-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Last week, in an article for the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf penned a complimentary piece about “America’s Most Important Anti-War Politician,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
Friedersdorf concluded that non-interventionists on both sides of the aisle should focus more on the legislative branch and less on the presidency if they’d like to see the “path to war” run through the Congress, as opposed to an increasingly imperial executive.
The article was prompted by Paul’s solitary stand against war with Iran last week, when the junior senator blocked bipartisan passage of new sanctions to bring context to the use of force.
In his floor speech, Sen. Paul remarked:
Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don’t just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate.
Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war.
Paul prefaced this statement with brief — but incisive — analysis of the Founder’s hesitation to give the president the power to declare war. Perhaps unlike any other command, the authority to wage war summons the likeness of monarchy.
I should be clear — Paul wasn’t up there to block passage of new and effective sanctions against Iran.
Rather, he sounded a wake-up call against a high-flying presidency, unencumbered by the fundamental checks and balances, separation of powers and representative government framed by constitutional principle — not illusions of American empire.
As Friedersdorf notes, Paul’s lonely voice “against war with Iran… and the extension of the Patriot Act… and the National Defense Authorization Act… and the War in Libya” ought to earn him some allies.
One of the things Rand does better than his father is articulate the dangers of unfettered presidential power when it comes to military intervention and our increasingly overbearing national security apparatus. Perhaps more importantly, he musters order against the extravagance of executive war powers, the danger of congressional inertia and public submission to status quo.
His father may feel the same, and he’s undoubtedly informed a critical mass of young conservatives about the consequences of robust interventionism — countervailing alliances, terrorism and nuclear proliferation immediately spring to mind. But while Ron Paul has assembled ranks of fiercely loyal voters (who will never, ever cast their lot with a saber-rattling Rick Santorum) and vastly exceeded expectations set in 2008, it ultimately falls to his son to communicate his message on foreign policy in a sober and eloquent manner.
Contrary to misunderstandings expressed by Rep. Paul’s critics, it isn’t about “blaming America first,” allowing Iran a nuclear weapon or “isolationism.” But he has trouble getting his point across, earning him the slings and arrows of the more conventional Republicans.
In his floor speech last week, Rand effectively communicated his concerns with America’s perpetual state of war. More than a decade has passed since we were at peace. It’s become the new normal.
Since America’s unipolar moment, both sides of partisan aisle have increasingly accepted the introduction of military force into existing controversies and conflicts. Ordnance, invasion and occupation have become routine policy alternatives.
As Doug Bandow noted on this very site, President George H.W. Bush deployed troops to Panama and Iraq. President Clinton followed suit, through intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. President Obama inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then projected an armed presence to Libya and Uganda. Most of these conflicts had little to do with American security.
Only the mission to Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and dismantle al Qaeda could be defined as a defensive war effort. Even the first Gulf War, which met the measure of just war theory, was a response to unprecedented aggression, compelled by the aegis of UN initiative — not an immediate threat to the American way of life.
The rest of these conflicts can best be described as the international social work of an imperial presidency — one that must flex its muscle to demonstrate its demand.
The problem is, we’re broke and regardless what you think of Ron Paul, it’s not “crazy” to problematize an unsustainable national debt linked to our profligate power problem, and an executive un-checked.
PattyMor| 4.3.12 @ 3:33PM
One has to wonder, whose interests are all these wars really serving. It can't be the U.S.'s. What was our interest in Bosnia? What about Iraq? Libya? Is our army being subordinated to the interests of the New World Order (ala Soros)?
BrooklynChick| 4.3.12 @ 4:57PM
It's in the best interest of military contractors for the US to destroy and rebuild the world. War is business.
Faithkills| 4.3.12 @ 4:05PM
Perpetual war is just another form of Keynesian justification for enriching the connected at the expense of the taxpayers. There is no free lunch, government can only destroy wealth.
Dai Alanye | 4.3.12 @ 4:57PM
It would be enlightening to read Rand Paul's analysis of our little fracas with the Barbary states. I must have missed Congress's declaration of war.
