

              So you lied about the survey being irrelevant … or …. wait for it … the number of libertarians who reject you has INCREASED???? Which one, chump?

              4) Who gives a shit about a a thug who glorifies feeding people into wood chippers?

              Citation needed.

              Your own handle, dumbfuck

              Just because I now associate your name with rank insanity doesn’t mean I think your name glorifies it.

              Bully concedes his abusive aggression is bullshit, REFUSES to defend his lie … admits his attack was irrelevant … another aggressive thug debunked for cowardice

              (walks away laughing)

              1. This what the thug just ran away from, after being called out as a fool

                B. Woodrow Chippenhaus|3.9.16 @ 10:19PM|#

                Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.

                (laughing harder)

              2. That is an impressive amount of incoherent thinking. It’s telling that you took a simple truthful sentence so personally, as it actually reinforces that simple, truthful sentence.

                It may shock you to learn that data can both be old and irrelevant. The former may actually influence the latter, although, for me, not in this case. So I neither lied about anything, nor run away from anything. Your transparent attempt to put words in my mouth has failed, despite your liberal use of all caps and boldface.

                1. B. Woodrow Chippenhaus|3.11.16 @ 6:22AM|#
                  It may shock you to learn that data can both be old and irrelevant.

                  Ummm, I asked why it was irrelevant … the bully (you) refused to say why it’s irrelevant because … you said … IT *IS* IRRELEVANT!

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5968254

                  It’s irrelevant because you say so … I can’t challenge it … but you’re not a fucking thug! (OMG) Don’t shoot the messenger (me) when it’s you humiliating yourself,

                  (boldface in defense and ridicule of repeated aggressions)

                  1. Ummm, I asked why it was irrelevant

                    And then you link to a post where you asked … something else.

                    3) Why do you say libertarianism has DECLINED since then?

                    1. You also claim now to have asked why I thought the data was irrelevant before I actually told you I thought the data was irrelevant.

                    2. And then you link to a post where you asked … something else. I asked both, so you’ve now confirmed you’re a fucking dishonest pscho.

                      3) Why do you say libertarianism has DECLINED since then?

                      You’re even more psyho there!!!

                      Pay attention, chump. Since you made your crazy attack, should we instead assume that MORE THAN 91% of libertarians now reject your ilk? Is THAT why you pissed and moaned the survey was … old? Here:

                      Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5967719

                      Are you now also documented as a bully AND a retard? (snicker)
                      YES!!! See what may stalker says next! (OMG)

                    3. Bullies NEVER stop

                      B. Woodrow Chippenhaus
                      You also claim now to have asked why I thought the data was irrelevant before I actually told you I thought the data was irrelevant.

                      HAHAHA, this was your thuggish aggression:

                      Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5967719

                      YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE THE POLL IS STILL RELEVANT????? (OMG)

                      SO IN DEFENSE OF YOUR AGGRESSION, I ASK *WHY* YOU SAY IT’S IRRELEVANT.
                      YOUR FUCKING ARROGANCE CONTINUED:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5969353

                      Do you have a more recent equivalent?

                      No because I find the original statistic irrelevant.

                      It’s irrelevant that 91% of libertarians reject YOU because YOU say so … I can’t challenge it … but you’re not a fucking thug! (OMG) Don’t shoot the messenger (me) when it’s YOU publicly humiliating yourself,

                      Pathetic? But what else from a thug who glorifies feeding people into woodchippers?
                      Reason tolerates cyber-bullying, the only major political site that refuses to moderate … exposing readers to aggression like this including those who came to learn about libertarianism Is this a reason why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians?

                      STOP STALKING ME

                    4. Bullies NEVER stop

                      Interestingly, of the two of us, only one has resorted to name-calling.

                      If this statement: “Hihn believes in a poll result that’s about a decade old.” is a form of “thuggish aggression” in which I also simulatenously “pissed and moaned” about something, you may need to retreat to a safe space for awhile. Especially if you also believe responding to your posts is ‘stalking’ you.

      2. Yep, having principles is just such a drag, right Mike?

        For you, apparently.

        I mean, we could all just buddy-up to the Trump loud-mouth bandwagon and have access when he wins. If you lack principles.

        Or we could ignore the corruption and pat ol’ HRC on the butt and ride her wave. Or Bernie; how about a dose of socialism, Mike? Would that make you smile? You’re drooling.

        Exactly what is it that you believe in Mike, other than just begging for attention?

        Exactly why are you an aggressor?

        1. Michael Hihn|3.9.16 @ 11:49PM|#
          “Exactly why are you an aggressor?”

          I see that you never quite got around to answering my questions.
          Exactly why are you a dishonest asshole, Mike? Do you find pleasure in lying and misdirection? Or are you just a fucking ignoramus who doesn’t realize what piles of shit you’re shoveling?

