The Obligatory Rand Paul Post
Posted on May 26, 2010 at 1.20 am
Q. So, if Rand Paul said, “I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation” …
…and Ron Paul said, “Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide?”
Is Rand Paul threatening Iran with genocide? — Steven, from Warrenton, VA.
A. As much as I’d like to give a neat, yes or no answer, I’m not sure that at this point in time, I can. Let me explain why and then return to the emphasis on timing.
On the face of it, yes, Rand Paul’s statement is a threat of genocide to Iran — a threat which in the present state of US-Iran relations is totally unjustified and wrong. Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons at this time, the Iranian people are uninterested in developing nuclear weapons, and the Iranian government seems to want to accept a deal which will get Iran nuclear power but not weapons (It’s also worth noting that, given the United States’ over-the-top military spending, we could ably defend ourselves even if — and this is a big if — Iran 1. did get nukes; 2. did try to use them; and 3. tried to use them against us. The latter two in particular are highly unlikely). Without question, such a threat should be condemned.
However, I don’t wish to be too quick to dismiss Rand for two main reasons:
1. “[A]fter months of a grueling primary, it is not yet clear where the younger Paul’s savvy campaigning ends and his true ideological impulses begin, particularly on national security and foreign policy.” I’ve heard similar reports from people who have spent time with the Paul campaign in Kentucky — people whose noninterventionist credentials I trust.
Is it wrong to lie about one’s support for war to get into a position where one might be able to stop war? I’m not sure, and don’t wish to drift into utilitarianism.To break out Godwin’s Law, if the question were “Is it wrong to lie about being a Nazi to get into a position to kill Hitler?” the answer surely seems to be “no.” But it’s a moral gray area at best, especially if one considers that getting into the same room as Hitler gives one a much better chance of killing him than getting into the Senate gives one a chance of stopping war.
2. It’s also possible to argue that Rand’s threats to Iran are canceled out by other statements he has repeatedly made.
First, he clearly requires a constitutional declaration of war before beginning any conflict. Second, he’s stated that lowering taxes is no good if you’re not also lowering spending and that we must no longer let the government spend what it does not have. And finally, as Antiwar.com notes, he’s echoed his father on the subject of severely reducing our overseas involvement, cutting down the military-industrial complex, and ending the War in Iraq.
In practice, when you add all that up, actually supporting war with Iran is impossible: There wouldn’t be a declaration of war, there’s no way we could afford it (Iran is much larger, wealthier, and thus more expensive to attack than Iraq), and this war would run directly contra Rand’s apparent desire to generally return the military to its constitutional and just purpose of defense. So if he stands by all these other statements, then Rand’s threat to Iran appears to be mere political pandering to win an election, not a real threat at all. And if he doesn’t…well, then there are clearly much bigger problems than his stance on this single issue of Iran.
In short, looking at his record of statements as a whole, he’s either misrepresenting his views about Iran, misrepresenting his views about almost everything else, completely without principle, or extremely confused. The latter three just seem unlikely.
For those two reasons, I’m not sure that Rand Paul’s threat to Iran should be taken seriously — yet. However, if he continues in this hawkish vein, particularly with his votes, then there should be no hesitation in calling such views what they are: threats of aggressive war and murder of civilians. The fact that he is Ron Paul’s son shouldn’t make a difference.
That said, even in that worst case scenario, Rand Paul will still be preferable to many members of the Senate on domestic and economic issues and could remain a valuable ally in the fight against the Fed. Just as he shouldn’t receive special favor as Ron Paul’s son, he also shouldn’t receive special disdain should his foreign policy turn out to be truly objectionable: If we’re willing to work with Jim DeMint and Bernie Sanders — both obviously not libertarians — then consistency would require willingness to work with Rand Paul…even hawkish Rand Paul.
But hopefully it won’t come to that. I won’t donate any more to his campaign for now, but I haven’t written him off just yet — and admittedly wish I won’t have to.
Hat tip to Matt Cockerill for the Hitler argument.
Thanks for your reply. I have a few follow-up questions.
1) If Rand is suppressing his “true ideological impulses” because of political pressure, do you think he would be free from political pressure if elected?
2) If Rand lacks the courage to defend his true ideological impulses now, do you think it’s likely he’ll find it in Washington, DC?
3) Do you think Ron Paul is valuable and worth supporting for his votes, or for his courageous and unwavering defense of liberty? (In other words, should we put our faith in politics or in the power of the truth?)
4) Can you imagine Ron Paul ever saying something like that?
1) Maybe? I don’t think we can know until it happens. It certainly seems less likely given the circumstances, but who knows. At that point he’d at least have incumbents’ advantage on his side.
2) No. But that leads to the question of if he’s lying or caving. (Neither is desirable, of course.)
3) Both. Truth is clearly of unparalleled importance, but it’s much preferable to have someone actually doing something about it. I don’t think that the pragmatic/philosophical split is necessary in politics. What’s true is also what works best and what should receive votes, and those votes are valuable because of their basis in truth.
4) No…but he also probably couldn’t be elected to the Senate. (Not that this reflects poorly on him…)