[Video] Rand Paul speech @ Heritage on restoring the Founders' vision of foreign policy

[itshappening]

video update:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NptVgiY2Oxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NptVgiY2Oxc


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since his upset victory in 2010, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) has made headlines with his independent views. This week, he will deliver a major address on foreign policy at The Heritage Foundation. In advance of his speech, Jackie Anderson sat down in the Heritage studio with him to discuss his views.

He said the U.S. Constitution is the basis of his political philosophy, a lesson he took from his father, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a two-time GOP presidential candidate. Ron and Rand Paul are the only father and son in American history to have held concurrent positions in the House and Senate.

“The constitution is important. It’s a living, breathing document, and it’s supposed to still have applicability today,” said Paul. “And [My father] was a strong believer that the founding fathers were very wise in what they set up and that that foundation was supposed to protect freedom and protect our liberty.”

“One of the big things the founders had in mind were checks and balances. They divided up power. This is a big idea they got from Montesquieu,” he said. “Madison really strongly believed that the power to declare war is in the legislature.”

This does not mean Paul doesn’t support a strong military, a view he said he learned from Ronald Reagan.

“Reagan believed in a preponderance of strength,” he said. “He very much believed in peace and did not want war.”

Paul said his concern is that political power has now drifted toward the presidency. The solution is to return to the constitutional process of the founders, even if it might seem slow.

“Some people get tired of it and they say, ‘Oh, that’s gridlock, and gridlock’s bad,’” he said. “But if you fear that as government gradually grows that your freedom is gradually eroded, a slower process, and more deliberate process, is probably a good one.”

Paul held no political office before becoming a Senator. Since 1993, he has practiced ophthalmology as an eye doctor in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where he still gives free eye care to the uninsured.

“The most common surgery I do is cataract surgery. I like medicine. I trained for a long time to do it. I miss it,” he said. “Plus, there’s just a great feeling you get from being able to help these people who don’t have any insurance to get some care and get their vision back.”

“I like to tell people that I’m unafraid to be unelected because I’ve got a real job some day to go back to.”

The event is full, but you can watch Senator Paul online here on February 6 at 11 a.m. ET.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/05/rand-paul-on-restoring-the-founders-vision-of-foreign-policy/

[supermario21]

Let this be the thread for today's Heritage speech. Looking forward to at least seeing a transcript immediately after.

[Brett85]

Let this be the thread for today's Heritage speech. Looking forward to at least seeing a transcript immediately after.

I think the speech is tomorrow.

[supermario21]

Oh, my bad, I kept thinking it was Tuesday. I just saw now Feb 6.

[green73]

Watch here

http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/02/rand-paul

[compromise]

So it's in 15 minutes?

[sevin]

Cool. I rarely catch these things live. This better be good.

[Chester Copperpot]

yeah

[sevin]

starting nowwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[DrHendricks]

Is anyone else excited as shit? Rand, the Founders, and Non-Interventionism? How could my Wednesday get any better?

[thoughtomator]

Rand is selling non-interventionism to neocons again. We're not the intended audience here.

[georgiaboy]

play by play?

[DrHendricks]

"Non-interventionism has been a hallmark of American diplomacy"

[supermario21]

I wish I were not in class right now, otherwise I could view more than a silent video.

[Aratus]

most sec's of states up to WW2 were often diplomatic and hard working. rand is making telling points about fortress america...

[supermario21]

Establishment Republican types are twitter are cringing. It must be good. Re: Iran Diplomacy

[Confederate]

Rand is selling non-interventionism to neocons again. We're not the intended audience here.

This speech is great. Does that mean I'm a neocon? :p

[supermario21]

Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner
The other quotes from Rand Paul's foreign policy speech are positively creeping me out. Learn how to read between the lines, people!

This guy is such a hack who literally must have a Romney chip in his brain. Most tweets about Rand are heaping praise.

[Inkblots]

"It is the soldiers role to do his duty, but it is the citizen's role to question their government, particularly when it moves to send soldiers into harm's way."

What a great speech that was. Well done, Rand!

[V3n]

I'm sitting at my desk, headphones on, lunch displayed across my desk, listening, and a guy walks up and asks me a bunch of work questions.. so frustrating - missed the whole thing! All I heard was the end "sane and balanced foreign policy"..

Was it our definition of "sane"?

[fr33]

I thought it was a pretty good speech.

[Shane Harris]

Is anyone else excited as shit? Ron, the Founders, and Non-Interventionism? How could my Wednesday get any better?

thats how. :cool:

[cajuncocoa]

Good speech. Another step in the right direction.

[whoisjohngalt]

Nailed it

[itshappening]

it's quite good to see him deliver a thoughtful speech succinctly and without notes.

[Confederate]

For those that missed it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxmH3MW8zA

Tube will be up in about 5-10 minutes. Currently uploading.

[Shane Harris]

missed it. ugh

[Mr.NoSmile]

Now just to wait and see how folks outside of the instantaneous Twitter take to it. If there are some good write-ups or commentary on it, that's a plus. And any negative ones, so long as it's constructive and valid criticism, could help for improvement if needed.

[Cowlesy]

So did Rand go full neo-con like I imagine everyone thought he would? Or did he stick to what he believes. I am guessing the latter, and hope I am right.

[July]

Sounds like he did well?

Wasn't able to see the feed, but can't wait to see the video.

[DrHendricks]

thats how. :cool:

That may be true. A year ago today I was probably streaming one of Ron's primary speeches. :)

But.... I thought Rand did a tremendous job today. He just knows how to make things so palatable to the rank and file Republicans.

[Tinnuhana]

Just listened. The audience applauded at the end.

[Harald]

Called out the neocons. Implied that they are not conservatives. Indirect digs at Rubio, direct at McCain.

[whoisjohngalt]

So did Rand go full neo-con like I imagine everyone thought he would? Or did he stick to what he believes. I am guessing the latter, and hope I am right.

It drew praise from Cajuncocoa. I think that says it all.

[libertyplz]

I think he did great! Curious to see how others will view it

[supermario21]

He made lots of references to George Kennan. A quick internet search revealed an article that showed he would be rolling over in his grave over the entire GOP field except Ron Paul.


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-wisdom-henry-kissinger-george-f-kennan-6156

[itshappening]

He even quoted David Keene, the NRA president. Very clever. He's going to get respect from the NRA.. Rand would love to get closer to their 4.5 million members.

[green73]

So does he want a new Cold War with "radical Islam"?

[dinosaur]

Rand is selling non-interventionism to neocons again. We're not the intended audience here.

And a good sales job it was! He made the case against our current foreign policy in an intellectual rather than accusatory way. He came across as a realist who could be trusted to act with intelligence and strength, but would favor containment of threats rather than reactionary and costly war.

[Chieppa1]

Excellent speech. Of course some people here (mostly on Twitter) still want him to go out and drop a "V for Vendetta" speech.

[KingNothing]

He made lots of references to George Kennan. A quick internet search revealed an article that showed he would be rolling over in his grave over the entire GOP field except Ron Paul.


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-wisdom-henry-kissinger-george-f-kennan-6156

The containment strategy was stupid.

[Harald]

Text of entire speech:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/06/containment-and-radical-islam

[Harald]

The containment strategy was stupid.

I agree that the cold war was stupid, but, in general, what is wrong with containment?

[compromise]

For those that missed it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxmH3MW8zA

Tube will be up in about 5-10 minutes. Currently uploading.

Thanks!

[Confederate]

Tube works now for all those that missed it!

[Inkblots]

It's satisfying to see that Rand's speech is being praised by everyone except the foaming neocons and the bomb-throwing "losertarians." He's doing a great job steering the middle course without actually sacrificing principle. It's really very impressive to watch.

[libertyplz]

It's satisfying to see that Rand's speech is being praised by everyone except the foaming neocons and the bomb-throwing "losertarians." He's doing a great job steering the middle course without actually sacrificing principle. It's really very impressive to watch.

curious to see what people on dailypaul say. Nothing on there yet it seems, at least nothing I can find. Not that I'm really all that surprised, many over there treat Rand as if he's their kryptonite :p

[AuH20]

So does he want a new Cold War with "radical Islam"?

Leaving them alone to sort out their issues isn't a bad idea at all.

[Lucille]

@ToryAnarchist (https://twitter.com/ToryAnarchist/status/299188145344364544) "I'm a realist, not a neoconservative or an isolationist"--Rand Paul

@DanielLarison (https://twitter.com/DanielLarison/status/299194182545858560) Given its length, Paul's speech was good synthesis of realist and constitutionalist arguments.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

[supermario21]

I think Rand just started the civil war on foreign policy within the GOP. Gosh these establishment bots on twitter....it's no wonder Ron struggled so much, these guys are morons!

[KingNothing]

I agree that the cold war was stupid, but, in general, what is wrong with containment?

It probably wasn't necessary and it led to senseless wars, death, and destruction?

[Aratus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Aratus]

we indeedy had to draw an iron curtain, yes!!! we also have fought small wars at the fringes of our empire
and to assume we can continually drain our US treasury as the "cause of the moment" subsumes our press
is to presume much about all our hard working taxpayers. we cannot sink more deeply into debt and it was
not our domestic entitlements that totally sank us all into an economic malaise. wars often must be paid for.

[cajuncocoa]

curious to see what people on dailypaul say. Nothing on there yet it seems, at least nothing I can find. Not that I'm really all that surprised, many over there treat Rand as if he's their kryptonite :p
http://www.dailypaul.com/273494/rand-pauls-heritageorg-foreign-policy-speech

[libertyplz]

http://www.dailypaul.com/273494/rand-pauls-heritageorg-foreign-policy-speech

Awesome, thank you very much :D

[Shane Harris]

Not bad, someone has to try to walk the tightrope. I'm just glad I don't have to. This type of speech might excite the moderates but the only thing it makes me excited about is his ability and willingness to really win an election.

[Aratus]

It's satisfying to see that Rand's speech is being praised by everyone except the foaming neocons and the bomb-throwing "losertarians." He's doing a great job steering the middle course without actually sacrificing principle. It's really very impressive to watch.


I think Rand just started the civil war on foreign policy within the GOP. Gosh these establishment bots on twitter....it's no wonder Ron struggled so much, these guys are morons!

Libertarians exist because the GOP has deep flaws, but if the address is like a major re~cycling
of Robert Taft's better missives and went over well to even a few of the neocons, then cool!!!

[CaptLouAlbano]

Absolutely brilliant speech. A succinct and realistic exposition of Jeffersonian FP.

[RandRevolution]

He should really mention having all those troops in Germany and Japan and countries like that, a great example for waste in military spending, you CANNOT lose!

[Brett85]

Very good speech. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he certainly didn't go full blown neo-con like some people thought he would.

[Brett85]

I think Rand just started the civil war on foreign policy within the GOP. Gosh these establishment bots on twitter....it's no wonder Ron struggled so much, these guys are morons!

What statements have the neocons made on twitter so far?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Very good speech. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he certainly didn't go full blown neo-con like some people thought he would.

I tend to think a lot on here really do not know what a neo-con truly believes.

[FSP-Rebel]

Does anyone else who watched this speech notice how similar he lectures like his father does? No script, notes or talking points, just plain knowledge and intellect off the cuff. That's what I've always thought highly of Ron about, being able to speak at length on one or more topics but speaking from a solid grasp of the issues at hand w/o props. Very few people can do that in such a confident manner.

[sailingaway]

What statements have the neocons made on twitter so far?

there are the automatic hate and love comments from the respective parts, I haven't seen weekly standard on it, which I would call neocon. Here's NRO - they don't give a quality judgement: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339964/rand-paul-use-containment-against-radical-islam-nathaniel-botwinick

Human Events liked it.

[green73]

Leaving them alone to sort out their issues isn't a bad idea at all.

I forgot. They hate us for our freedoms.

[cajuncocoa]

Does anyone else who watched this speech notice how similar he lectures like his father does? No script, notes or talking points, just plain knowledge and intellect off the cuff. That's what I've always thought highly of Ron about, being able to speak at length on one or more topics but speaking from a solid grasp of the issues at hand w/o props. Very few people can do that in such a confident manner.
LOL....I think having a teleprompter is a new prerequisite to being president, circa 2009-2013.

[Lucille]

there are the automatic hate and love comments from the respective parts, I haven't seen weekly standard on it, which I would call neocon. Here's NRO - they don't give a quality judgement: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339964/rand-paul-use-containment-against-radical-islam-nathaniel-botwinick

Human Events liked it.

NRO:
Paul pledged to be “a voice for those who wish to see a saner, more sensible foreign policy,” seemingly trying to distinguish himself from traditional Republican foreign-policy views.

Commenter WilliamR FTW: Over the past decade Republican foreign policy has been anything but traditional or conservative. It has been radical liberal internationalism. And it has been [a] disaster.

[Aratus]

Tagg Romney, who is 42 now has avoided plunging into our special senate election for John Kerry's open senate seat.
Folks like Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Richard Tisei and Scott Brown are bypassing this major social event. This has the odds
being almost 50/50 right now that Stephen Lynch (D) or Edward Markey (D) will sit in the seat eventually, for their "hats"
are in the ring. On the heels of Tagg Romney being a serious prospect for our local lil ole GOP & Joseph Kennedy III being
in D.C in Barney Frank's House seat, the thought of Tagg Romney sitting in the senate with Dr. Rand Paul is a statement
about the 2008 election said indirectly. Our local GOP looks almost leaderless or very small & fearful and I worry that they
are a microcosm of the party at the national level, despite their leftward liberal/centrist tilt. Is the GOP in a great disorder?

[TheGrinch]

Very good speech. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he certainly didn't go full blown neo-con like some people thought he would.

Agreed, I'm not sure the "realist" containment approach is really what I want to hear from Rand, but at this point the whole Middle East situation is what it is, and so there's no doubt the hostilities need to be diffused there before things get more violent, and perhaps even here. If you contribute to an unnecessary mess, you're obligated to help clean it up, but I'm very glad he emphasized that it certainly doesn't (and shouldn't) have to include unnecessary war.

But I think it went a long way in me trusting him to do what he says he'll do, such as:

1) To fight to keep the decision to go to war with congress, but only as a last resort for defense after all other options have been used, and only if we have the means (which we currently don't). I thought his explanation was good about him only voting to tighten sanctions after he had it included that it couldn't be considered a declaration of war.

2) To work for peace rather than push to put boots on the ground

When faced with the choice between war-mongers and this "realist" alternative, I will not have to hold my nose too much to vote in favor of it, as total non-interventionalism may not be possible right now in the current world the war-mongers have built, destroyed, built, destroyed, etc...

Like the song goes, you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need... Go get 'em Rand!

[supermario21]

What statements have the neocons made on twitter so far?


Here is a guy who says Tea Partiers and Libertarians waste time attacking fellow Republicans more than Obama and openly questions how anyone on the right can like a lefty like Amash...


AG ‏@AG_Conservative
Have real issues with Rand Paul's speech today. Comparing Radical Islam with Communism shows a complete misunderstanding of the new enemy.


AG ‏@AG_Conservative
Honestly disappointed. I really was open to Rand Paul, but don't feel comfortable ever supporting him for President after today's speech.


AG ‏@AG_Conservative
Rand Paul's proposed policy of possible containment today is even to the left of Obama's stated policy. Very troubling.



Most troubling comparison was to Reagan negotiating nuclear weapon reduction with Gorbachev. So do we sit down with Al Queda now?

He also retweeted a Rand bashing tweet from the REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION!!

[Brett85]

Is this just some random guy or someone who's actually known?

[supermario21]

Some random guy. But he always appears in common searches. Seemingly up there with Julie Borowski in terms of hits. He is a Red Alert contributor (whatever that is).



http://redalertpolitics.com/contributors/

Michigan Law grad. Maybe he knew of Amash?

[Lucille]

Here is a guy who says Tea Partiers and Libertarians waste time attacking fellow Republicans more than Obama and openly questions how anyone on the right can like a lefty like Amash...


Most troubling comparison was to Reagan negotiating nuclear weapon reduction with Gorbachev. So do we sit down with Al Queda now?

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
--Moshe Dayan

But alas, they don't want peace.

[Sola_Fide]

There's a lot to like in that speech, but one thing that irks me is the "maybe we shouldnt be everywhere all the time" line. It strikes me as similar to a big government conservative arguing for only some welfare as opposed to full-blown welfarism.

If you know the tendency of human nature toward statism, you wouldn't argue that we need "some" of the military industrial complex...because that pretty soon leads to an argument for blank checks.

[jmdrake]

Great speech! I'll give my blow by blow analysis later. Here's the takeaway though. Rand made the case that even those who are concerned about "radical Islam" shouldn't want to continue our same interventionist foreign policy. Now personally I think that thread is A) overblown and B) in part created by us. (It was the U.S. government that sent radical Islamic textbooks to Afghanistan during the Soviet years). But the average GOP voter just isn't hip to that. Good job Rand!

[jmdrake]

There's a lot to like in that speech, but one thing that irks me is the "maybe we shouldnt be everywhere all the time" line. It strikes me as similar to a big government conservative arguing for only some welfare as opposed to full-blown welfarism.

If you know the tendency of human nature toward statism, you wouldn't argue that we need "some" of the military industrial complex...because that pretty soon leads to an argument for blank checks.

Remember Ron's response to "Are you going to kick all of those people off of food stamps and social security" was that he wanted to wean people off of dependence on government and honor current commitments WRT SS.

[supermario21]

I think the problem that realists have had in terms of articulating foreign policy is a horrific lack of leadership. Many of them like Colin Powell for example sold out and went along with Bush/Wolfowitz, etc. As Ross Douthat pointed out the other day during the Hagel hearings, realists have suffered because nobody takes the lead there. Hagel was incompetent during his hearing. Not because he got badgered by McCain, but the guy didn't know about Obama policies and didn't know how the sequester came into place. That's disastrous. Plus, Realism can mean any number of things. I think Rand is a non-interventionist leaning realist. He uses realist language in terms of resisting absolute statements, but if you look at Rand's decision making philosophy, it definitely leans towards non-interventionism. The average person does not like absolute statements, and that's why they might have been turned off by Ron's bluntness. But when Rand talks about not being able to afford to maintain an empire, not selling arms to rebels, and never accepting war as the only option, you can damn sure tell that the threat better be a GIANT one. Rand is also wonkish, he is a thoughtful man. He isn't an angry man like Lindsey or McCain in terms of describing foreign policy. He genuinely sounds like an intellectual on the topic and in terms of foreign policy, that look of thoughtfulness means as much to average folks as the word you are preaching. I like how Rand doesn't disavow concepts like blowback, but rather accepts them and uses them in a larger context. That's the kind of foreign policy I support. I know it isn't hardcore non-interventionist but I think that's where the country lies, and if you apply the tests Rand laid out, Iraq for example would have never happened.

[fr33]

Why is Justin Raimondo such an insufferable little prick. Don't go look at his twitter if you don't want to be annoyed. https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/299224844720013312

Really it looks like most libertarians (except for non-voting anarchists) didn't have a problem with the speech; except for Raimondo.

[FSP-Rebel]

Really it looks like most libertarians (except for non-voting anarchists) didn't have a problem with the speech; except for Raimondo.
He's in the "Rand can do no good outlier" camp and his ego refuses him from ever giving an attaboy in any instance. There's a few around here that come to mind and I'm not talking about my usual suspects.

[Confederate]

He's in the "Rand can do no good outlier" camp and his ego refuses him from ever giving an attaboy in any instance. There's a few around here that come to mind and I'm not talking about my usual suspects.

He and Wenzel should get a room.

[eleganz]

nuclear iWAN.

[jj-]

So did Rand go full neo-con like I imagine everyone thought he would? Or did he stick to what he believes. I am guessing the latter, and hope I am right.

This is too complex for me.

[sailingaway]

Why is Justin Raimondo such an insufferable little prick. Don't go look at his twitter if you don't want to be annoyed. https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/299224844720013312

Really it looks like most libertarians (except for non-voting anarchists) didn't have a problem with the speech; except for Raimondo.

I think most are waiting to see, my timeline (heavy with libertarians) is very quiet on it. Raimondo and and Wenzel are pushing a negative meme a bit, but others are just quiet. Neocons are neocons as well, but a lot on that side are also quiet.

By which I mean, the echo chambers are not necessarily echoing.

[itshappening]

I think it's obvious he's trying to walk a fine line he mentioned blowback and said "I agree". He mentioned closing bases. That's a good start i think.

[KingNothing]

I think most are waiting to see, my timeline (heavy with libertarians) is very quiet on it. Raimondo and and Wenzel are pushing a negative meme a bit, but others are just quiet. Neocons are neocons as well, but a lot on that side are also quiet.

By which I mean, the echo chambers are not necessarily echoing.

Raimondo was as annoying today as any neocon or nanny-state liberal I've witnessed. It was appalling. He REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, hates Rand.

