How Rand should/could respond to recent wave of attacks from NeoCons & Establishment

[WD-NY]

Interested to hear what everyone thinks.

As someone who typically finds himself on the side of those arguing that "punching back with equal or greater force" is the best response to these orchestrated and transparently dishonest 'smear campaigns' against Rand (and Ron before him), I actually find myself thinking that now would be a great opportunity to both practice and showcase (to pundits like @MarkHalperin (https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin) & Weigel) his ability to project a more cheerful, affable, "cool", confident, etc. disposition when under attack rather than his more typical pugnacious/contentious/etc. modus operandi.

Anyone else also feeling like punching back (like he did against Christie) isn't the right response to this latest barrage of neocon attacks?

[menciusmoldbug]

I didn't think punching back against Christie was the right response either. These people are despicable, but the proper public stance for Rand to take is one of conciliation and friendly disagreement with occasional sprinkles of "father-knows-best" chastising.

[r3volution 3.0]

The hawks have taken great care to portray themselves as the experts: their opponents are wrong not because they have different principles, but because they don't understand the facts. The commonest criticism leveled against Democrats by Republicans vis a vis foreign policy is that they're "clueless" or "naive" or something to that effect. Hawks have styled themselves as the High Priests of foreign policy, the responsible ones, the ones with access to special knowledge: and, naturally, we would all agree with their foreign policy if only we knew what they know. :rolleyes:

Ron talked almost exclusively about principles. His criticisms of neocon foreign policy were light on facts: that's not to say that there aren't facts to support Ron's position (there are), but he usually didn't build his argument that way. This opened him up to charges of naivete, amateurism, etc. If Rand wants to succeed where Ron failed, he has to take a different approach. He needs to show that the neocons are the ones without understanding of the facts. Rather than opposing intervention on principle, he needs to explain how a given case for intervention is based on a factually incorrect assessment of the situation, and talk about the practical negative consequences of intervention. He needs to talk less like a philosopher or sloganeer and more like a "wonk." Of course, Rand's already doing this. This is essentially what his "realist foreign policy" means: rather than defend non-interventionism in the abstract, he attacks each interventionist proposal on a case by case basis, on practical grounds.

So, Rand just needs to continue what he's doing. Don't emphasize principles, focus on facts. Demonstrate that you know at least as much about foreign and military affairs as the neocons. Point out the factual errors in the neocon arguments. Reveal them as the "naive" ones. And he needs to do this in a cool, calm, collected, and slightly patronizing fashion. Be the adult in the room. Let the neocons jump up and down like spoiled children, while Rand throws facts at them, and they'll start to lose their aura of expertise.

[Inkblots]

So, Rand just needs to continue what he's doing. Don't emphasize principles, focus on facts. Demonstrate that you know at least as much about foreign and military affairs as the neocons. Point out the factual errors in the neocon arguments. Reveal them as the "naive" ones. And he needs to do this in a cool, calm, collected, and slightly patronizing fashion. Be the adult in the room. Let the neocons jump up and down like spoiled children, while Rand throws facts at them, and they'll start to lose their aura of expertise.

This is spot on. It's a big job -- Rand will have to have the facts on practically any FP issue that can be throw at him learned by rote -- and it will take the patience of a saint not to get worked up about the smears and frankly personal insults that are being tossed at him. But, darn it, I think that Rand is equal to the task.

[boneyard bill]

The hawks have taken great care to portray themselves as the experts: their opponents are wrong not because they have different principles, but because they don't understand the facts. The commonest criticism leveled against Democrats by Republicans vis a vis foreign policy is that they're "clueless" or "naive" or something to that effect. Hawks have styled themselves as the High Priests of foreign policy, the responsible ones, the ones with access to special knowledge: and, naturally, we would all agree with their foreign policy if only we knew what they know. :rolleyes:

Ron talked almost exclusively about principles. His criticisms of neocon foreign policy were light on facts: that's not to say that there aren't facts to support Ron's position (there are), but he usually didn't build his argument that way. This opened him up to charges of naivete, amateurism, etc. If Rand wants to succeed where Ron failed, he has to take a different approach. He needs to show that the neocons are the ones without understanding of the facts. Rather than opposing intervention on principle, he needs to explain how a given case for intervention is based on a factually incorrect assessment of the situation, and talk about the practical negative consequences of intervention. He needs to talk less like a philosopher or sloganeer and more like a "wonk." Of course, Rand's already doing this. This is essentially what his "realist foreign policy" means: rather than defend non-interventionism in the abstract, he attacks each interventionist proposal on a case by case basis, on practical grounds.

So, Rand just needs to continue what he's doing. Don't emphasize principles, focus on facts. Demonstrate that you know at least as much about foreign and military affairs as the neocons. Point out the factual errors in the neocon arguments. Reveal them as the "naive" ones. And he needs to do this in a cool, calm, collected, and slightly patronizing fashion. Be the adult in the room. Let the neocons jump up and down like spoiled children, while Rand throws facts at them, and they'll start to lose their aura of expertise.

I agree with this, but I disagree that that is what Rand is doing. His approach has been a mixture of dovish and hawkish reactions which have sometimes led to a sense of incoherence. He needs a balanced approach, but instead he has tended to be back and forth. That's not balance. So I think he needs to continue to explain his position in broad terms from time to time. And he needs to give the appearance of expertise, but he can't really come out and say the plain truth because that would put him at odds with the media narrative which would appear to be ignorant or at least extreme. You can't be too aggressive in speaking the truth (that's what Ron did) because what "everyone knows" is falsehood. For example, you can't point out that Iran is nowhere near being able to build a nuclear weapon. Even though all of our intelligence agencies say that, the media narrative says otherwise. So you've got to pretend that this is a problem that must be dealt with.

