At last night’s Republican primary debate, Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio made headlines with a vehement debate over military spending and fiscal conservatism:
RUBIO: I know Rand is a committed isolationist, I am not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.
PAUL: Marco! Marco! How is it conservative to add a $1 trillion expenditure to the federal government —
RUBIO: Because —
PAUL: How is it conservative to add $1 trillion in military expenditures? You cannot be a conservative if you keep promoting new programs that you’re not going to pay for.
At the end of the exchange, Paul added the kicker: “This is the most important thing we’re going to talk about tonight: Can you be a conservative and be liberal on military spending?”
The kerfuffle has been framed as a crack in conservative Republican unity, because both Paul and Rubio were elected under the tea party banner:
[Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio] were the Tea Party’s three success stories in the Senate, the great right hope in the age of Obama. And Tuesday night, they were all at each other’s throats. […]
Paul characterized Rubio’s tax plan as a “trillion-dollar expenditure” that he would push through while also advocating for increased military spending. Rubio defended his plan, Paul brought up the military again, and Rubio accused Paul of being a “committed isolationist.”
It went on like that for another few minutes, with each senator accusing the other of not being a real conservative.
For careful observers, though, the policy divisions that were on display Tuesday should be no surprise.
Rubio’s military spending proposals have long been totally out of touch with reality, both in terms of how much we already spend on the military and the gross disarray of our fiscal house.
By contrast, Paul, though his foreign policy is not strictly non-interventionist, has always taken a more measured approach—one that clearly puts military spending cuts on the table.
Jim Tankersly at the Washington Post is right to characterize this contrast as the “biggest rift in the Republican Party.” It’s also a debate that could well determine whether the GOP will continue to exist as a national party after 2016—and Rubio is not on the right side of long-term existence, let alone victory.
Fox Business/YouTube screenshot
