Explanation of Rand Paul's Vote For Iran Sanctions

[kylejack]

How do you know we wouldn't have been attacked anyway? Especially since even without our imposing sanctions, Japan would have seen us as a threat in the South Pacific.

With no oil, they had no choice but to either withdraw from China or invade the Dutch East Indies for oil. They chose the latter, and decided they had to take us out of the equation. I don't think they wanted war with us while they were busy in China, but they felt they had to in order to get some oil.

[MaxPower]

I want an answer for this:
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/216

This vote has languished in my mind for some time now. US sanctions on Japan were an act of war that provoked Japan to attack, dragging us into WWII. And now sanctions on Iran threaten to drag us all into WWIII. Why would Paul want to be responsible for that?

I have decided to demand an answer from the Paul campaign on this issue. I created a website in Rand Paul's favor, and have shifted my position to neutral over that vote. Should Paul continue a track of voting for unprovoked aggression that could easily result in millions of deaths, I may have to actively campaign against him in retaliation during 2016.

If he just wanted to save face from a no vote that would have no support, he could have simply abstained. If he wanted to pander, then he was lying when he said he wouldn't count on being re-elected for a second term. If you have no intention of being re-elected you don't pander, period.

There is also the possibility the Rand Paul's thinking is not as advanced as his fathers. Its actually the most likely explanation. But, if that is the case, he needs to learn more about the non-aggression principle and is not ready to be president. I suspect Rand Paul does not understand that sanctions are an immoral and counterproductive act of aggression.

Rand is an extremely intelligent man, is the son of Ron Paul, and seems awfully well-versed in libertarian literature; it is hard for me to conceive of him simply being ignorant regarding the nature of the "sanctions" issue. I think there are two or three essential options, here:
1. He genuinely believes the sanctions are a good thing, because Iran is a "rogue state" out to develop and unleash nuclear weapons and all that jazz.
2. He's going along with the sanctions for purposes of retaining political capital; he realizes he wouldn't have a chance at defeating them (remember, they passed the Senate unanimously) and doesn't want to marginalize himself more than he thinks is necessary.
3. A less self-serving variant on option 2: he's deliberately taking a middle-ground stance, whereby he won't appear to be such an insufferable dove and "isolationist" as his father does (ironic, of course, since sanctions themselves are genuinely isolationist), and can oppose an actual attack on Iran with more perceived credibility than someone who openly talks about what a farce the entire "Iranian threat" narrative is. He may also rationalize that the sanctions specifically target the Iranian central bank (an entity which, of course, should not exist).

Now, if we look to what Rand was saying about this issue during the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, before he became a politician, this is what we see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1dBF3b_Udk
Note that he rightly says that Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, and would not even if they obtained a nuclear weapon.

Here, we have him a few weeks ago talking about Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFAKeuhixY
Note that he now says they are a threat, but that we should "contain" them rather than bombing.

This is what I think, then:
-Rand is fully aware that Iran does not pose any legitimate threat such as has been spun up by the government and mass media (see video #1).
-Rand is aware of the fundamental problems with the practice of imposing sanctions on foreign countries.
-Rand is also aware that the sanctions have such overwhelming political support that he would have no chance of defeating them.
-He could, of course, still take a principled stand against them, but he sees it as "spitting into the wind" in this instance.
-Instead, he is adopting what many will see as a "moderate" stance by going along with the sanctions and projecting the sense that he is "on their side" to some extent, which does confer on him the advantage of being able to speak (in milder terms than his father would) against actual bombings and war against Iran without provoking so much of the knee-jerk "anti-Semitic America-hating terrorist-lover!!!" response.