Reid Smith| 4.3.12 @ 5:03PM
Well, I imagine he would remind you that while President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the American Navy to guard American ships, he first asked Congress for permission to take further action.
In his request, Jefferson acknowledged, authorization for war is an "important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively."
Congress responded by passing two separate authorizations for military force in 1801 and 1802.
Satisfied?
C Bowen | 4.3.12 @ 5:20PM
Reid;
Good stuff, and appreciated the last point that since the country is broke, letting the Executive pay off his interest under the call for war is not in the interest of the Congress.
But, let us not become so jaded dealing with present atrocities to republican government to overlook the other salient point:
"Before sending our young men and women into combat,"
What sort of sick country sends women into combat?
Aren't we remiss to endlessly debate war powers, when the cultural rot and the money issue are sitting right there?
Vern Crisler| 4.3.12 @ 6:26PM
Oh, so we (or Israel) just go to war for no reason at all? It has nothing to do with our enemies trying to harm us. Welcome to the head-in-the-sand world of Ron and Rand Paul. McGovernism redux.
Reid Smith| 4.3.12 @ 6:38PM
Who mentioned Israel? I personally think it would be a strategic error to base our defense posture on a small but powerful ally in the Mediterranean, but that's not really the point here.
I imagine you thought Iraq presented a clear and present danger to America, as opposed to a counterbalance against Iran, and a de facto ally in opposition to Islamic fundamentalism?
Since the end of the Cold War, most of the conflicts we've engaged had little to do with American security, and that's a fact.
Vern Crisler| 4.3.12 @ 7:26PM
The only two wars we've been in since the end of the Cold War (which anarcho-libertarians like Ron and Rand oppossed BTW) are with Afgh. and Iraq. Ever heard of 911? Or was that just a plot by the Joos? Nothing to see here folks; just move along, move along.
C Bowen | 4.3.12 @ 7:29PM
Strange definition of war--apparently, but I will work with it.
Rep. Paul voted to invade Afghanistan, Rand was not in office. Though I should note, Rep. Paul did not vote to invade Afghanistan with the purpose of ensuring US tax payer funded good school for girls in the region.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 obviously so no decent conservative supported that idiotic Clinton-Albright policy.
Vern Crisler | 4.4.12 @ 2:04AM
See Ron Paul's real views about Afghanistan and conspiracy theories:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12.....ed-mutiny/
The liberation (not invasion) of Iraq by Bush was supported by practically all conservatives, a complaint made by the following individual, who can't distingiush conservatism from radical libertarianism:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....q-war.html
C Bowen | 4.4.12 @ 7:22AM
LOL--I don't know of any conservatives who supported the Albright-Clinton policy to launch a debt financed invasion of Iraq with an army that put girls on the frontlines.
You watch too much tee-vee, Vern.
Vern Crisler| 4.4.12 @ 11:04AM
You need to get your head out of the radical libertarian books.
Clint| 4.4.12 @ 12:12PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.
Reid Smith| 4.3.12 @ 7:37PM
Vern, your continued insinuation of some sort of phantasmal anti-Semitism on my part doesn't change the fact that you're missing the point, here.
Otherwise, see what C. Bowen wrote, please.
Clint| 4.3.12 @ 7:53PM
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
Vern Crisler | 4.4.12 @ 2:05AM
Reid, I make the insinuation not against you but against the usual anarcho-Paulistas on this site, who can always be counted on to attack Israel and make excuses for its enemies.
Clint| 4.4.12 @ 12:18PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.
albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 9:45AM
I think it is right for Rand Paul (and every citizen and legislator, as well) to question a decision for our nation to go to war or use force. I think too often, though, particularly with respect to the current discussion regarding Iran, that Ron Paul and a number of his followers seem to be making a case to justify Iran’s aggression and threats against the U.S., rather than limiting the debate to the wisdom or justification of what actions we should take.
Reid Smith| 4.4.12 @ 12:30PM
I think that's a very fair point.