Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy: Email Exchange
May 16, 2014
Here is an email exchange on Rand Paul and foreign policy. Enjoy.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Peter Schultz wrote:
On May 16, 2014, at 2:23 AM, M B wrote:
"Paul has met with donors including the staunchly pro-Israel mega-donor Paul Singer; Wall Street types like Emil Henry, a former George W. Bush Treasury official, and last month a gathering of former Romney backers; he has spoken with people with Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization strongly opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, in part out of concern for what that would mean for Israel. Paul has appeared at pro-defense bastions such as The Citadel in South Carolina; one professor there, Mallory Factor, has publicly gone to bat for Paul. And he has brought on Lorne Craner, a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain, to serve as one of his foreign policy advisers. He has also gone to Israel since entering the Senate and impressed some observers at the time with his enthusiasm" (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5F84CA93-88F6-4311-9AB4-3C6FB45F8285).
“OK. There is nothing here, I suspect, that distinguishes Paul from others, except some rather vague assertions that are meant to placate, not the imperialists as the article contends, but rather those labelled "isolationists." As long as Paul is coming on like a "balancer," seeking to balance "involvement" with some "disengagement," "involvement" will prevail. That is what "balancing" is meant to do: It is, in actuality, a disguise for involvement, making it look like the person is actually calculating whether to be involved or not.
“Look at it this way: In constitutional law circles, there is a concept labelled "balancing," viz., balancing individual rights, say the freedom of expression, against the good of society. Well, guess what happens? Yeah, the "balance" almost always tips in favor of the good of society, the exceptions being when the "threat" posed by the assertion of individual rights is minimal. So "balancing" a way of limiting or restricting rights while pretending to be concerned with their protection.
“I suspect Paul's foreign policy "evolution," as one person described him, is of the same character. I also suspect that the powers that be know this and express their "concerns" about Paul to make us think that there is a real debate about foreign policy going on when, in fact, there is not. And insofar as Paul "evolves" into a "realist," then "realism" and its credentials are strengthened. "See, folks, there is no sensible alternative to 'realism,' as the evolution of Rand Paul illustrates!" And the status quo is not only preserved but fortified, even while the political class pretends to be debating alternatives. These guys in the political class are shrewd. Of course, they are nothing but shrewd but we Americans are convinced that that is enough, aren't we?”
"When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?" [Song: "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"]
Post a Comment