[No Free Beer]

Rand or Die.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Raimondo was as annoying today as neocon or nanny-state liberal I've witnessed. It was appalling. He REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, hates Rand.

Because he's watching people who claimed to have believed in non-interventionism follow Rand's approach, and Rand's approach isn't non-interventionist. Raimondo's been at this for over 30 years, do you expect him to just take this development like it's a wonderful thing and praise it?

[alucard13mmfmj]

I am happy if Rand can steer the GOP/government to be less war hawkish and be a little bit more "mind your own business and take care of our own first". I don't expect the government or the people to be full on non-interventionalist any time soon. Has to be done in increments though.

[misean]

Because he's watching people who claimed to have believed in non-interventionism follow Rand's approach, and Rand's approach isn't non-interventionist. Raimondo's been at this for over 30 years, do you expect him to just take this development like it's a wonderful thing and praise it?

Yes. Considering about 8 people knew who Justin Raimondo was before Ron Paul and about 6 people actually shared some of his views, Rand is the best thing that ever happened to his viewpoint.

Rand actually legitimizes some of his beliefs and they are going to get absorbed into policy and policy debates.

[jj-]

Rand actually legitimizes some of his beliefs and they are going to get absorbed into policy and policy debates.

So a view is legitimate not necessarily if it's correct, but if many people believe it. What kind of morons are we attracting to the forum?

[compromise]

http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/02/rand-paul

Better quality video.

[fr33]

I think most are waiting to see, my timeline (heavy with libertarians) is very quiet on it. Raimondo and and Wenzel are pushing a negative meme a bit, but others are just quiet. Neocons are neocons as well, but a lot on that side are also quiet.

By which I mean, the echo chambers are not necessarily echoing.Yes that's true. For the most part I only follow liberty people. Raimondo was the only source of negativity in my feed during the speech. And he just went on and on and on about it.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I tend to think a lot on here really do not know what a neo-con truly believes.

Yes, and even not all strong interventionists are neocons.

[misean]

So a view is legitimate not necessarily if it's correct, but if many people believe it. What kind of morons are we attracting to the forum?

And yeah and I saw that comment calling me a neocon as well.

[KingNothing]

Because he's watching people who claimed to have believed in non-interventionism follow Rand's approach, and Rand's approach isn't non-interventionist. Raimondo's been at this for over 30 years, do you expect him to just take this development like it's a wonderful thing and praise it?


No, but I would at least expect him to view it as a step in the right direction. That's what it is, and that is all that it is.

[alucard13mmfmj]

No, but I would at least expect him to view it as a step in the right direction. That's what it is, and that is all that it is.

Yes. As long as we take the step in the right direction, i have no quarrels in voting and supporting Rand. Expect things to change gradually and incrementally.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No, but I would at least expect him to view it as a step in the right direction. That's what it is, and that is all that it is.

There are people who previously held a non-interventionist stance, or otherwise supported Ron's approach, who are falling behind Rand. That's a step in the wrong direction. We need people like Raimondo to hold the line.

[XTreat]

I was pleasantly surprised, it did seem at times he was trying to have it both ways, he threw some red meat to the Israel crowd and would then talk about non-interventionism and then in the same breath talk about intervention....just not as much.

All in all though I agree it is a good incremental step in the right direction.

[July]

Well, this speech gave me something to think about. I guess I have reading to do now (on George Kennan), before forming a deeper opinion about it.

[KingNothing]

There are people who previously held a non-interventionist stance, or otherwise supported Ron's approach, who are falling behind Rand. That's a step in the wrong direction. We need people like Raimondo to hold the line.


Prove it. Show me someone. I venture a guess that there are no people who were once ardent non-interventionists that have been swayed by Rand's arguments and are now "realistervenionists," or something. Even if there are individuals who fall into that camp, I'd say that for every one of them, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, maybe even more, who would have otherwise supported full-blown, aggressive, interventionism were there not a nicely-packaged alternative available to them.

Your absolutism might as well be an admission of defeat. At this point in time there is no way to get what we want. We can, however, move things in the right direction. Why not do that?

[green73]

"Advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles." -Ron Paul

[KingNothing]

"Advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles." -Ron Paul

Ron is just a man. He is fallible. We can use that approach, but if we do we will not win. Incrementalism is what the liberals, nannystaters, and authoritarians have used to great effect since the founding of our country to erode our rights.

If the choice is between the reckless policies of Obama and Bush, and a "realistic" Rand Paul doctrine that results in less war, less death, and less waste.... why would you sit on the sidelines? Why not say "Boy, I sure would like it if we toned down the belligerence and completely reframed the public debate!" By taking that stance and winning, we move the end-zone. After that point, those who advocate aggressive and foolish interventionism will have to fight just to get back to where they once were.

I'm not saying that we take an incremental gain, pat ourselves on the back, and call it quits --- I'm saying that we should take an incremental gain, and then another, and then another, and then another until the policies of Ron Paul become a reality.

[mac_hine]

Rand Paul Is Running for President (IMO) and He Isn't His Father
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/06/rand-paul-is-running-for-president-imo-a


* "Part of what this speech is intended to do is to spell out where I am, and it isn't exactly the same [place], there are differences." Asked directly about how his foreign policy views differ from his dad's, Paul said that such a "separation" was one of the main ideas of his speech. He will not, he said, be spending the next several years saying which part of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas he agrees or disagrees with, in part because "it doesn't exactly make for great Thanksgiving conversation."

It's obvious to me that Rand's role model is Ronald Wilson Reagan, not Ronald Earnest Paul. :(

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ron is just a man. He is fallible. We can use that approach, but if we do we will not win. Incementalism is what the liberals, nannystaters, and authoritarians have used to great effect since the founding of our country to erode our rights.

If the choice is between the reckless policies of Obama and Bush, and a "realistic" Rand Paul doctrine that results in less war, less death, and less waste.... why would you sit on the sidelines? Why not say "Boy, I sure would like it if toned down the belligerence and completely reframed the public debate!" By taking that stance and winning, we move the end-zone. After that point, those who advocate aggressive and foolish interventionism will have to fight just to get back to where they once were.

I'm not saying that we take an incremental gain, pat ourselves on the back, and call it quits --- I'm saying that we should take an incremental gain, and then another, and then another, and then another until the policies of Ron Paul become a reality.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

I have been involved in politics for decades and this is the first time in my life that we have momentum on our side. The gains we are making both in elected officials and in an ideological shift among voters is astounding. Incremental progress is the only means by which we can restore liberty. The hardline, "all or nothing" approach fails historically, logically and practically. And as I said the gains we are making are amazing.

I am part of a group of committeemen and women, along with some county officials that make up our own little version of a Liberty Caucus. I am one of the new guys just taking my seat in January of this year, but a friend of mine in the group says that in less than 3 years that group has grown from 4 people sitting around talking politics over breakfast once a month to nearly 20 people. And with 2014 committee elections, we think we can double that number.

The truth is there will always be hardliners, and nothing we can say or do will ever convince them of the folly of their ways. But as we grow in numbers, as we get legislation that we support passed in all levels of government and as we continue to win over the hearts and minds of the public, the hardliners will become more and more irrelevant.

[whoisjohngalt]

There are people who previously held a non-interventionist stance, or otherwise supported Ron's approach, who are falling behind Rand. That's a step in the wrong direction. We need people like Raimondo to hold the line.

You know whats awesome? How utterly alone you are in your opinion.

[mac_hine]

You know whats awesome? How utterly alone you are in your opinion.

No he isn't.

I agree with that statement, and many others do as well.

[AuH20]

"Advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles." -Ron Paul

Forcing child-like adults to go from point A to point C instantaneously isn't the best strategy.

[green73]

Ron is just a man. He is fallible. We can use that approach, but if we do we will not win. Incementalism is what the liberals, nannystaters, and authoritarians have used to great effect since the founding of our country to erode our rights.

If the choice is between the reckless policies of Obama and Bush, and a "realistic" Rand Paul doctrine that results in less war, less death, and less waste.... why would you sit on the sidelines? Why not say "Boy, I sure would like it if toned down the belligerence and completely reframed the public debate!" By taking that stance and winning, we move the end-zone. After that point, those who advocate aggressive and foolish interventionism will have to fight just to get back to where they once were.

I'm not saying that we take an incremental gain, pat ourselves on the back, and call it quits --- I'm saying that we should take an incremental gain, and then another, and then another, and then another until the policies of Ron Paul become a reality.

There's just too many statists assailing liberty on too many fronts, and Levitation rarely gives back was it has taken. The whole history of the US is a steady, incremental loss of liberty. Americans couldn't even preserve their freedoms when the populace was far less statist than today. But now they are going incrementally start taking them back? How is that going to happen? With an ad hoc message and wishy washy principles? GOOD LUCK!

Ron Paul has been waking people up on the Left and the Right by being uncompromising to the principles of liberty. That's what gets through to people. Not what Rand's doing. Rand is weakening the message in an attempt to win the approval of people we used to abhor. We don't even know if that is going to work (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/06/rand-pauls-confused-foreign-policy-speech/). He is going to be doing this for the next four years. Will he be waking people up? No. Are people from the Left going to keep coming into the movement? No. In four years will the power elite pick him to be the president? No. So, where will we be in four years? Have you considered that the elite are happy to have Rand in the game, if for no other reason than he is willing to greatly weaken the message?

[Rudeman]

There are people who previously held a non-interventionist stance, or otherwise supported Ron's approach, who are falling behind Rand. That's a step in the wrong direction. We need people like Raimondo to hold the line.


There is nothing wrong with supporting Rand even if you're a non-interventionist because Rand would be a positive step towards non-interventionism. You can't base things off of what Ron believed because we're not living in a Ron Paul America. I'd imagine what most of us would like is for America to be more like Ron's vision and Rand is definitely a step in the right direction when you look at what we have now.

Is a realist FP non-interventionist? No. Is it a step (or several steps) in the direction towards non-intervention? Yes.

[AuH20]

Radical Islam existed long before the creation of the United States. With that said, the U.S. should not be inciting the flames of regional insecurity as the neoconservatives have done.

[green73]

No he isn't.

I agree with that statement, and many others do as well.

Indeed.

[schiffheadbaby]

Indeed.

Many members of this forum have become what they used to hate (selling away any priniciples for a chance of winning). Why does Rand only criticize aid to Egypt in this speech? No criticism of aid to Israel or other "friendly" nations

[AuH20]

Many members of this forum have become what they used to hate (selling away any priniciples for a chance of winning). Why does Rand only criticize aid to Egypt in this speech? No criticism of aid to Israel or other "friendly" nations

Until you remove the aid to hostile nations, you cannot make a cogent argument to remove Israel's.

