-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jason Zengerle’s latest GQ piece trying to reduce Rand Paul to a fringe figure has elicited an unlikely reaction: concern — especially pronounced among antiwar conservatives — that Paul is too much of a mainstream Republican. That’s because the New Republic reporter who revealed Paul to be a “paleo wacko” met in Washington, D.C. with such leading neocons and hawks as Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly.
The fact is that whether we agree with their foreign policy views or not, all of the above gentlemen are influential in the Republican Party and broader conservative movement. People in their orbit will advise the next Republican president and will staff Senate offices. Conservatives who do not like this reality need to get right-wingers of a less interventionist stripe into the talent pool from which future conservative elected officials will draw. Rand Paul’s campaign represents a significant opportunity to do that. Even if he is imperfect himself, his openness to different influences and potential willingness to hire serious libertarians or noninterventionist conservatives would still be an asset.
That’s not to deny that there are reasons to worry about Rand going native — Zengerele does a good job showing the tension between Paul’s ideology and his ambition. In fact, some of this criticism is beneficial because Paul the younger needs pressure from harder-core libertarians and noninterventionists to balance the overwhelming pressure he’s going to face from the other side. But let’s take a deep breath here.
Rand Paul remains opposed to the Iraq war. He left National Review with the clear impression that he wants out of Afghanistan. He has been restrained in his rhetoric about Iran even when invited to make bellicose statements. He still talks about closing military bases, Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war, and not exempting the Pentagon from spending cuts. And that’s without mentioning his domestic positions, which make him likely to be the most limited-government member of the Senate. Even Ron Paul has trimmed a bit in his successful campaigns for conventional Republican votes.
Given these facts and the paucity of other viable options, I’m inclined to let this play out rather than jump to conclusions based on Rand Paul’s attempts to mend fences with conservatives and Republicans outside the Ron Paul movement. Robert Taft didn’t need to be the most consistent noninterventionist conservative to be the most influential.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/04/rand-paul-neocon
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 11:00AM
Just keep the controversy to a minimum - put Rand Paul on domestic-only committees.
Occam's Tool| 10.4.10 @ 11:02AM
Robert Taft was pro-Israel.
Christy| 10.5.10 @ 1:40AM
You can be pro-Israel without sending them billions of dollars.
Roger| 10.4.10 @ 11:05AM
Good post. Rand Paul will be the best senator since Barry Goldwater.
JRL| 10.4.10 @ 11:11AM
Why do you say this attempted to make Rand Paul a fringe figure? that was the purpose of the FIRST piece, but the main Dem meme being spun in October is that Rand isn't sincere. Z reported that the biggest issue was the strain between 'true believers' and the establishment GOP parts of his support -- and then drove a wedge firmly into that juncture. Why do you think that was unintentional?
And since when does 'absorbing' mean 'converting'? When Obama went to AIPAC he followed it with a speech to a thousand about how if elected he would 'do everything in his power...EVERYTHING in his power.....EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER....to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. (emphasis his, check out youtube.) The most they can say about Rand is that he was engaging and 'listening'. Senators need to listen to everyone. Then vote correctly.
Until he votes, what reason have we been given to lose faith?
RonL| 10.4.10 @ 11:41AM
When AmSpec and The American Conservative replace The Weekly Standard and National Review, we'll be making progress. Non-interventionists need a massively funded think-tank like Foreign Policy Initiative with its youth recruitment wing to present a pro-American point of view as opposed to this pro-globalist nonsense these gentlemen espouse. These "Conservatives" like Senor, Bill, the Kagans, Donnelly, etc are actually Foreign Policy neo-liberals. It's time to correct the narrative.
Rand will be a force for good in the Senate. Great post, Mr. Antle.
Roy| 10.4.10 @ 1:29PM
Because nothing's more "pro-American" than wanting to keep Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power, and nothing's more "pro-globalist" than ignoring the UN and getting rid of them.
Tim*| 10.4.10 @ 1:39PM
"Rand Paul would do something very few politicians have tried to do in recent years in matters of war and defense: uphold what our Constitution dictates. According to our Constitution, the United States should go to war only when Congress declares war. When our national security is threatened, Dr. Paul would not hesitate to authorize swift military action to destroy the threat, and he has clearly stated he would have done so in Afghanistan.
Additionally, Rand has clearly stated that once war is underway, how we wage war is up to our generals and the President. It is Congress’ job to decide whether or not the threat requires war. It is our commander-in-chief’s and military’s job to win it."
Warrior | 10.4.10 @ 2:29PM
So, keeping Kim Jong Il, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in power is fine with you?
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. ~ George Washington
Tim*| 10.4.10 @ 12:23PM
We Tea Party Rebels Support The Next United States Senator From The Commonwealth of Kentucky , Rand Paul .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up !
solo| 10.4.10 @ 4:04PM
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. ~ George Washington"
And I'm quite sure that this policy was in America's best interest in 1789.
Let us hope that the future Senator from Kentucky will have the wisdom to objectively evaluate each threat (and the appropriate response) based on the current security interests of the United States--rather than dogmatic doctrine.
Jeremy| 10.4.10 @ 5:07PM
Good sense, all around Jim. Everybody needs to take a deep breath. Reaching out to forces opposed to you is good strategic sense, not a sell-out. Ron Paul is great, but he can't pass legislation. Maybe Rand Paul will be much more effective in that regard by reaching out and disarming his opponents within the party.
Jeremy| 10.4.10 @ 5:07PM
Good sense, all around Jim. Everybody needs to take a deep breath. Reaching out to forces opposed to you is good strategic sense, not a sell-out. Ron Paul is great, but he can't pass legislation. Maybe Rand Paul will be much more effective in that regard by reaching out and disarming his opponents within the party.