America's Most Important Anti-War Politician Is a Senate Republican

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#1
America's Most Important Anti-War Politician Is a Senate Republican

Rand Paul's stand in the Senate shows why non-interventionists should focus more on that body and less on the presidency.



Earlier this week, as the Senate considered a bill to impose even tougher sanctions on Iran than the ones already in place, Senator Rand Paul blocked its bipartisan passage pending the addition of an amendment. "My amendment is one sentence long. It states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of force in Iran or Syria," he said. "I urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade."

Paul's objection was something of a non sequitur. As Majority Leader Harry Reid subsequently stated, "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war," and although sanctions are themselves arguably an act of war, we've long since crossed that line. I am nevertheless glad that the gentleman from Kentucky seized this opportunity to remind his colleagues and American citizens generally that the road to war ought to run through Congress, something that didn't happen the last time our president sent American combat troops to act on behalf of our foreign allies. (The bill remains blocked).

Said Paul in his floor speech:

Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power [to] declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king. Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don't just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate.

Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That the Executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the Legislature.
Those words and Paul's actions are mutually reinforcing arguments for a proposition that anti-war Obama supporters should have accepted by now: The problem with relying on a president to advance the non-interventionist agenda is that he or she is unlikely to cede power, regardless of his or her campaign rhetoric or previous critiques of executive excesses; whereas a single senator, while much less powerful than the president, can do a lot for the anti-war cause. A bloc of five senators could do even more. In the past, anti-war voters and civil libertarians nevertheless put much of their focus -- their attention, rhetoric, and resources -- on the presidency.

I certainly have.

But watching Paul as a lonely voice against a war with Iran ... and the extension of the Patriot Act ... and the National Defense Authorization Act ... and the War in Libya ... well, the man could use more allies. The last time civil libertarians and anti-war voters advanced their agendas, it was because Congress, empowered by Vietnam and the scandals of Richard Nixon, pushed back against the institutional power that the executive branch had accrued. There is good reason to consider a candidate's positions on war and civil liberties during presidential elections, but it isn't nearly sufficient, or even the most important factor in the long term trajectory of those issues. As Paul and former Senator Russ Feingold demonstrate, it is possible for both Republicans and Democrats to elect individuals who will champion civil liberties and oppose wars. If the post-9/11 national security state is to be reined in or rolled back that must happen more often. Obama has destroyed the illusion that anyone will do the job from the White House.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...war-politician-is-a-senate-republican/255253/



I remember back when I was a kid, I thought Democrats were anti-war. lol
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#3
Why would this surprise anyone?
It maybe would surprise anyone operating under the false assumption that Democrats generally oppose war, as I used to.

It definitely bothers a lot of progressives because they can't reconcile their rhetoric with their actions and establishment & rank and file Republicans because they know their party has diminishing influence.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#4
I disagree with the characterization of anti-war. He's isolationist and anti-public collective funding. If these were private armies owned by Walmart and ADM killing the non-white non-christian peoples of the world who stood in the way of monopoly - he'd be cool with it.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#5
I disagree with the characterization of anti-war. He's isolationist and anti-public collective funding. If these were private armies owned by Walmart and ADM killing the non-white non-christian peoples of the world who stood in the way of monopoly - he'd be cool with it.
Yeah, I don't know man. There's pretty much no evidence to support your assumptions, that I am aware of.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#6
Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth supports that. If you're going to be a Paulsy that's fine, but be down with them for what they are not that fake shit.

The Pauls aren't anti-war. They're anti-public funding of anything. If these wars were conducted by Blackwater/Academi/Xe Services they'd be ok.

Private corporate armies = cool

Public nation/state armies = not cool

Don't try to make them out to be something they aren't. And don't fall for the smoke screen that they are something they aren't.
 
Apr 30, 2008
3,505
176
63
40
hatemachine.us
#8
I like Rand. He will have a bright future in the Republican party as long as his dad doesn't fuck everything up for him by not telling his acolytes to do the right thing for the party and country and vote for Mitt.
 
Apr 30, 2008
3,505
176
63
40
hatemachine.us
#10
His followers like him so much that many will write in Paul if they can no matter what. It's gonna take him actually coming out and endorsing whoever wins the primary and begging his bots to vote Republican or we are gonna have another 4 years of Obomba and his bullshit European style of socialism.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#11
His followers like him so much that many will write in Paul if they can no matter what. It's gonna take him actually coming out and endorsing whoever wins the primary and begging his bots to vote Republican or we are gonna have another 4 years of Obomba and his bullshit European style of socialism.
It's not gonna happen. He might abstain, but he will not endorse. If he really feels ballsy, a third party run, but that will hurt Rand and probably even the message if it fails.