[schiffheadbaby]

Until you remove the aid to hostile nations, you cannot make a cogent argument to remove Israel's.

Why not? We will never anything generally because nobody wants to be first to be cut. Rand does this to enhance rhetorical impact, but it diminishes the message fo sho

[Rudeman]

There's just too many statists assailing liberty on too many fronts, and Levitation rarely gives back was it has taken. The whole history of the US is a steady, incremental loss of liberty. Americans couldn't even preserve their freedoms when the populace was far less statist than today. But now they are going incrementally start taking them back? How is that going to happen? With an ad hoc message and wishy washy principles? GOOD LUCK!

Ron Paul has been waking people up on the Left and the Right by being uncompromising to the principles of liberty. That's what gets through to people. Not what Rand's doing. Rand is weakening the message in an attempt to win the approval of people we used to abhor. We don't even know if that is going to work (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/06/rand-pauls-confused-foreign-policy-speech/). He is going to be doing this for the next four years. Will he be waking people up? No. Are people from the Left going to keep coming into the movement? No. In four years will the power elite pick him to be the president? No. So, where will we be in four years? Have you considered that the elite are happy to have Rand in the game, if for no other reason than he is willing to greatly weaken the message?


Why can't we have both approaches? Why does it have to be one or the other?

If a weakened message appeals to more people is that really a bad thing? Not everyone will accept Ron's message, but they might be willing to accept Rand's. Why is that bad? They would still be moving in the right direction.

[Rudeman]

Many members of this forum have become what they used to hate (selling away any priniciples for a chance of winning). Why does Rand only criticize aid to Egypt in this speech? No criticism of aid to Israel or other "friendly" nations

The same reason why Ron would talk about cutting spending overseas before cutting entitlements.

[AuH20]

Why can't we have both approaches? Why does it have to be one or the other?

If a weakened message appeals to more people is that really a bad thing? Not everyone will accept Ron's message, but they might be willing to accept Rand's. Why is that bad? They would still be moving in the right direction.

The hardcore non-interventionists want the whole cake rammed down their throat, with no comprehension needed.

http://bakingfix.com/thefix/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cinnamon-crown-cake.jpg

[green73]

Until you remove the aid to hostile nations, you cannot make a cogent argument to remove Israel's.

You mean, cogent arguments the neocons can swallow.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm looking forward to listening to the speech.

[mac_hine]

Until you remove the aid to hostile nations, you cannot make a cogent argument to remove Israel's.

Israel is a hostile nation.

[AuH20]

Israel is a hostile nation.

that we have a mutual defense pact with. You just can't cut their aid overnight without removing the outliers first.

[schiffheadbaby]

Israel is a hostile nation.

Thank you, why doesn't Rand ever mention USS Liberty? I know it isn't popular among some crowds, but to say Israel is a great friend is misleading. EVEN IF they were a great friend is it the role of a senator to take from a productive individual here and involuntarily transfer those assets abroad? Of course not, but he won't mention this.

[american.swan]

There was a plan. Remember that plan? It wasn't a A to C plan. It was a plan to go from point A to point C in three presidents. Jefferson started. He led off the attack. He made some mistakes. He fought. He moved the ball. Then Jackson came in. Jackson is well known around these forums. He did some good things. He moved the ball. The third president never won office. The Statist bastards gained control again.

Those two presidents did wonders. The Central Bank was gone until the Civil War.

Now we don't have a plan. We had Dr. Ron Paul. He lost twice, but he moved the ball. Now we have Dr. Rand Paul, whose moving the ball some more. Even if Dr. Rand Paul wins office what will actually get done? Who will replace President Rand in the White House? We don't have a plan. What if Rand Paul loses? We don't have a plan. Got it?

How are Dr. Rand Paul and Dr. Ron Paul different? Austrian Free Market Economics? CHECK and CHECK. Constitution? CHECK and CHECK. Civil liberties? CHECK and CHECK. Foreign Policy? There are some differences here. Dr. Rand would use CONSTITUTIONAL power and CONGRESS to "contain" radical Islam. Dr. Ron would be much more non-interventionist.

Do I support Dr Rand? Yes, because of his belief in the Constitution, Free market economics, and civil liberties. He's a rock solid conservative. Do I like his foreign policy? I'd like to try Dr. Ron's foreign policy.

Thanks for reading this long post.

[green73]

Why can't we have both approaches? Why does it have to be one or the other?

If a weakened message appeals to more people is that really a bad thing? Not everyone will accept Ron's message, but they might be willing to accept Rand's. Why is that bad? They would still be moving in the right direction.

The may accept Rand's message but they are not going to be woken up. They''ll go right back to neocons when Rush or Hannity tells them.

[AuH20]

The may accept Rand's message but they are not going to be woken up. They''ll go right back to neocons when Rush or Hannity tells them.

They don't have a choice. It's adapt or die. The U.S. tax base can no longer support this robust, global foreign policy. It's a numbers game.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Thank you, why doesn't Rand ever mention USS Liberty? I know it isn't popular among some crowds, but to say Israel is a great friend is misleading. EVEN IF they were a great friend is it the role of a senator to take from a productive individual here and involuntarily transfer those assets abroad? Of course not, but he won't mention this.

USS Liberty wasn't a hostile strike.

If Israel is so dependent on the U.S. it would make no sense to attack us.

Just saying. This was also in 1967. Friendly fire has happened before and after and still does today.

[schiffheadbaby]

USS Liberty wasn't a hostile strike.

If Israel is so dependent on the U.S. it would make no sense to attack us.

Just saying. This was also in 1967. Friendly fire has happened before and after and still does today.

It would make sense to sell our trade secrets too so long as they know that Americans will be duped to support giving them more money. No politician besides Ron P hints at lettting Israel stand on its own 2 legs so they feel they can do what they want without worrying about future funding.

[green73]

They don't have a choice. It's adapt or die. The U.S. tax base can no longer support this robust, global foreign policy. It's a numbers game.

It sounds like Rand wants another Cold War. I'm not confident at all he's going to be closing down bases. And even if he does try to pull back don't forget how the CIA will cross him at every turn to induce him into conflicts. And if he still resists they'll put a bullet in his head. It's not like they haven't done it before.

But I agree, and I think many do; the only real change will come when the house of cards comes down. It would be nice if we had a strong Ron Paul movement than this Rand business when it happens.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

It would make sense to sell our trade secrets too so long as they know that Americans will be duped to support giving them more money. No politician besides Ron P hints at lettting Israel stand on its own 2 legs so they feel they can do what they want without worrying about future funding.I want Israel to be independent, not an oft conflicted marriage. I would just be careful about bringing up USS Liberty and trying to frame it as a hostile attack by Israel because that isn't the case.

[Rudeman]

The may accept Rand's message but they are not going to be woken up. They''ll go right back to neocons when Rush or Hannity tells them.

Maybe, maybe not but why is it bad to give more positive options? If we had many more positive options maybe there wouldn't be so many following every word coming out of those 2. How great would it be if the worst thing we had to worry about is someone believing in Rand's positions? Until that time we need to keep working, keep supporting positive examples (whether perfect or not).

Lets put it this way if Rand's positions became mainstream thought do you think that would make people more likely or less likely to accept Ron's message (compared to what we have now)?

[SpreadOfLiberty]

It sounds like Rand wants another Cold War. I'm not confident at all he's going to be closing down bases. And even if he does try to pull back don't forget how the CIA will cross him at every turn to induce him into conflicts. And if he still resists they'll put a bullet in his head. It's not like they haven't done it before.

But I agree, and I think many do; the only real change will come when the house of cards comes down. It would be nice if we had a strong Ron Paul movement than this Rand business when it happens.

Rand has declared himself the realist.

Closing all bases is not only unrealistic but stupid. Many, if not most should be closed but not every single last one, and having bases is not imperialism in all cases.

edit-just noticed you didn't say "all bases" .

[mac_hine]

I want Israel to be independent, not an oft conflicted marriage. I would just be careful about bringing up USS Liberty and trying to frame it as a hostile attack by Israel because that isn't the case.

You're kidding, right?

[green73]

Maybe, maybe not but why is it bad to give more positive options? If we had many more positive options maybe there wouldn't be so many following every word coming out of those 2. How great would it be if the worst thing we had to worry about is someone believing in Rand's positions? Until that time we need to keep working, keep supporting positive examples (whether perfect or not).

Lets put it this way if Rand's positions became mainstream thought do you think that would make people more likely or less likely to accept Ron's message (compared to what we have now)?

I can't see myself and a lot of others in good conscience being able to advocate for Rand to people. How often are people going to have to say, "Oh Rand is just saying that to please this group."? Or are people just going to swallow their beliefs and tell people things they don't believe? I just don't know how it won't split the movement.

Sadly it's going fuck with the heads of a lot of people in the process of waking up as well.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Forcing child-like adults to go from point A to point C instantaneously isn't the best strategy.

I'm quoting you, but I could have quoted any of the incrementalists:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/a-strategy-for-liberty.html


In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

Such an “abolitionist” perspective does not mean, again, that the libertarian has an unrealistic assessment of how rapidly his goal will, in fact, be achieved. Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when in the 1830s he first raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the morally proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached….Garrison himself distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.” Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

This stuff was asked and answered over 150 years ago, for crying out loud. Incrementalism is nothing new. If the hardliners fall behind Rand, the hardline effectively becomes gradualism. Guess where that will get you, in a world full of hyper-statists and interventionists? Exactly nowhere.

[thoughtomator]

You're kidding, right?

From the facts I can gather, the USS Liberty was engaged in acts of war against Israel at the time it was attacked, relaying military information to the Egyptians - which would make it not only a valid target, but a necessary one (there really is no other good explanation of why Israel would devote scarce resources to attack a US ship while a hot war was underway). As no one who gave the orders is talking, and many are dead, we'll probably never really know.

There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Israel, but talking about the USS Liberty is the absolute worst of them as there are very good reasons to believe that it may have been wholly justified.

[green73]

Exactly, FTA!

[Brett85]

This stuff was asked and answered over 150 years ago, for crying out loud. Incrementalism is nothing new. If the hardliners fall behind Rand, the hardline effectively becomes gradualism. Guess where that will get you, in a world full of hyper-statists and interventionists? Exactly nowhere.

It's probably good for some of the hardliners like Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo not to support Rand, because it makes Rand look much more mainstream.

