Rand Paul: Foreign Policy Is Congress's Business

[Cody1]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-foreign-policy-is-congresss-business/



Sen. Rand Paul will deliver a major address on Wednesday morning at the Heritage Foundation to outline his views on foreign policy and specifically his vision of what a constitutional conservative foreign policy should look like. He recently spoke with The American Conservative gave some hints of the arguments we can expect to hear in the speech. The conversation touched on a few different subjects, including the conflicts in Mali and Syria, as well as the need for wealthy U.S. allies to stop their free-riding on the U.S taxpayer.

Last paragraph,


I’ve told people that my general viewpoint on this is that there are two polar extremes: one when we’re everywhere all the time, and one when we’re nowhere any of the time. I would say that there is a more moderate approach that looks at every situation individually. It doesn’t say that we’re going to have no military bases around the world, but maybe says 900 bases is too many, that doesn’t say we’re not going to have any troops anywhere around the world, but says that what we have currently is too many. There is a possibility of a nuanced position of ‘not everywhere all the time, not nowhere any of the time

More at the link

[supermario21]

I really liked the interview. I also like Rand's positioning. I think absolutes on both sides, whether extreme hawk or extreme non-interventionist, don't work.

[Brett85]

Not perfect, but better than his recent foreign policy statements. I'll continue to pay close attention to his foreign policy rhetoric and votes.

[cero]

welp, guess I'm a libertarian after all, been trying to fall in line with Rand's "conservative" foreign policy, but I want all our military bases closed, and all our troops home.

I can work with this thou.

like the guy above me said, it is way better than what he has been saying lately.

[FSP-Rebel]

This seems like it would go over really well with the average conservative voter and talking head. Especially in present times, it's well known of the dissatisfaction with too much power in the executive regarding military usage. He's making the same argument Ron makes in a slightly different way about only going to war when approved by Congress. And, the debating in Congress for military use should be based on facts instead of an administration coming up with some fairy tale a la Iraq. He got his nuanced stance on Israel out of the way so now it's time to draw back in the libs that had their panties in a bunch.

[Brett85]

He got his nuanced stance on Israel out of the way so now it's time to draw back in the libs that had their panties in a bunch.

Why is someone who opposes foreign intervention a "lib?" Conservatives have traditionally been opposed to overseas intervention.

[FSP-Rebel]

Why is someone who opposes foreign intervention a "lib?" Conservatives have traditionally been opposed to overseas intervention.
Not recently, maybe 70 years ago. I meant the libertarians that have the pander 100% on FP issue. And, Rand isn't interventionist in any meaningful use of the term nor the typical mentality that goes with it.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And, the debating in Congress for military use should be based on facts instead of an administration coming up with some fairy tale a la Iraq. He got his nuanced stance on Israel out of the way so now it's time to draw back in the libs that had their panties in a bunch.

Perhaps he should take your advice and stop buying into the "All hell will break loose if the U.S. does not militarily support Israel" fairy tale.

And as Traditional Conservative already pointed out, what is so "lib" about wanting to stay out of other countries' affairs?

[A Son of Liberty]

Edit: wrong thread

[supermario21]

Pat Buchanan was the conservative challenger in 1992 and 1996 and he was opposed to useless foreign intervention, and did quite well. Also many Republicans were against intervention in places like Kosovo. The whole neocon problem didn't take full effect until after 9/11, which guys like Wolfowitz used to promote the preemptive warfare to Republicans who before 9/11 would have probably been opposed to it.

[FSP-Rebel]

Perhaps he should take your advice and stop buying into the "All hell will break loose if the U.S. does not militarily support Israel" fairy tale.

I know you weren't born yesterday so you must honestly realize that covering your ass in the media by not giving them anything to hang you on in your conservative circles esp regarding Israel is the smart thing to do. The main country that comes to mind for most Americans when foreign policy is discussed is Israel and it's no coincidence. Rand knows that Israel can handle its own affairs which is why he's confident with the statements he makes.

[LibertyEagle]

Not recently, maybe 70 years ago. I meant the libertarians that have the pander 100% on FP issue. And, Rand isn't interventionist in any meaningful use of the term nor the typical mentality that goes with it.

Ha ha. I thought when you said, libs, you were talking about libertarians. Because some on this site sure have gotten their panties in a bunch. lol

[FSP-Rebel]

Pat Buchanan was the conservative challenger in 1992 and 1996 and he was opposed to useless foreign intervention, and did quite well. Also many Republicans were against intervention in places like Kosovo. The whole neocon problem didn't take full effect until after 9/11, which guys like Wolfowitz used to promote the preemptive warfare to Republicans who before 9/11 would have probably been opposed to it.
A lot more opposed to intervention than during the 00s for sure and they typically are against most democratic interventions. I was thinking traditionally starting back around the time of Eisenhower who got involved in the GOP to stomp out Sen. Taft, the guy Ron typically mentions as the old right. Eisenhower escalated the GOPs status on intervening overseas in both military situations as well as behind the scenes maneuvers.

[supermario21]

A lot more opposed to intervention than during the 00s for sure and they typically are against most democratic interventions. I was thinking traditionally starting back around the time of Eisenhower who got involved in the GOP to stomp out Sen. Taft, the guy Ron typically mentions as the old right. Eisenhower escalated the GOPs status on intervening overseas in both military situations as well as behind the scenes maneuvers.


Agree, but I think that divide was more between the liberal and conservative wings of the party. Most of the conservatives even after Ike were opposed to intervention. Our divide came a few decades later.

[Brett85]

Even in the 90's a lot of the conservatives in Congress were opposed to Clinton's interventions overseas. Overseas intervention has never been any kind of a conservative principle as the neo-conservatives today would have you believe.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I know you weren't born yesterday so you must honestly realize that covering your ass in the media by not giving them anything to hang you on in your conservative circles esp regarding Israel is the smart thing to do. The main country that comes to mind for most Americans when foreign policy is discussed is Israel and it's no coincidence. Rand knows that Israel can handle its own affairs which is why he's confident with the statements he makes.

And as it has been discussed previously, Ron managed to secure top rankings in national polls (I don't mean to make this sound like college hoops) and nearly claim victory in Iowa without having to water down his foreign policy views which obviously included Israel. Voters knew this and yet he was still palatable. If there was a strength that Rand has over his father, its his ability to speak concisely and so he should have been fine-tuning the non-interventionist approach, not using deception to confuse both Republicans and libertarians.

[FSP-Rebel]

If there was a strength that Rand has over his father, its his ability to speak concisely and so he should have been fine-tuning the non-interventionist approach, not using deception to confuse both Republicans and libertarians.
From what I can tell, Rand is fine tuning the message in ways that brainwashed republicans can stomach it. The doctrine he'll be putting out tomorrow or Wed will be a powerful and timely reexamination of what a foreign policy will look like under a true conservative administration.

Regarding Ron in IA, I wasn't on the ground there but I do remember that many of the ads were about fiscal issues and didn't really even touch on Israel iirc. The stance on the wars was well known and I'm pretty sure the average republican at this point would not have a big stake in either wars going forward as a key concern and that's why Rand's opposition to them hasn't been an issue.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Much of the executive and judicial power really belongs to the congress.

[anaconda]

Sounds like no other Senator I can think of. If this was some Senator from another state that was elected recently we would all be ecstatic.