Posted on 08/25/2014 4:12:21 PM PDT by dignitasnews
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is an intriguing figure on many counts. As Americans and as conservatives we owe the Senator heartfelt thanks and applause for bringing vital issues of privacy and governmental overreach to forefront of the national debate. He, better than most Republicans, has been able to reach out beyond the tradition party base, specifically among black, libertarian and younger voters. However, his continued insistence of playing the role of "dove" on foreign policy renders him unqualified to be our Commander-in-Chief and therefore Rand Paul should not be given the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination.
In comments made over the weekend, Paul quipped that if we were looking for a "transformational election" in 2016, "let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton," adding that we would witness a "transformation like you've never seen." While the actual quote references a transformation of the overall electorate, one that desired by so many on the right, Presidential leadership goes far beyond the business of politics and what a candidate says on the stump has consequences that are felt far beyond who voters cast their ballots for on election day. While the goal of defeating presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is of course ranks at the top of the conservative agenda, that victory will be hollow if it comes at any cost.
What leaders say is often as important as what they do. It is the message that a President sends out not only to the nation but the world, that often dictates the actions of our adversaries and allies alike. The art of diplomacy is the worlds greatest poker table and as any skilled card player can tell you, the first rule is to keep your opponents guessing. And when one has built a career and their entire political brand as being a leader who will exhaust every possible option to avoid the use of our military, the signal that this sends often has dire consequences.
According to his Senatorial website, Paul makes obligatory appeals to conservatives by noting that when engaged in combat that America should fight "only under US Command and not the UN," but then goes on to paint a foreign policy vision that could have been written by the most pacifistic staff member of the Obama White House, or a first-year intern for Code Pink.
He echoes the sentiments of the "Camp Casey" crowd when he bemoans that we are "waging war across the Middle East on a credit card," and that to "involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong." While conservative leadership should always be expected to weigh the potential human and financial costs of our military intervention, Paul's statements here are irresponsible to say the least. He is, in effect, acquiescing to the dangerous hyperbole of the left that our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan had no "vital" interest and he furthermore is sending to the adversaries of peace and stability around the world that a Rand Paul Administration would be as globally disengaged, if not more so, than the current White House occupant.
Have the last six years not taught Rand Paul anything about the tremendous cost of instilling nefarious forces around the world with the (often justified) belief that America has lost the will to lead the world? Has he not witnessed the dangers created around the world when the nation that led the fight against fascism and communism exchanges true leadership for hashtag diplomacy? Based on his comments over the past two years, its hard to believe that he will be any more forceful a leader than President Barack Obama. That he would use Occupy-esque rhetoric in describing Hillary Clinton as a "war hawk" leads this conservative to worry that if he is given the role of Commander-in-Chief, he will make Obama look like Churchill in comparison.
No reasonably minded American desires war simply for the sake of it. It is self-evident that our leaders should work to advance the goals of US interests with the smallest possible cost of life and treasure. History, however, teaches us that this feat is often best accomplished with rhetoric to the contrary. The brutal lessons of history also remind us that whether by design or consequence, the constant insistence of peace often leads to greater instability and loss of human life.
We need only look to the Reagan Administration for the perfect example of the "peace through strength" doctrine. While he earned the reputation and scorn among the global left as a "warmongering madman," President "Ronny Ray-Gun" Reagan actually utilized our military far less than anyone who has held the Oval Office since. Comparisons of this nature are often unfair given that the challenges facing our leaders are never exact, but the fact of the matter is he was as successful is striking fear into our opponents as he was the throngs that filled the streets in protest of his "aggression."
Strategically speaking, the instance on "peace as a last resort" is only a successful policy if one's true motive is to wage war. No Western leader of the past century spoke to his desire for peace as often and forcefully as Adolph Hitler. I'm in way suggesting Rand Paul shares a similar motivation as the German warlord, but just as Reagan proved you prevent war by making your enemies belief your fingers are ever at the trigger, Hitler demonstrated that by lulling your opponents into a false sense of security, they easy prey. As he noted in a speech to his high command shortly just prior to the invasion of Poland, referencing the now-infamous "peace summit" that was the Munich Agreement, "our opponents are like worms, I saw them at Munich."