[Rudeman]

I can't see myself and a lot of others in good conscience being able to advocate for Rand to people. How often are people going to have to say, "Oh Rand is just saying that to please this group."? Or are people just going to swallow their beliefs and tell people things they don't believe? I just don't know how it won't split the movement.

Sadly it's going fuck with the heads of a lot of people in the process of waking up as well.

Do you think everyone here believes everything that Ron believes in? Abortion being the one issue off the top of my head. Yet they found a way to support him. When people see that Rand is a big step in the right direction I hope they realize that while it may not be perfect it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, but of course I've always been an optimist.

[schiffheadbaby]

From the facts I can gather, the USS Liberty was engaged in acts of war against Israel at the time it was attacked, relaying military information to the Egyptians - which would make it not only a valid target, but a necessary one (there really is no other good explanation of why Israel would devote scarce resources to attack a US ship while a hot war was underway). As no one who gave the orders is talking, and many are dead, we'll probably never really know.

There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Israel, but talking about the USS Liberty is the absolute worst of them as there are very good reasons to believe that it may have been wholly justified.

Please also defend Israel selling American intel. Has this become Hannity forums?

[green73]

It's probably good for some of the hardliners like Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo not to support Rand, because it makes Rand look much more mainstream.

And it might be good to rename yourself something other than "Traditional Conservative," unless you mean it in the sense of the first conservatives who rose up to oppose the classical liberals and not the Robert Taft types.

[Brett85]

And it might be good to rename yourself something other than "Traditional Conservative," unless you mean it in the sense of the first conservatives who rose up to oppose the classical liberals and not the Robert Taft types.

I'm a Robert Taft type. I'm more of a non interventionist than Rand is, and I've criticized some of his foreign policy statements in the past. However, his speech today reassured me that his foreign policy would be a huge step in the right direction. I hope he keeps it up. I certainly feel more comfortable supporting him than I did before his speech.

[green73]

I'm a Robert Taft type. I'm more of a non interventionist than Rand is, and I've criticized some of his foreign policy statements in the past. However, his speech today reassured me that his foreign policy would be a huge step in the right direction. I hope he keeps it up. I certainly feel more comfortable supporting him than I did before his speech.

I'm sure Taft would agree.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm sure Taft would agree.

Actually he would. I was a teenager when Taft died (1953), but my father and uncle were both activists and elected in he GOP at the time. They were of the Taft wing of the party. Taft was a Jeffersonian, but was in no way, shape or form an isolationist or a pacifist.

[TheTexan]

Ron is just a man. He is fallible. We can use that approach, but if we do we will not win. Incementalism is what the liberals, nannystaters, and authoritarians have used to great effect since the founding of our country to erode our rights.

If the choice is between the reckless policies of Obama and Bush, and a "realistic" Rand Paul doctrine that results in less war, less death, and less waste.... why would you sit on the sidelines? Why not say "Boy, I sure would like it if toned down the belligerence and completely reframed the public debate!" By taking that stance and winning, we move the end-zone. After that point, those who advocate aggressive and foolish interventionism will have to fight just to get back to where they once were.

I'm not saying that we take an incremental gain, pat ourselves on the back, and call it quits --- I'm saying that we should take an incremental gain, and then another, and then another, and then another until the policies of Ron Paul become a reality.

Incrementalism doesn't work. Hasn't ever worked. Will never work. History has proven this. Any small incremental stride towards liberty has always been outpaced by the giant leaps towards tyranny.

Nullification, nullification, nullification. That's how we win. Not this "incremental" nonsense.


Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

I have been involved in politics for decades and this is the first time in my life that we have momentum on our side. The gains we are making both in elected officials and in an ideological shift among voters is astounding. Incremental progress is the only means by which we can restore liberty. The hardline, "all or nothing" approach fails historically, logically and practically. And as I said the gains we are making are amazing.

I am part of a group of committeemen and women, along with some county officials that make up our own little version of a Liberty Caucus. I am one of the new guys just taking my seat in January of this year, but a friend of mine in the group says that in less than 3 years that group has grown from 4 people sitting around talking politics over breakfast once a month to nearly 20 people. And with 2014 committee elections, we think we can double that number.

The truth is there will always be hardliners, and nothing we can say or do will ever convince them of the folly of their ways. But as we grow in numbers, as we get legislation that we support passed in all levels of government and as we continue to win over the hearts and minds of the public, the hardliners will become more and more irrelevant.


I don't know about anyone else, and no offense intended, but I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago after you admitted that incrementalism probably isn't going to work, but "its the best we can do."

This is the best we can do my ass. You can try to sell that to the senior citizens who don't have long for this world and simply want to hold onto their remaining liberties just long enough for them to die, but for me, that's not good enough.

As for the "gains" I don't know what "gains" you're talking about. From what I can tell, ever since the Revolution began, we haven't even had any luck in slowing down tyranny. It's been moving forward, as always, and accelerating.

If by "gains" you mean we're close to a Rand president in 2016.. first, I would disagree that he has a chance. You can certainly try and I encourage you to do so, but no. He does not have a chance. All the pundits and talk show hosts and so on who now favorably talk about Rand from time to time, when the time comes around to make him President, that will all change. They may still talk about him favorably. But they will dismiss him, for one reason or another. Whether it be that he's "unelectable" or they "dont like his foreign policy" or some other random fucking excuse to not like him, they will not support him for President.

Best case scenario, Rand wins. I admit, it could happen. Still though, what would that accomplish? I would hope that he would close the bases and bring the troops home (but he may not). If he did, he'd have a 1-term presidency. He can veto most bills, but again, if he does that, he'll have a 1-term presidency. In either case, both sides of Congress will oppose most of his efforts, and when he leaves office, the tyranny train will pick up right where it left off, with more fervor and momentum than ever before.

If by "gains" you mean we've elected a handful of politicians, let me give everyone a round of fucking applause. Great job everyone, we won a handful of elections, that has gotten us nowhere. Whoop-die-fucking-do. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of everyone's efforts and it was a valiant attempt, and these efforts bore fruit in other ways (such as at the state level, and getting more people on board).

But to everyone here who still believes that we can somehow either elect a majority of national liberty politicians, or consistently convince establishment politicians to vote for liberty... wake the fuck up. That's not going to happen.

The Federal Government is beyond repair. This incremental bullshit that you two are talking about is a fucking fantasy, without a shred of evidence, without a semblance of basis in reality. CaptLouAlbano has previous admitted, basically as much. However he wants to keep doing that because its the "best we can do."

Fuck that. There are better answers than this stupid shit.

Nullification is real, and its happening. Now. Nurture that shit. Build that shit. Do something productive, and Fuck national politics.

[DrHendricks]

I see this thread quickly descended into "real policy changes" vs. "tilting at windmills". How monotonous.

A few Tea-Party types I shared this with today responded very favorably. Rand is winning more and more converts to the Liberty movement every day.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I see this thread quickly descended into "real policy changes" vs. "tilting at windmills". How monotonous.

A few Tea-Party types I shared this with today responded very favorably. Rand is winning more and more converts to the Liberty movement every day.

Explain to me how interventionism is liberty.

[Brett85]

Explain to me how interventionism is liberty.

Do you think that limited interventionism is the same as unlimited interventionism? Or is it different?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you think that limited interventionism is the same as unlimited interventionism? Or is it different?

In theory it may be different, but in practice, interventionism is interventionism. And, even in theory, limited interventionism is not liberty.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Explain to me how interventionism is liberty.

It's a progression away from what we have now Wilsonian, towards a more conservative approach be it Jeffersonian or Jacksonian. If you expect a fundamental shift towards Ron Paul style non-interventionism, then don't hold your breath. We are at best 1% of the electorate. As someone said you cannot get from point A right to point C and that is correct.

But honestly, I am not trying to sway your opinion. I am just giving you the reality of the situation. The political arm of the liberty movement is growing, we are bringing in new people by the truck load, and they are by no means absolutist, Lew Rockwell reading types. As I stated before the "all or nothing" crowd (which honestly I do not know if you are a part of personally) is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[AuH20]

I wouldn't call Rand's strategy "incrementalism." I would call it being heard, as opposed to be called a kook relegated to a coffee bar. The Rand Paul movement is mainly about communication as opposed to quixotian notion of "changing the world in one fell swoop" like Ron suggested.

[AuH20]

In theory it may be different, but in practice, interventionism is interventionism. And, even in theory, limited interventionism is not liberty.

Starting from the point of pure non-inteventionism is a dead end. Tenderize the meat. Introduce formerly taboo ideas. Let the meat marinate. This isn't incrementalism. It's about building a soapbox to be heard.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's a progression away from what we have now Wilsonian, towards a more conservative approach be it Jeffersonian or Jacksonian. If you expect a fundamental shift towards Ron Paul style non-interventionism, then don't hold your breath. We are at best 1% of the electorate. As someone said you cannot get from point A right to point C and that is correct.

But honestly, I am not trying to sway your opinion. I am just giving you the reality of the situation. The political arm of the liberty movement is growing, we are bringing in new people by the truck load, and they are by no means absolutist, Lew Rockwell reading types. As I stated before the "all or nothing" crowd (which honestly I do not know if you are a part of personally) is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/a-strategy-for-liberty.html


In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

Such an “abolitionist” perspective does not mean, again, that the libertarian has an unrealistic assessment of how rapidly his goal will, in fact, be achieved. Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when in the 1830s he first raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the morally proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached….Garrison himself distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.” Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

Asked and answered over 150 years ago.


I wouldn't call Rand's strategy "incrementalism." I would call it being heard, as opposed to be called a kook relegated to a coffee bar. The Rand Paul movement is mainly about communication as opposed to quixotian notion of "changing the world in one fell swoop" like Ron suggested.

Ron's approach was never to storm the presidency and change the world. It was (and is) to change minds. You change minds, and the political reality will change.

[TheTexan]

I wouldn't call Rand's strategy "incrementalism." I would call it being heard, as opposed to be called a kook relegated to a coffee bar. The Rand Paul movement is mainly about communication as opposed to quixotian notion of "changing the world in one fell swoop" like Ron suggested.

I can get behind that. It's good to have a spokesman.

But, ultimately, change - real change - will have to take place at the state level.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I wouldn't call Rand's strategy "incrementalism." I would call it being heard, as opposed to be called a kook relegated to a coffee bar. The Rand Paul movement is mainly about communication as opposed to quixotian notion of "changing the world in one fell swoop" like Ron suggested.

