The first Republican presidential primary debate is scheduled to appear on Fox News this Thursday evening, and Sen. Rand Paul says viewers should watch for clear differences to emerge between himself and his GOP competitors.
The Washington Post reports:
The first Republican debate of the 2016 presidential campaign, said Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, will be between him and people who “want to blow up the world.” The showdown Thursday night will pit him against opponents who will “send half a million of your sons and daughters back” to Iraq. He vowed that he will ask his Republican presidential rivals, face to face, whether they “want to always intervene in every civil war around the world.”
“I want to be known as the candidate who’s not eager for war, who thinks war’s the last resort,” Paul said on a weekend swing through Iowa. “When we fight, we fight to win, but much of our involvement has led to consequences that made us less safe. You’ll see that come into sharp distinction.”
Frankly, I hope Paul is right: Nothing would delight me more than to hear a clear voice for a responsible foreign policy of diplomacy, fiscal conservatism, peace, and minding our own business on the Republican debate stage. There is no doubt that the neoconservative end of the foreign policy spectrum will already be well-represented as most of the contenders boringly attempt to out-hawk one another left and right.
But as much as I would like to see an explicitly non-interventionist Paul at the GOP debate, I have to admit my hope is cautious at best.
Back in April, I explained at The Week that though I hardly expect libertarian purity from Paul, his “libertarian-ish” balancing act on foreign policy has been increasingly tilting too far toward support for war to get my vote. At the time, this was most evident in Paul’s signature of the Tom Cotton letter to Iran and the Kentucky senator’s introduction of a bill which—though certainly more fiscally responsible than proposals from his fellow candidates in the Senate—sought to raise the already bloated and chronically wasteful Pentagon budget.
Since then, as Jonathan Bydlak wrote at Politico on Friday, Paul has taken hawkish turns on multiple occasions:
After months of skepticism of U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq, Rand Paul called for airstrikes—authorized by Congress. He later sought to “declare war” on ISIL and put boots on the ground. He’s done a complete 180 on the threat from Iran, signing the Tom Cotton letter opposing the recent nuclear deal. And while being one of the more nuanced voices opposing the deal, he’s still relied on the sort of fear mongering and misleading rhetoric his father rejected.
Bydlak ended his article by suggesting that Paul could reassure his more libertarian supporters and get his campaign back in the spotlight with a distinctively pro-peace debate performance, much as his father did in 2008 while debating uber-hawk Rudy Giuliani. Now, Paul seems to have promised exactly that.
After some of these recent foreign policy missteps, that would be a welcome fulfilled promise indeed.
Gage Skidmore