[boneyard bill]

This is spot on. It's a big job -- Rand will have to have the facts on practically any FP issue that can be throw at him learned by rote -- and it will take the patience of a saint not to get worked up about the smears and frankly personal insults that are being tossed at him. But, darn it, I think that Rand is equal to the task.

I agree. Rand is certainly one of the smartest guys in Washington. But still, it's a minefield, and Rand will probably make mistakes. Hopefully, he won't make any that he can't recover from. He has the advantage, I think, that the public will want to believe Rand and the view that the foreign policy situation isn't so bad rather than believe the warmongers.

[anaconda]

If Rand could plant the seed that interventionists are really commie globalist bankers who want the U.S. to be absorbed into a valueless worldwide collective of zombie citizens, it might reach a tipping point for liberty. And reinforce that real patriots and real conservatives shun the establishment's imperial wars. And maybe let it slip that, despite their rhetoric, the interventionists are privately laughing behind the backs of Americans that sacrifice their blood, treasure, and brethren. Rand could start a populist class warfare fight. Us against them. After all, those few bureaucrats are way outnumbered by the people. We just need to start controlling the narrative. Rand might be the one to pull it off.

I also strongly agree with r3evolution 3.0 above that Rand should become a military and foreign relations expert ASAP and utterly own the issue. He should spend oodles of time with military experts. He should vividly construct the imagery of how overwhelmingly lethal and effective a defensive military will be in guarding the North American perimeter. And how wasting resources abroad undermines this.

[r3volution 3.0]

I also strongly agree with r3evolution 3.0 above that Rand should become a military /and foreign relations expert ASAP and utterly own the issue. He should spend oodles of time with military experts. He should vividly construct the imagery of how overwhelmingly lethal and effective a defensive military will be in guarding the North American perimeter. And how wasting resources abroad undermines this.

And there are plenty of bright young officers in all branches of the armed forces who are sympathetic to that view, brimming with ideas for reform, and just itching for the chance to speak out against the stupidity of the top brass. In particular, there are a lot of people fed-up with the post-9/11 (or even post-Cold-War) shift of focus in the military from preparation for real war against peer-level competitors (the only possible justification for having a military at all) toward bullcrap like anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, humanitarian relief, environmental protection (!), etc. They think the US military is overstretched and distracted from its true purpose. They want to make it leaner it and meaner, and have a higher threshold for intervention (e.g. the activities of malnourished goat-herders in Central Asia aren't sufficiently important to warrant intervention). You could call these people foreign policy realists, or advocates of the "offshore balancer" concept - and while not non-interventionists, they're infinitely better than the fanatical Wilsonians who have been running foreign policy for well over a decade.

These people could be gathered up into a "brain trust" or "Fish pond" (ala Jackie Fisher) to advise Rand and give him more credibility - like what Michael Scheuer did for Ron vis a vis the intelligence community.

[twomp]

I didn't think punching back against Christie was the right response either. These people are despicable, but the proper public stance for Rand to take is one of conciliation and friendly disagreement with occasional sprinkles of "father-knows-best" chastising.
I disagree. Christie is a bully. Bullies become that way not because they are stronger or faster but because people don't stand up to them. If Rand Paul didn't speak up, then who would? Just let Christie go around running his mouth and getting all the media attention?

[menciusmoldbug]

I disagree. Christie is a bully. Bullies become that way not because they are stronger or faster but because people don't stand up to them. If Rand Paul didn't speak up, then who would? Just let Christie go around running his mouth and getting all the media attention?

It is entirely possible to "stand up to them" and "speak up" without making fat jokes or personal attacks. The perfect tone to take here is the one George Will did when he commented on the dust-up:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZKwWx5D_0

This is the sort of "Father knows best" bitch-slap that I'd like to have seen from Rand Paul rather than immature name-calling ("king of bacon").

[WD-NY]

It is entirely possible to "stand up to them" and "speak up" without making fat jokes or personal attacks. The perfect tone to take here is the one George Will did when he commented on the dust-up:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZKwWx5D_0

This is the sort of "Father knows best" bitch-slap that I'd like to have seen from Rand Paul rather than immature name-calling ("king of bacon").

Disagree wrt Christie (because Christie is a bully and bullies need to be punched).

Agree that Will's style of response is best for 95% of the pundits, partisans & politicians that attack Rand.

Concerned that Halperin & Weigel are correct that Rand still let's some of these attacks get to him.

[menciusmoldbug]

Disagree wrt Christie (because Christie is a bully and bullies need to be punched).

Disagree that bullies need to be punched, especially if your goal is to win the favor of people who don't necessarily agree that person in question is a bully. Chris Christie was very popular with a lot of constituencies that Rand should have been trying to win over at the time of the dust-up.

Even if we agree that Christie and bullies in general need to be "punched," I'd argue that the form of punching is important. I characterized Will's comments and tone as a "bitch-slap," but I think it'd be fair to call them a "punch" in this context.


Concerned that Halperin & Weigel are correct that Rand still let's some of these attacks get to him.

Shows that he's still human, imo. I think letting the people see him bleed could be good for his image. If, when he gets smeared as a racist, sexist, homophobic anti-Semite (as he inevitably will), he shows how badly these slanderous accusations hurt him, it may trigger the sympathy of some undecided independent voters who pull the lever based on "feels" and tend to decide our elections.

Dismissing the attacks as absurd and acting unaffected by them is another reasonable strategy to consider, but this sort of indifference can backfire if people suspect that there is even a hint of truth to the accusations. Playing the victim card seems like the better route to take at this time, imo.