It is though in practice. Take foreign aid for example. If the goal is to eliminate all foreign aid, and you start by being able to eliminate aid to say 3 countries, that is an incremental step towards the goal. You don't stop there of course, but giving aid to 100 countries is better than 103.

[Brett85]

Maybe Rand's foreign policy platform isn't "liberty," but it's certainly a lot better than what we have right now.

[AuH20]

http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/a-strategy-for-liberty.html

Asked and answered over 150 years ago.



Ron's approach was never to storm the presidency and change the world. It was (and is) to change minds. You change minds, and the political reality will change.

By that time, we'll all be dead or imprisoned. Rand Paul's mission is to communicate to the masses that the current course is unsustainable and impractical. And I believe his campaign will not be solely judged by a presidential victory. It's much more than that.

[Confederate]

It is though in practice. Take foreign aid for example. If the goal is to eliminate all foreign aid, and you start by being able to eliminate aid to say 3 countries, that is an incremental step towards the goal. You don't stop there of course, but giving aid to 100 countries is better than 103.

+rep Capt.

It's almost as if some people here are so dense or so delusional that they think eliminating 100% of foreign aid and shutting down all 700 foreign bases is politically feasible overnight.

[CaptLouAlbano]

http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/a-strategy-for-liberty.html.

Sorry but I put Rockwell in that increasingly irrelevant group. I mentioned earlier our own local Liberty Caucus here of about 20 people elected into office or committee. Good solid paleo-cons and libertarian conservatives. This is the front line for Sanford, Davis and the rest of the SC group. I'd wager dollars to donuts that most of those folks never even heard of Rockwell, and if they have I doubt they read his stuff.

[AuH20]

I can get behind that. It's good to have a spokesman.

But, ultimately, change - real change - will have to take place at the state level.

A politician isn't going to solve this gargantuan problem, but he can unite a greater collection of people who formerly thought they were alone and powerless.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Sorry but I put Rockwell in that increasingly irrelevant group. I mentioned earlier our own local Liberty Caucus here of about 20 people elected into office or committee. Good solid paleo-cons and libertarian conservatives. This is the front line for Sanford, Davis and the rest of the SC group. I'd wager dollars to donuts that most of those folks never even heard of Rockwell, and if they have I doubt they read his stuff.

The author of the piece is Jonathan Goodwin, and the quotes I featured were written by Murray Rothbard, who was quoting William Lloyd Garrison. Lew had nothing to do with it aside from hosting it on his website.

I see, however, that you'd rather attack the owner of a website than tackle the substance of the argument.

[Feeding the Abscess]

+rep Capt.

It's almost as if some people here are so dense or so delusional that they think eliminating 100% of foreign aid and shutting down all 700 foreign bases is politically feasible overnight.


In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

Such an “abolitionist” perspective does not mean, again, that the libertarian has an unrealistic assessment of how rapidly his goal will, in fact, be achieved. Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when in the 1830s he first raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the morally proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached….Garrison himself distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.” Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

It seems as though this needs to be posted in response to every other post in the this thread.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rand-paul-and-radical-islam/

Some criticism from paleo world. I should also mention that Rand is supporting and furthering the narrative that non-interventionism is isolationism. How cute.

[CaptLouAlbano]

My mistake for assuming Rockwell wrote the essay. I read through it and I disagree with it. But let me be frank with you, we are gaining ground, we are winning seats, we are changing the hearts and minds of people. It's a great time to be an activist and I'm not going to let a handful of bloggers and forum junkies piss all over the progress being made because it doesn't meet their lofty standards. No offense but for every hardliner that digs their heels in the ground, there are a dozen other people out there that can be easily persuaded to the cause.

[Feeding the Abscess]

My mistake for assuming Rockwell wrote the essay. I read through it and I disagree with it. But let me be frank with you, we are gaining ground, we are winning seats, we are changing the hearts and minds of people. It's a great time to be an activist and I'm not going to let a handful of bloggers and forum junkies piss all over the progress being made because it doesn't meet their lofty standards. No offense but for every hardliner that digs their heels in the ground, there are a dozen other people out there that can be easily persuaded to the cause.

We aren't going to gets those dozens of people to non-aggression by preaching interventionism. We can soft sell closing every base around the world to them, but that's not the same as outright saying we shouldn't close every base in the world, or that sanctions are acceptable, all options should be on the table, etc. We should entice them with things they'd agree with us on, not shift our positions to make them agreeable.

[supermario21]

Then lets get more Tom Davis's elected at the state level. I know a lot of us are disappointed he isn't running in 2014 against Lindsey, but if we fight a Rand Presidency -Tom Davis state level style tag team against the establishment in Congress we can do well.

[TheTexan]

My mistake for assuming Rockwell wrote the essay. I read through it and I disagree with it. But let me be frank with you, we are gaining ground, we are winning seats, we are changing the hearts and minds of people. It's a great time to be an activist and I'm not going to let a handful of bloggers and forum junkies piss all over the progress being made because it doesn't meet their lofty standards. No offense but for every hardliner that digs their heels in the ground, there are a dozen other people out there that can be easily persuaded to the cause.

Yes, you're right. I'm sure 20 years from now America will just love freedom.

[Danke]

USS Liberty wasn't a hostile strike.

If Israel is so dependent on the U.S. it would make no sense to attack us.

Just saying. This was also in 1967. Friendly fire has happened before and after and still does today.

It was a prolonged engagement with multiple strikes, with lot's of evidence on exactly who they were attacking. President Johnson called off a fighter aircraft response from a near by carrier to go out and protect that ship. It wasn't until a Russian ship showed up that the Israelis stopped the attack.

[green73]

The author of the piece is Jonathan Goodwin, and the quotes I featured were written by Murray Rothbard, who was quoting William Lloyd Garrison. Lew had nothing to do with it aside from hosting it on his website.

I see, however, that you'd rather attack the owner of a website than tackle the substance of the argument.

That's so common here from these sorts.

[green73]

My mistake for assuming Rockwell wrote the essay. I read through it and I disagree with it. But let me be frank with you, we are gaining ground, we are winning seats, we are changing the hearts and minds of people. It's a great time to be an activist and I'm not going to let a handful of bloggers and forum junkies piss all over the progress being made because it doesn't meet their lofty standards. No offense but for every hardliner that digs their heels in the ground, there are a dozen other people out there that can be easily persuaded to the cause.

That's happening because of Rand's efforts, Ok.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes, you're right. I'm sure 20 years from now America will just love freedom.

Best of luck in whatever path you choose.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's happening because of Rand's efforts, Ok.

Rand is just a part of it. He's one man, but there are thousands of men and women across the country at the county, state and federal level all working their butts off towards the same goal.

[anaconda]

I've just upgraded my estimate of Rand's IQ from about 140 to about 150.

[supermario21]

A simple "Rand Paul" search on Twitter reveals the best tweet of the day...


Arizona Luke ‏@ArizonaLuke
Just read Senator Rand Paul's Foreign Policy speech. I have a 3 word response: "@RickSantorum 2016" #tcot #Liberty #TeaParty #912p

[Shane Harris]

We aren't going to gets those dozens of people to non-aggression by preaching interventionism. We can soft sell closing every base around the world to them, but that's not the same as outright saying we shouldn't close every base in the world, or that sanctions are acceptable, all options should be on the table, etc. We should entice them with things they'd agree with us on, not shift our positions to make them agreeable.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Feeding the Abscess again.

[July]

//

[trey4sports]

I watched the speech. Yawn.

[LibertyEagle]

We aren't going to gets those dozens of people to non-aggression by preaching interventionism. We can soft sell closing every base around the world to them, but that's not the same as outright saying we shouldn't close every base in the world, or that sanctions are acceptable, all options should be on the table, etc. We should entice them with things they'd agree with us on, not shift our positions to make them agreeable.

I understand what you are saying, but you do realize that would mean that we won't make any progress in getting the bases shut down AT ALL until we can convince the majority to agree with shutting them ALL down?

I don't know, man. I'd take shutting 1/3 of them down right away and then working on shutting the rest of them down.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I understand what you are saying, but you do realize that would mean that we won't make any progress in getting the bases shut down AT ALL until we can convince the majority to agree with shutting them ALL down?

I don't know, man. I'd take shutting 1/3 of them down right away and then working on shutting the rest of them down.

I think you give a good illustration to how the "all or nothing" strategy is destined to fail. What people seem to forget, or better yet ignore, is that regardless of the bill we need a majority vote for it to pass. The problem with the "all or nothing" way of thinking is that 99% of the time you wind up with nothing.

[July]

I understand what you are saying, but you do realize that would mean that we won't make any progress in getting the bases shut down AT ALL until we can convince the majority to agree with shutting them ALL down?

I don't know, man. I'd take shutting 1/3 of them down right away and then working on shutting the rest of them down.

LE, it's not about what the majority wants. It's about what you want. Would you rather a non interventionist foriegn policy, right now immediately, if you could? If you could snap your fingers and make it so? Or does the idea of slow change, like Rand is talking about, make you feel at ease? If it doesn't make you feel at ease, why not?

Rand's speech is the first time he has really made me feel uncomfortable. I don't mean to say, I won't vote for him and whatnot in the future. But it has given me pause to think.

Anyway I am planning to read the book he mentioned.

[CaptLouAlbano]

July,

Not to jump in on your conversation with LE, but the reality is that we cannot snap our fingers and have a full blown non-interventionist foreign policy. Right now we are have a Wilsonian FP, Clinton and Bush 41 were Hamiltonian, Reagan was Jacksonian, Carter was also Wilsonian. You have to go way, way, way back to find Jeffersonian FP in place - essentially pre WWII.

The simple fact is that we do not have the numbers to get what we want. So in the interim do we a) make small gains where we are able (e.g. eliminating foreign aid to a few countries) or b) get absolutely nothing because we want it all?

Politics and government is a numbers game, and until we have a House packed with 218 non-interventionist a Senate with 26 non-interventionists and a President who shares that viewpoint we have few other options.

[July]

July,

Not to jump in on your conversation with LE, but the reality is that we cannot snap our fingers and have a full blown non-interventionist foreign policy. Right now we are have a Wilsonian FP, Clinton and Bush 41 were Hamiltonian, Reagan was Jacksonian, Carter was also Wilsonian. You have to go way, way, way back to find Jeffersonian FP in place - essentially pre WWII.

The simple fact is that we do not have the numbers to get what we want. So in the interim do we a) make small gains where we are able (e.g. eliminating foreign aid to a few countries) or b) get absolutely nothing because we want it all?