Now, I do not support Rand's vote for the sanctions, but I will admit that there is a certain element of pragmatic effectiveness to what he's doing. Rand doesn't pick fights the way his father does; when Ron Paul vehemently denounces American jingoism, openly talks about the asinine character of the "Iranian-threat" narrative, etc., people who've bought into this claptrap are immediately and forcefully polarized against him- as I say, their visceral reaction is that he's an anti-Semitic, America-hating terrorist-lover. When Rand Paul, on the other hand, takes a gentle tone, doesn't launch a frontal assault on his listeners' fundamental worldview, allows that Iran is a threat which should be "contained," and then calmly cautions against overly rash action, and reminds people about the constitutional warmaking standard, he may succeed in reaching folks who his father could not. Note that the Sean Hannitys of the world do not abhor Rand Paul the way they do his father, even though Rand is also anti-war and pro-civil-liberties, because Rand, while clearly anti-war and pro-civil-liberties, is not unfettered and confrontational like his dad is; listening to Ron Paul talk about Iran will just make them angry, but listening to Rand Paul talk about Iran might actually get some of these people to reconsider their positions. If Rand had actually parted from the entire Senate, Democrat and Republican alike, to oppose this extremely popular bill, it would have been seen as a whacky fringe-nut position, been futile in terms of actually stopping the bill, and marked a major departure from the narrative of "Rand-Paul-as-a-reasonable-person" which is currently accepted by so many people who find his father repellant, rendering him an ineffectual combatant in battles he might have a chance at winning, such as stopping an actual invasion of Iran from materializing.

Regarding your decision to "demand an answer from the Paul campaign on this issue," I don't really see how you can expect an answer from the (Ron) Paul campaign about a vote cast by Rand; they don't speak for him. You should go to Rand himself or his congressional office.

[kylejack]

I understand the political benefits, but I don't understand why he couldn't have just abstained. He gets the same political advantage without supporting sanctions. Just skip work that day and go get a bite to eat at Ben's Chili Bowl.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/216

Ayes: 100 (Democrat: 51; Republican: 47; Other: 2)
Nays: 0 (Democrat: 0; Republican: 0)

If 100% of the U.S. Senate falls under your own personal definition of "aggressive war mongers", then give up: you've lost already.

[Galileo Galilei]

at some point one of your principles needs to be representing your constituents. Rand figured this out.

[bluesc]

at some point one of your principles needs to be representing your constituents. Rand figured this out.

Cool. Why doesn't he want to tax the rich more then? Americans overwhelmingly support that. Why not government run healthcare?

A New York Times/CBS News poll in June 2009 found that Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind a government-run insurance plan. It stated that people think the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector. The poll found that 72% in support of a plan while 20% said they were opposed. Nearly 60% of respondents said that they would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance, and 40% were willing to pay as much as $500 more per year. 56% supported single payer, believing "the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans".

And 66% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich.

At what point does "representing your constituents" end?

[No Free Beer]

I don't necessarily support sanctions because they seem like bad strategy, though I am not solidly non-interventionist and neither is Rand.

History has shown both non-intervention and intervention has had bad results, so we must approach every situation uniquely, but leaning towards the side of caution. With that said, Ron easily has the best foreign policy.

I think non-interventionism is something to lay your head on first and foremost. But, I would essentially agree with you that every case is different from the other.

I have some disagreements with Ron on foreign policy. During his interview with Piers Morgan, Morgan asked him about Japan (trying to relate Pearl Harbor with Iran...wtf?) but Ron said something to the tune of..."If I saw the planes coming, I would defend this country." I disagree. If I have intelligence that the Japanese are moving boats towards us with planes and they are planning to attack us, I warn them once, and if they did not back off, I bomb the shit out of those ships. I would not wait until planes were literally on their way over here. To me, that is considered an "imminent attack", therefore I would use force.

To be fair to Ron, he may have meant what I just said, excluding "bomb the shit out of..."

[No Free Beer]

Cool. Why doesn't he want to tax the rich more then? Americans overwhelmingly support that. Why not government run healthcare?



And 66% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich.

At what point does "representing your constituents" end?

I don't think they necessarily support the idea of taxing the rich, I think it is more of "yes, my government is saying it, therefore it must be true..." type of nonsense. I think when you actually have a reasonable convo with someone, they will side with us on this...

[No Free Beer]

I personally like Rand is a politician.

But, I love Ron as an idea and as a voice.

As a man: Ron > Rand.

As a politician/President: Rand > Ron. (didn't want to phrase it as Ron less than Rand)

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't think they necessarily support the idea of taxing the rich, I think it is more of "yes, my government is saying it, therefore it must be true..." type of nonsense. I think when you actually have a reasonable convo with someone, they will side with us on this...

No, people really do support the idea of taxing the rich and "free" healthcare as an idea.