jct74
07-09-2014, 11:06 PM
Selling a Slender Foreign Policy
Peter Harris
July 9, 2014
Rand Paul wrote an op-ed for the National Review last week to criticize the Obama administration’s handling of recent violence in Israel. The senator’s argument was that President Obama should act decisively to cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority in order to show solidarity with Israel and influence events in the Middle East. Properly understood, though, Paul’s piece was hardly a clarion call. On the contrary, it was part of a long-term and incremental campaign to win over the U.S. public to the cause of non-interventionism in foreign policy.
Rand Paul stands for a light global footprint for the United States. Costly wars of choice, expansive networks of overseas bases, generous handouts to foreign leaders—none of these serve the interests of the American people according to Paul. On the specific question of overseas aid, Paul is on record as calling for such programs to be abolished—including U.S. aid to Israel.
...
In this context, Paul’s latest op-ed can be considered an exercise in what political scientist William Riker called “heresthetics,” the political art of persuasion and manipulation. Namely, Paul’s heresthetic was to link cuts in overseas aid (to the Palestinians) to a clear-cut national security objective—that is, weakening Hamas, a terrorist organization. Such a presentation of the issues makes intuitive sense to voters, especially those with strong beliefs about U.S. obligations to Israel, because it couches Paul’s longstanding policy preferences for a slender foreign policy in overtly hawkish terms. “Cut aid, hurt terrorists, and protect America and its allies,” Paul is effectively arguing.
...
read more:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/selling-slender-foreign-policy-10838
Peter Harris
July 9, 2014
Rand Paul wrote an op-ed for the National Review last week to criticize the Obama administration’s handling of recent violence in Israel. The senator’s argument was that President Obama should act decisively to cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority in order to show solidarity with Israel and influence events in the Middle East. Properly understood, though, Paul’s piece was hardly a clarion call. On the contrary, it was part of a long-term and incremental campaign to win over the U.S. public to the cause of non-interventionism in foreign policy.
Rand Paul stands for a light global footprint for the United States. Costly wars of choice, expansive networks of overseas bases, generous handouts to foreign leaders—none of these serve the interests of the American people according to Paul. On the specific question of overseas aid, Paul is on record as calling for such programs to be abolished—including U.S. aid to Israel.
...
In this context, Paul’s latest op-ed can be considered an exercise in what political scientist William Riker called “heresthetics,” the political art of persuasion and manipulation. Namely, Paul’s heresthetic was to link cuts in overseas aid (to the Palestinians) to a clear-cut national security objective—that is, weakening Hamas, a terrorist organization. Such a presentation of the issues makes intuitive sense to voters, especially those with strong beliefs about U.S. obligations to Israel, because it couches Paul’s longstanding policy preferences for a slender foreign policy in overtly hawkish terms. “Cut aid, hurt terrorists, and protect America and its allies,” Paul is effectively arguing.
...
read more:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/selling-slender-foreign-policy-10838