ron paul

After Ron Paul, Then What?

by BRIAN DOHERTY, The New York Times  |  published on February 12, 2013

Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, has retired from the House, after winning more than two million presidential primary votes in 2012. He took the party’s libertarian wing from ignorable fringe to significant faction. His son, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, is angling to lead that faction, very possibly as a presidential candidate himself.

The libertarian wing’s dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney led the Libertarian Party to earn 1.2 million votes in the presidential election for its candidate, the former New Mexico governor (and former Republican) Gary Johnson. That was its largest vote total ever. In at least seven national House and Senate races a Libertarian beat the spread between a winning Democrat and a losing Republican. From the Republican point of view, losing the libertarians can mean losing elections.

“There’s a whole swath of people not getting adequate attention from Republicans or Democrats,” Senator Paul told me recently. These are independent voters who want to seriously cut government spending the way the Tea Party faction does but who also want a “foreign policy more of defense and less offense,” as Senator Paul put it, and a “more socially tolerant attitude.”

Senator Paul, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tried this week, in a talk at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, to become the voice of a new vision of Republican foreign policy. Rejecting the neoconservatism that has dominated Republican foreign policy thinking since at least 2001, Senator Paul summoned the spirit of George F. Kennan, the author of America’s cold war policy of containment, to suggest that the United States can manage Islamic terror, and even possibly a nuclear Iran, without necessarily waging open war.

Senator Paul said that he agreed with those who say that “Western occupation fans the flames of radical Islam.” That opinion turned many Republicans against his father. Senator Paul’s speech pushed a less interventionist foreign policy in terms designed to appeal to Republicans. The Constitution, after all, dictates that Congress, and not the president alone, should decide when we go to war. With the debt crisis, the United States simply can’t afford all its current and possible future military interventions. Fiscal conservatism, by this line of thinking, means peace.

Just as his father made “Audit the Fed” a popular cause, Senator Paul told me in January, “I think I can do the same with ‘Audit the Pentagon’ ” and fold defense cuts into his party’s conception of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul’s son is not his only legacy in Washington. A small group of freshman or second-term representatives he endorsed are admired and scrutinized by his supporters. The most prominent House “Paulite” is the second-termer Justin Amash, of Michigan. There is a new breed of Republicans who “are much more libertarian in their views and have the debt as their primary concern and will fight to protect civil liberties,” Mr. Amash told me last month. “It’s only a matter of time before these individuals work their way up in ranks and become leaders.”

No comments yet - you can be the first!

Comments are closed.

Do you Love your country but hate your government?

Join your fellow Libertarians who seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. Join over 500,000 Americans who get their daily dose of minimal government and maximum freedom with The New Liberty Movement.

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.