Politics and government is a numbers game, and until we have a House packed with 218 non-interventionist a Senate with 26 non-interventionists and a President who shares that viewpoint we are have few other options.

Hi Capt, no feel free to jump in.

Of course you are right, I realize we can't snap our fingers and make it happen over night. What I'm asking LE to consider though is the hypothetical. What I think matters is deep down how we each individually feel about change. That is what will make someone effective in other areas of spreading the ideas, or not.

The strategy and methods when it comes to activisim and actually teaching others is a seperarte issue. But many are conflating theory with strategy/practice.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Hi Capt, no feel free to jump in.

Of course you are right, I realize we can't snap our fingers and make it happen over night. What I'm asking LE to consider though is the hypothetical. What I think matters is deep down how we each individually feel about change. That is what will make someone effective in other areas of spreading the ideas, or not.

The strategy and methods when it comes to activisim and actually teaching others is a seperarte issue. But many are conflating theory with strategy/practice.

Understood. I think when it comes to the education aspect of what we do we do have to tread lightly, because we do not want people to shut down on us. Sure I would love to close all or most of the bases. But if I approach someone and lead with that, then I very well might be dead in the water. The best means of education is first listening and finding areas of common ground and going from there. I think most Republicans are very leery of the "policemen of the world" "make the world safe for democracy" "nation building" talk of the Wilsonians. If I start there with that, introducing more advanced concepts is easier.

[July]

Understood. I think when it comes to the education aspect of what we do we do have to tread lightly, because we do not want people to shut down on us. Sure I would love to close all or most of the bases. But if I approach someone and lead with that, then I very well might be dead in the water. The best means of education is first listening and finding areas of common ground and going from there. I think most Republicans are very leery of the "policemen of the world" "make the world safe for democracy" "nation building" talk of the Wilsonians. If I start there with that, introducing more advanced concepts is easier.

Well I would probably be one of the first to agree that brow beating people over the head doesn't work with everyone, or necessarily with most people. That's still a distinction over methods though.

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?

[TheGrinch]

Well I would probably be one of the first to agree that brow beating people over the head doesn't work with everyone, or necessarily with most people. That's still a distinction over methods though.

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?

Incrementalism absolutely works, it's been used to strip our freedom and benefit the corrupt gradually in many cases...

Further I can speak from experience that finding common ground first does work (was actually trying to find my first post here last night about my experience with this). I can't count the number of people that I got to open their eyes by starting with the issues that were easier to swallow, before hitting them too hard with the things that are tougher to accept.

I've been even more surprised by many I had given up on convincing, that ended up surprising me later after they invesitgated more on their own. Truth is contagious.

The great thing about liberty and truth is that there is common ground you can find with any political affiliation. Know your audience and you will have success.

[TheGrinch]

As to the argument, "incrementalism doesn't work", I think what they mean is that compromising may only lead to more compromising, but that doesn't have to be so. It's no coincidence that you'll never meet an ex-Ron Paul supporter. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you'll never view the world the same again.

Thus is why political strategy must NOT trump education and finding common ground, because those are how we will gain hearts and minds and take back the country, even if we have to do it incrementally. Change does not happen overnight, it took years to get into this mess, and it may take years to wake up enough people to get out of it, but make no mistake, people are waking up every day.

[FSP-Rebel]

A lot of the 'purists' on here are fond of saying that incrementalism toward freedom doesn't work, that it only (apparently) works in one direction toward tyranny.

Why is that true?
I'm an ancap purist at heart and I favor private arbitration and competing security services instead of govt courts and policing but I realize that that isn't in the cards until we peal away the decades (centuries?) of govt growth into our lives and that's why I stay actively involved in politics in hopes of being able to bring certain ideas into discussion down the line. There are different kinds of purists but the ones that stick out are the vocal ones that refuse to budge an inch and adapt to the climate at hand. I fully understand Rand's mode of operation and think it's been proven to be successful to spread the message of liberty that Ron put forth in terms that brainwashed, yet otherwise patriotic americans, can handle. Is that pure? No. Does it advance the liberty agenda? Yes. People have to be educated piecemeal in order to be able to take the test of liberty when they're ready. So, we keep inching them closer and in their own special time they'll be able to go into red pill territory. You can't beat them over the head with full blown pure voluntarism and expect that to get you many converts to your ideas even though you consider it the only moral way to operate, doesn't work effectively.

It's hard for me to not tell the vocal purists to get bent after all the time, effort and loads of cash I put into Ron's efforts and the thanks I get from attempting to help Rand further liberty is met with allegations of being a compromiser and other loathsome comments. Their horses aren't as high and mighty as they think they are and they know who they are.

[KingNothing]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

[TheGrinch]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

Exactly,if you don't agree with engaging in the political process like this, then simply continue to educate and wait for the house of card to fall down to say "I told you so".

But I have to wonder how many of the hard-lined idealists aren't younger or inexperienced in the workings of the world, because I remember how idealistic I was when I was getting out of college. They think all the realists are sell-outs, but part of growing up is realizing that the world doesn't work like you wish it would....

[July]

Grinch, something like that.

Leading with common ground, speaking softly, etc, those are all about methods/strategy though. I guess I'm speaking more to the philosophical.

Incrementalism, seems to only work in one direction, toward loss of freedom, why? I think that is because tyranny is about control. And the desire for control comes from an aversion to change. The amount of freedom achieved is proportional to the degree of aversion to change. So if you cannot accept the full implication of freedom in your heart, you are still partially enslaved, you'll always be chasing the need to control. Sooner or later the strategy then becomes the object.

So gut reaction, did Rand's speech, in your heart, feel like it was a step forward or backward (to you, not to the masses)? It's a practical step forward, yes, but... we shouldn't confuse these two things. That, I guess, is an open ended question, probably different for everyone.

[July]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly? I can imagine a tyrannical state doing so, but not one that is ruled by its people.

Absent very dramatic events (fall of the Soviet Union, civil war, unconditional surrender after military conflict, etc), NOTHING happens quickly. We are not going to experience a "shock therapy" of Liberty. It isn't going to happen. Post all the quotes from history that you want, post all the words from Rothbard or Paul there are, they do not make it so. Those words are idealistic in a sense and pessimistic in others. Those words are informed by the willingness of people to settle or lose principles once they gain power. We will not do that. We will employ the tactics that the progressives and authoritarians have used to great effect -- gradual gains, drawing the line in the sand a bit further out with every piece of legislation or philosophical win. To do this, we need Rand Paul and many, many more like him in office, and a legion of financial and moral supporters behind them, working tirelessly to spread a pure message -in language that will be deemed "acceptable"- to win converts and slowly change the entire role of government in America.

Those are events/actions. All changes of that nature, IMO, are incremental...because things are constantly changing. I think the 'purists' are talking about principle, though. Incrementalism as a philosophy, etc.

[sailingaway]

Has any society ever greatly increased its "liberty-quotient" in a very short period of time without war or governmental collapse? Has any Democratic society ever increased it's freedoms rapidly?

No offense, but have they done so at all, absent an 'event' or 'upheaval'? magna Carta etc etc, all followed upheavals of some sort, political or rebellious.

But I don't really have a hard opinion about incrementalism, I'd have to think more about that. I just want to be able to trust that I know where a candidate actually stands and will stand when the chips are down and he is facing real pressure and advantage in another direction. Then I can figure all the rest out. Trust is the issue with me.

[TheTyke]

I'm idealistic as heck, and I love what Rand's doing. :D He is widening the coalition, changing hearts, bringing people in... and while he's doing that, we, the grassroots, need to keep pushing the discussion even further within our neighborhoods and political circles. Make our candidates look moderate, while moving the discussion as far as we believably can. But when it counts, rally and make sure our candidates get elected/re-elected so we can keep making progress!

[TheGrinch]

I'm idealistic as heck, and I love what Rand's doing. :D He is widening the coalition, changing hearts, bringing people in... and while he's doing that, we, the grassroots, need to keep pushing the discussion even further within our neighborhoods and political circles. Make our candidates look moderate, while moving the discussion as far as we believably can. But when it counts, rally and make sure our candidates get elected/re-elected so we can keep making progress!

Precisely, Ron wasn't the end-all-be-all for liberty, and neither is Rand.

Incrementalism does not mean abandoning education of core principles. "Make our candidates look moderate" is a very good way to put it. You cannot expect people to go from one extreme to the other without crossing the middle first. There's lots of undoing and spoon-feeding before a majority of people are ready to swallow some of the tougher parts.

[July]

I'm an ancap purist at heart and I favor private arbitration and competing security services instead of govt courts and policing but I realize that that isn't in the cards until we peal away the decades (centuries?) of govt growth into our lives and that's why I stay actively involved in politics in hopes of being able to bring certain ideas into discussion down the line. There are different kinds of purists but the ones that stick out are the vocal ones that refuse to budge an inch and adapt to the climate at hand. I fully understand Rand's mode of operation and think it's been proven to be successful to spread the message of liberty that Ron put forth in terms that brainwashed, yet otherwise patriotic americans, can handle. Is that pure? No. Does it advance the liberty agenda? Yes. People have to be educated piecemeal in order to be able to take the test of liberty when they're ready. So, we keep inching them closer and in their own special time they'll be able to go into red pill territory. You can't beat them over the head with full blown pure voluntarism and expect that to get you many converts to your ideas even though you consider it the only moral way to operate, doesn't work effectively.

It's hard for me to not tell the vocal purists to get bent after all the time, effort and loads of cash I put into Ron's efforts and the thanks I get from attempting to help Rand further liberty is met with allegations of being a compromiser and other loathsome comments. Their horses aren't as high and mighty as they think they are and they know who they are.

I think they are so vocal because they fear people who were once already accepting of a non interventionist policy when it was coming from Ron, now appear to be going backwards in their philosophy. I don't know if that is true or not, but I can see why. Some still have doubts freedom is possible.