            1. coloraDOOM
              WORD SALAD

              Documented as a goober and a bullyr. Here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5968114

              (walks away laughing at the thugs)

          1. Bullies run in packs. Like dogs

            “Exactly why are you an aggressor?”

            Exactly why are you a dishonest asshole, Mike?

            No answer. MORE bullying!!! Umm, where did I lie?

            Do you find pleasure in lying and misdirection?

            Got any examples, or just evasion and misdirection?

            Or are you just a fucking ignoramus who doesn’t realize what piles of shit you’re shoveling?

            Thereby confirming yourself as a bully (You’re doing my job for me!)
            Again, exactly why are you an aggressor? Now back-to-back like a stalker.. (yawn)

            1. Now count all the thuggery, lies and personal insults … because I said (top of thread)

              Oh good. The libertarian moment is sill alive.

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5967595

              Can we say “aggression?” How about “bullies” or “thugs?”
              Mostly (not entirely) devoted followers of Ron Paul’s Cult, authoritarians by nature
              How sad that Reason is the ONLY major political site that fails to moderate bullies.
              Cato doesn’t allow comments at all. Guess why!

              (posted in defense of MULTIPLE aggression by an apparent street gang of trashmouth bullies. Are their parents proud of what they’ve become?)

      3. Sevo
        Oh, good! The libertarian moment is still alive!!!

        Yep, having principles is just such a drag, right Mike? I mean, we could all just buddy-up to the Trump loud-mouth bandwagon and have access when he wins.

        Where in Sevo’s perverted mind does he wind up with Trump … from what I said?

        Just to clarify for any other retards, this again is what I said:
        Oh, good! The libertarian moment is still alive!!!

        Doesn’t matter what I say. The thugs attack, just as mindlessly as Sevo.
        But their not aggressive bullies. (snicker)

        Keep proving me right.

      4. .Oh, good! The libertarian moment is still alive!!!

        .Yep, having principles is just such a drag, right Mike?

        Umm, what does that have to do with a libertarian moment?

        I mean, we could all just buddy-up to the Trump loud-mouth bandwagon and have access when he wins.

        Which would confirm that the libertarian moment is bullshit, and you’re just another shill.

        Or we could ignore the corruption and pat ol’ HRC on the butt and ride her wave.

        Well, you do seem crazy enough to do so, principles being such a drag for you.

        Or Bernie; how about a dose of socialism, Mike? Would that make you smile?

        It’s a sneer. And a smirk. Here’s an archive of my published political writing. Check the ones on Taxes, Healthcare, Education, Federal Budget and Federalism. Other than your bullying everyone here who won’t kiss your ass, what have you had published? Give us a link. Also describe your election campaigns, or ANYTHING that promoted liberty to the populace instead of being a trashmouth thug on a web page (hiding behind a computer). .

        http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

        Exactly what is it that you believe in Mike, other than just begging for attention?

        It’s called libertarianism. You should consider it. But it requirrs principles and you’d have to abandon your apparent compulsion for aggression..

  10. Will a President Trump still feel the need to reflect his sense of his fans’ feelings back to them, and will that sense be a “what’s in it for us”? attitude about intervention? Or a “let’s get our enemies who are keeping us from winning” attitude?

    I can never get quite enough of the elitist sneering against Trump’s fans and their feelings. Apparently, neither can you.

    Yes, Trump’s foreign policy seems to be “What’s in it for America?”. This will include defeating our enemies. Works for me.

    take care of our own patch of land and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

    Ah yes, the military strategy of waiting til the tanks are rolling across Nebraska to take action. No thanks.

    Some crazy folks think that taking care of “our own patch” may require some action off our own patch. That will be done to take care of Americans, not the world at large.

    Overall, probably less but more effective intervention.

    1. When the hegemon fails we usually get big wars to decide on a replacement. No thanks.

      I’m rather anti-war but in a peculiar way. I have studied it. And this is about he best you can do at this time.

      A world hegemon that has a live fire exercise ever 4 years or so to prove it is not a paper tiger.

      Think Reagan – Granda. Clint Eastwood made a movie.

    2. “Ah yes, the military strategy of waiting til the tanks are rolling across Nebraska to take action. No thanks.”

      I’m sure that’s hyperbole, but I’m equally sure it’s used since you have no example of any believable circumstance.
      Please, tell us who is or are “our enemies”? How can they possibly cause us harm and what ( real-world ) action should be taken.
      I’ll be waiting.

      1. I just explained it at 9:30PM on this thread. Did you miss it?

        1. You explained something, but that proposed an answer to only one of my questions, and a not-convincing one either.
          We should invade a Caribbean island once every 4 years or so?

