Rand Paul: Too radical for America
- By Mitchell Blatt
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, January 23, 2015
Straddling the Grand Canyon
Rand Paul's usual strategy is to pretend he's not taking a position and lie about his previous support for something. Case in point his appearance on CNN in March 2013. After denying he was in a rush to change the law -- even after he proposed changing the law -- he said that there are potentially "thousands of exceptions" to a ban on abortions. His proposed bill would ban all abortions by defining fertilized eggs as people with human rights. His position of being open to exceptions changed the next day when his spokesman told LifeSite, an anti-abortion website, that Paul was 100 percent "pro-life."
He also said in August 2014 -- in another attempt to deflect pressure -- "I don't know any Republican politician who does [want to ban contraceptives]." Again, he should look in the mirror. His proposed bill that would define eggs as people would probably have the effect of banning plan B due to its effect on eggs. Paul's spokesman, while doing damage control for the anti-abortion, also suggested that Paul would try to ban the "abortion pill" Mifepristone (RU-486), a drug that can end a pregnancy within seven or nine weeks.
Isolationism
The area where Paul most strongly clashes with conservative viewpoints is on foreign affairs. Like his father, he often expresses the view that America shouldn't be so involved in war or diplomatic efforts in foreign lands. Not just the Iraq War, he also opposes the use of drones, foreign aid, and U.S. troops being stationed in peaceful countries in Europe and Asia. Many conservatives support a strong military and activist foreign policy to advance American interests. Some think the military has been stretched thin, and, while Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out worse than originally expected, troops in Germany or South Korea, countries where Paul wants to withdraw troops, are not at risk.
Paul tries to square his position on foreign policy by adopting right-wing patriotic rhetoric through which to frame his anti-war positions.
Cutting all foreign aid
Similarly when it comes to foreign aid, Paul takes the position of appearing to only care about Americans. "I think a country that's $18 trillion in debt should not be borrowing money from China to send it to anyone," he said in October 2014, taking a xenophobic shot at China as well. Of course, Paul ignores the argument that foreign aid may actually help America. After all, it helps put foreign governments in debt to America, strengthening partnerships, pleasing allies, and helping advance U.S. interests abroad. Similarly, killing American terrorists through drone strikes might help protect American lives.
Now he says he wants to eliminate foreign aid to almost every country except Israel. America is often accused by critics of giving undue sway to Israel, and Paul's proposal would make that allegation an undeniable reality. Already Israel is the second leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid (behind Afghanistan). Israel receives 7 times as much foreign aid from the United States as does the West Bank and Gaza.
No matter what position an American voter takes, however, Rand Paul disagrees with them, with his simultaneously support for both giving all U.S. foreign aid to Israel and giving none to any country. "It's an eventual goal, is to eliminate all aid," he said in October 2014.
So he supports ending foreign aid, but he doesn't think he can get it done politically.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)