[FSP-Rebel]

I think they are so vocal because they fear people who were once already accepting of a non interventionist policy when it was coming from Ron, now appear to be going backwards in their philosophy. I don't know if that is true or not, but I can see why. Some still have doubts freedom is possible.
Typically, once someone "gets it" they don't revert back to something else unless they've sold out for whatever reason. I get that some people want to be stuck in part I of the liberty revival because it's comfortable to them. Either they fail to see the bigger picture or think engaging in insanity is the only acceptable way to promote liberty. The sound byte media will leave you in their dust and then your platform is significantly reduced. As in any off season, the majority of any supporters aren't in high gear so it's up to the hardcore to do the interim work. Some feel better when they have allies that make them feel better about not doing this or that or being able to significantly limit the amount of activism they perform. The point is, Ron's total message is being sold to the masses with a tuxedo on in hopes of bringing many more legions into our fold. People can't be so self-righteous to expect the learning curve for others is identical to theirs nor expect people to swallow the keynotes of liberty in full red pill fashion. However, this is where they like to preach that the message is being watered down. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Conversely, you can repackage the existing liberty message but it's still the liberty message. Let's face it, who the hell do people think Ron is going to endorse for Prez coming up? duh. People still gonna hold out when the Man gives his approval? For those that have doubts about freedom being possible, they shouldn't be here and should go back to sleep.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, it's not about what the majority wants. It's about what you want. Would you rather a non interventionist foriegn policy, right now immediately, if you could? If you could snap your fingers and make it so? Or does the idea of slow change, like Rand is talking about, make you feel at ease? If it doesn't make you feel at ease, why not?

Rand's speech is the first time he has really made me feel uncomfortable. I don't mean to say, I won't vote for him and whatnot in the future. But it has given me pause to think.

Anyway I am planning to read the book he mentioned.

It actually IS about what the majority wants, because if they don't want what we do, we will not get it done.

But, since you asked what I want, I will tell you. Of course, I would like to snap my fingers and for us to have a noninterventionist foreign policy. But, just to make sure I am clear, I would still want to have a very strong national defense. Because I'm not naive enough to think that even if we stopped being busybodies, there still won't be some who will want to do us harm. Peace through strength makes sense to me, but only when we mind our own business.

So, if we cannot get the whole pie, immediately, I will gladly take 1/2 of it and once we get that, start working on the other 1/2. I think the most crucial thing is that we do not lose track of what our goals are. I think that might be what you are worried about. That we will get merged into the borg. I am not worried at all about myself doing that, but I am sure there will be some measure of it happening in our movement. There is not much we can do about it either, besides have a home base with our principles outlined in concrete. Perhaps something like Mises could become that. Unfortunately, the concrete approach (all or nothing) does not work in politics itself, because you end up with nothing.

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, you should know this better than I do. But, when playing football, does the offense always just run straight ahead, or do they oftentimes run sidewise and at angles, not to mention kick and throw the ball, instead of just running it? The all-or-nothing approach, to me, would be similar to handing the ball to a guy and telling him to run straight forward every time. And he's going to get wiped out and get nowhere. But, he kept his "principles". :p

Or, think about fighting a battle. Do you think Patton always put his soldiers out there and told them to move in a straight line and chest bump the enemy? That, to me, is what some around here want to do in politics. It doesn't work. It may make you smile, but it won't work there, any better than it would have for Patton.

I think a good name for this is strategy. The end goals are the same, but there will be many battles, on numerous fronts, before we accomplish them.

[TheGrinch]

Guys, you should know this better than I do. But, when playing football, does the offense always just run straight ahead, or do they oftentimes run sidewise and at angles, not to mention kick and throw the ball, instead of just running it? The all-or-nothing approach, to me, would be similar to handing the ball to a guy and telling him to run straight forward every time. And he's going to get wiped out and get nowhere. But, he kept his "principles". :p

Or, think about fighting a battle. Do you think Patton always put his soldiers out there and told them to move in a straight line and chest bump the enemy? That, to me, is what some around here want to do in politics. It doesn't work. It may make you smile, but it won't work there, any better than it would have for Patton.

I think a good name for this is strategy. The end goals are the same, but there will be many battles, on numerous fronts, before we accomplish them.

Clearly you've never watched Adrian Peterson run the ball.

[Joseph de Maistre]

Has anyone been covering the plethora of Beltway knuckleheads who've lined up to speak out against Rand Paul's speech? Is there a thread about that? Let me know, if so.

I am incredibly annoyed by the Washington Post and National Review's articles slamming Rand. This seems to be a concerted, organized effort. Perhaps the military-industrial complex is mobilizing?

[radiofriendly]

I'm actually finally watching this whole speech right now...So far, amazing - can you imagine giving this speech in (or very close to) the heart of the beast? It's been a big week for our movement!

[radiofriendly]

Has anyone been covering the plethora of Beltway knuckleheads who've lined up to speak out against Rand Paul's speech? Is there a thread about that? Let me know, if so.

I am incredibly annoyed by the Washington Post and National Review's articles slamming Rand. This seems to be a concerted, organized effort. Perhaps the military-industrial complex is mobilizing?

I think those articles are having a limited impact in this environment. I think we can blunt those articles by just posting this video of Rand Paul's speech.

I did post a link on my site w/ some of these attack articles - mostly they are laughable.
http://iroots.org/2013/02/07/washington-post-oh-ht-rand-paul-cant-name-favorite-wars/

[itshappening]

The Washington Post just posted a more balanced article from Robert Kagan, an official "Opinion Writer"

'People who care about U.S. foreign policy should be grateful for Rand Paul.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-kagan-rand-pauls-conventional-dissent-on-foreign-policy/2013/02/07/4a378b44-7159-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html

[SpreadOfLiberty]

The Washington Post just posted a more balanced article from Robert Kagan, an official "Opinion Writer"

'People who care about U.S. foreign policy should be grateful for Rand Paul.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-kagan-rand-pauls-conventional-dissent-on-foreign-policy/2013/02/07/4a378b44-7159-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html
Frederick Kagan at National Review wasn't so nice.

[itshappening]

Frederick Kagan at National Review wasn't so nice.

From memory that guy is an "everything everywhere" type so no surprise really. He always finds a justification to be somewhere or confront an alleged threat, like McCain.

[Brett85]

Robert Kagan makes a good point. Rand is extremely vague in what he says when talking about foreign policy issues.

[itshappening]

Robert Kagan makes a good point. Rand is extremely vague in what he says when talking about foreign policy issues.

And in the speech he said he didn't want to telegraph his specific foreign policy to the enemy.

[fr33]

Robert Kagan makes a good point. Rand is extremely vague in what he says when talking about foreign policy issues.

Maybe I'm setting the bar too low but I don't agree. I've heard too much from people like GWB and McCain. They sound like neanderthals referencing the "bad guys" and that "they hate us for our freedom". Those types never deliver a speech with so many historical references as Rand gave at Heritage. Neocon leaning voters desperately need a history lesson in foreign policy. I wish rand would quote Samuel Clemens and his opinions on the the war in the Philippines and the atrocities our nation committed. Republican voters desperately need a history lesson. They wave the flag and chant USA every time the subject of war comes up and never question anything.

[July]

Has anyone been covering the plethora of Beltway knuckleheads who've lined up to speak out against Rand Paul's speech? Is there a thread about that? Let me know, if so.

I am incredibly annoyed by the Washington Post and National Review's articles slamming Rand. This seems to be a concerted, organized effort. Perhaps the military-industrial complex is mobilizing?

Well, I read through a bunch of articles last night, and I'd say it's still progress over how Ron was typically treated by his critics, where they would flat out call him an isolationist and end it there. I don't think it will be easy to do that with Rand. Looking through comments, there's at least some healthy debate going on about what kind of foreign policy Reagan actually had, or whether or not radical Islam is like the communist threat. That's a start.

I was bothered by the vagueness also. I suppose that's the trade off, the speech raises more questions than it answers...but on second thought, as a platform to provoke debate, that was probably a good thing.

[itshappening]

Another balanced article from an official gatekeeping source:

EDITORIAL: Rand Paul’s foreign-policy vision
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/rand-pauls-foreign-policy-vision/

'Republicans will have to be at the top of their game in 2016. The renewed focus on the proper role of government in foreign affairs is a good start.'

[itshappening]

BTW, Fred Kagan declared in 2008 that 'the Iraq civil war is over':

'The first thing I want to say is that: The Civil War in Iraq is over. And until the American domestic political debate catches up with that fact, we are going to have a very hard time discussing Iraq on the basis of reality. '

There are still daily attacks in Iraq. Fast forward to today:

KIRKUK, Iraq — A suicide car bombing and an assault by grenade-throwing gunmen on a police headquarters in a disputed ethnically mixed city of northern Iraq killed 30 people on Sunday, security officials said.

The vehicle that was detonated in central Kirkuk had been painted to look like a police car, and the militants who sought to seize the compound were dressed as policemen, witnesses said.

The attack shattered a relative calm in Iraq, which has been grappling with a political crisis pitting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki against his erstwhile government partners amid weeks of protests calling for him to resign

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsFHdEl_ZTlCrgLapGBD8yF8Zuig?docId=CNG.52a10 bc4a7b227861db7e4932846caf6.5b1

That was last week. Today there are reports of more attacks:

At least 29 people have been killed and more than 80 injured in a spate of car bombings in mainly Shia areas of Iraq, local officials say.

They say 16 people died in twin explosions at a market in a northern district of the capital Baghdad.

An hour later, 13 people were killed in two near-simultaneous blasts in Hilla, 100km (60 miles) south of Baghdad.

Sunni insurgents linked to al-Qaeda have been blamed for much of the recent violence across Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21378967

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Another balanced article from an official gatekeeping source:

EDITORIAL: Rand Paul’s foreign-policy vision
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/rand-pauls-foreign-policy-vision/

'Republicans will have to be at the top of their game in 2016. The renewed focus on the proper role of government in foreign affairs is a good start.'

According to John Glaser:



with almost every prescription of restraint Paul declared, he negated it in the following sentence

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/06/rand-paul-gives-foreign-policy-speech-at-heritage/


Hey this is exactly what Obama does in every one of his speeches. I don't think society was ready for such raw doublespeak until Obama proved it. So, I give "them" a little credit for using this new bullshit tactic in "their" 50+ year project of pulling the peace-loving libertarian movement to the center.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Exactly correct. Every single American on the USS Liberty deserved to die for waging war against Israel. As an Israeli, I am proud of what my country did to the USS Liberty. I am sure Rand Paul shares my sentiments and he will always have my vote.

Laying on the trolling a little thick there, don't you think? Kind of loses any verisimilitude it may have had if written better.

[Anti Federalist]

I am stating my heart felt beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that. I am proud of what I did in the IDF. One time we went into this house and I saw a cross with the dead Jesus on it and I took it down and hit the woman of the house with it saying, haha you worship a Jew! There is nothing wrong in doing that to anti-Semites

Why do I always miss out on the fun?

I'd almost say Fire11 but it's not...incoherent enough.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why do I always miss out on the fun?

I'd almost say Fire11 but it's not...incoherent enough.
Hell, I thought it was eduardo for a moment wrt his other post but after reading that I'd think we have a full blown troll in the midst.