          1. We should invade a Caribbean island once every 4 years or so?

            Something like that. I’m explaining how the world of power works. Not how you wish it worked. I was a ‘Nam vet. I hated war. and then about 1980 I decided I had to learn how it works before I could stop it. And that is what I learned.

            And the harm of appearing weak is that it causes wars. And to appear strong you have to engage in a military adventure from time to time. Small wars vs big ones.

            You can’t be too overbearing (Germany made that mistake in the 40s) and yet you can’t let every slight pass (England made that mistake in the 1930s). .

            1. Hitler said that if the opposing powers had opposed his Rhineland adventure in 1936 his regime would have collapsed. The cost might have been a few hundred to a few thousand dead.

            2. “I’m explaining how the world of power works. Not how you wish it worked.”
              No, you’re promoting a common brand of bullshit.

              “I was a ‘Nam vet. I hated war. and then about 1980 I decided I had to learn how it works before I could stop it. And that is what I learned.”
              Yeah, so am I and you “learned” nothing at all as a result.
              Go bomb your hometown to prove what a ‘man’ you are.

          2. Avoiding war at all costs generally has a very high cost.

            1. MSimon|3.9.16 @ 10:40PM|#
              “Avoiding war at all costs generally has a very high cost.”

              You should meet with Mike up-thread. He doesn’t have any principles, either.

      2. Pearl Harbor is an example.

        1. Pearl Harbor is an example.

          Yep. Of us interfering militarily where it was none of our fucking business. Today’s brainwashed sheeple have no idea who the Flying Tigers were, and what they did. FDR should have been hung for treason.

    3. Ah yes, the military strategy of waiting til the tanks are rolling across Nebraska to take action. No thanks.

      Similar to the hysteria that caused 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Don’y let them manipulate you,
      Plus Nebraska tanks is totally bonkers.

    4. That will be done to take care of Americans, not the world at large.

      Then get his fucking ass out of the mideast. Geopolitics ain’t your game.

  11. And can you accurately chart the GOP’s foreign policy future without dealing with Trump?

    Perhaps a more interesting question: Can you more accurately chart the GOP’s foreign policy future than a drunk monkey throwing color-coded darts at a world map? Red – we send troops, green – we send money, white – we send diplomats, yellow – we send arms, black – we send a UN resolution, and so on. Would the result be any less random, any less senseless, any less awful? (Crap, I hope I didn’t just accidentally give away a national security secret – I swear I don’t know anything about our foreign policy being determined by drunk monkeys, it was just an educated guess.)

    1. The last President to have a secure grasp of foreign policy was Reagan.

      Nixon wasn’t too bad and Eisenhower had 30 years (or more) of experience.

      1. Bush Sr wasn’t bad.

    2. I don’t see foreign defense policy as being a Republican or Democrat thing.

      Some people are more pragmatic than others, but every neocon is some flavor of pragmatist now.

      There may be more internationalist style old school Democrats. I doubt Trump would sign onto another climate treaty, but a Democrat might make that a specific policy goal.

      I doubt The Donald has much use for the UN at all.

      1. I doubt The Donald has much use for the UN at all.

        Yet those damn cosmos can’t recognize a “libertarian moment” when it’s exploding all around them

        1. Yet those damn cosmos can’t recognize a “libertarian moment” when it’s exploding all around them

          They’re scared of all the flying debris.

  12. The neocons have no confidence Trump might do exactly the opposite of what he has always said he believes.

  13. “Can Rand Paul Become a New Leader for Republican Party Foreign Policy?”

    No.

  14. Given that the Pentagon budget is the single largest source of illicit political money, there can be little doubt about the short term direction of US foreign policy. In fact, we are not likely to reel in the military budget until after we have confronted, as a nation, the rampant corruption that dominates domestic politics. Even with a Trump or Sanders presidency, moneyed interests will continue to dominate the political scene. The voting public needs to wake up to the fact that corruption doesn’t just involve a “few bad apples”. It’s the whole damn orchard that’s rotten. Short of violent revolution, our best option is to stop supporting incumbents. Implement term limits at the ballot box. Take away the opportunity for personal enrichment and most of the crooks will walk away. Yes, you’ll throw out a few decent politicians (there aren’t many) but that is the price we pay for killing the beast that exploits us all.

  15. RE: Can Rand Paul Become a New Leader for Republican Party Foreign Policy?

    Of course not.
    He believes in peace and non-interventionism.
    What kind of Secretary of State would ever even think of that?

    1. He believes in peace and non-interventionism.

      Only abroad. He’s a rather forceful interventionist in the private lives and individual rights of Americans,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.