With Vladmir Putin's Russia threatening to destabilize Ukraine and change he map of Eastern Europe, with six-year-old little Chaldean girls having their heads chopped off by ISIS thugs in an Iraq our desire for peace inflamed, with an expansionist China muscling one of our most loyal allies in the Philippines seas and Leopoldo Lopez rotting in a Venezuelan jail cell while it citizenry has their human rights violated with impunity, we can simply not pretend that our "vital interests" extend only to the edge of the shores of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Whoever is elected President in 2016 will inherit a world far less safe than it was on January of 2009. To continue with an ever more unrealistic world view and foreign policy than the one that got us here would be the height of Einstein-defined insanity. Unless he is able to properly articulate over course of the next two years how he plans to account for an increasingly dangerous world threatening which threatens to disrupt not only global commerce but the very future of our species, Rand Paul should not be given the GOP nomination in 2016, no matter how many new Republican voters his intriguing brand of politics may bring.
Opinion by Paul M Winters Editor in Chief, Dignitas News Service
Sources:
ShockDoctrin (via YouTube) SenatorRandPaul GoogleBooks
Crappy headline. I don’t think they just give away the nominations.
Rand Paul has zero chance of getting the GOP nomination, but he will very likely run as a libertarian or third-party spoiler, thus assuring that the election goes to the Dim.
Rand Paul is the Ross Perot of 2016. And that will ensure a Clinton winning, just as in 1992.
I do appreciate the input and critique. Balancing headline summary, appeal and the realities of SEO considerations is still a learning curve for us.
So then the real question is... What can be done??
it is GOP that should sit this out.
“So then the real question is... What can be done??”
More and more I feel we have passed the tipping point and the die is cast.
Hitlery would probably be a bigger war hawk than Rand Paul because she would pick up where 0bama lays off by using the military and an amped up DHS to wage war against conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, veterans and gun owners.
Wars have been used since ancient times to divert public attention from a failing economy and domestic troubles. Don’t be duped by the despot 0bama and support an overseas intervention. Any war will be used by the totalitarian Left to restrict liberty and justify a crackdown on all dissent at home. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LEFT GOING TO WAR!
It’s sad that the US has lost so must respect and influence abroad. But that being said, it would be much more dangerous to entrust enhanced military capabilities to 0bama, Hitlery or any totalitarian Leftist .
We currently have mac, yellow streak, daddy and now paul, head up his as*, ryan who want to be potus.
I’m old fashioned enough to believe that Bush split Perot’s vote, tax-raising GHW stood have stepped aside and let a good candidate win the race. I fail to understand why the letter “R” after a candidate’s name automatically deems him to be the candidate that should be voted for.
Perot would have made a better president than Clinton, and a a far better one than Bush41, but as long as people believe that there should only be two candidates, both pretty much pushing the same agenda but one with the letter “D” after his name and the other with the letter “R” then there will be no change.
If Mike Lee were a few years older.....
He’s almost as nutty as his father.
He belonged back in the early 30’s with the “American Firsters”.
There is NOT LONGER A FORTRESS AMERICA! IF 9/11 proved nothing else, it proved this.
Only the stupid don’t learn.
“There is NOT LONGER A FORTRESS AMERICA! IF 9/11 proved nothing else, it proved this. Only the stupid don’t learn.”
Not with open borders, which I believe Rand Paul supports.
The 9/11 terrorists came here on visas and simply never went home. They lived here illegally as they organized their mass murder plot.
Despite 9-11’s connection to illegal immigration Dubya did exactly nothing to tighten up our borders. Some people are wedded to stupid and the GOPe is living proof.
That leaves.... No reason to vote for him. Sounds perfect for the Republicans of today.
/johnny
Don't dump your base and expect them to vote for you.
/johnny
“Anyone who looks upon Hillary Clinton as a “war hawk” is probably smoking that new Colorado pot not made for the tourists.”
Actually she is very much the hawk, she was the driving force behind our invasion of Serbia from what I’ve heard.
Rand Pail will never have my vote.
I have read conflicting statements on where Rand Paul is on immigration, from Tea Party close the border to libertarian open borders.
Is it fair to say he flip flops on the immigration issue?
What does he actually believe on immigration?
Flower child ping!
Summary of this editorial : he's not hawkish enough.
I will you let you bros go first.
I didn’t follow that much: Didn’t we side with the Muslims against the Christians?
Why he should not be given the nomination ? Because he’s a Paul.
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.