It’s Marco Rubio v Rand Paul with the fate of the world at stake!

Rand and Rubio –


Where Rubio talks sweepingly about America’s mission in the world, Paul expresses skepticism about nation-building and democracy promotion. Where Rubio invokes World War II and the cold war, Paul invokes the founding fathers’ fears about executive power and overseas entanglements. Where Rubio borrows Ronald Reagan’s expansive rhetoric, Paul praises Reagan’s caution in committing American troops to foreign wars.

They do share some common ground. Both emphasize peace through strength. Both are skeptical of international institutions. And Paul has been at pains to express support for operations like the one that killed Osama bin Laden.

But the right’s two rising stars would ultimately take the Republican Party in very different directions. This has been apparent in the debate over the Libyan quasi war. Both senators have criticized President Obama’s handling of the intervention. But Rubio has argued that we should be striking harder against Qaddafi, while Paul has dismissed the war as both unwise and unconstitutional.

Among conservatism’s foreign policy elite, Rubio’s worldview commands more support. But in the grass roots, it’s a different story. A recent Pew poll found that the share of conservative Republicans agreeing that the U.S. should “pay less attention to problems overseas” has risen from 36 percent in 2004 to 55 percent today. In the debate over Libya, Tea Party icons like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have sounded more like Paul than Rubio, and a large group of House Republican backbenchers recently voted for a resolution that would have brought the intervention screeching to a halt.

This doesn’t mean that Paul’s vision is destined to win out. The country is weary of war, but the story Rubio tells, with eloquence and passion, is still tremendously appealing — the story of a great republic armed and righteous, with no limits on what it can accomplish in the world.

This is a story that many conservatives — and many Americans — want to believe. Once, I believed it myself.

But that was many years and many wars ago, and now I think Rand Paul is right.


7 comments on “It’s Marco Rubio v Rand Paul with the fate of the world at stake!

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Occam’s razor, would dictate that many see the administration not so interested in prosecuting said wars on many fronts, so why waste our
    men and materiel,

  2. @ miguel cervantes:

    the few inside the Pentagram and other parts of the administration is that the war will leak out onto many fronts and has to be followed where it leads.

    we’re had hoped, maybe still do, to push more of the snakes out of FATA and to track them back to their home nests. we had Petraeus set up small shops in Yemen and the Horn to be ready.

  3. Libya, would seem a detour, on that path, like the old line goes; ‘one of these things are not like the other’

  4. miguel cervantes:
    Policy isn’t Sesame Street.

    Libya was and is pure Obama, a classically progressive splitting of the difference between the described Paul/Rubio foreign policy antinomies – an experimental step forward in international burden-sharing with greatly reduced U.S. commitment, profile, political/human/material risks, roughly commensurate to lower but still real U.S. and international/human interests.

  5. @ miguel cervantes: it might seem a detour, but it’s not all that great of one. we’re not leading the effort in Libya, merely piggybacking and reaffirming that we’re interested in acting along with partners (a slight detour from the last administration, I’ll grant) against a regime known to be both murderous and the foremost sponsor and supplier for terrorists on the African continent.

  6. Except for Britain, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Australia, Honduras,
    (not France and Germany, but not for any humanitarian reasons) try
    another template, Herr Grosch.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *