Erentheca
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 70
The pundits coming out on Rand Paul's side, like Buchanan, are handling this post-filibuster hype exactly as they should, with an emphasis on "this is the new energetic and young leadership emerging from the Republican party". As unfortunate as it may be, public opinion is not at all shaped by principle, it's shaped by "faith in leadership". This explains the commercial success of the Obama Administration. Obama's Administration has proven that strong and energetic rhetoric are what shapes elections, regardless of actual policy, which is usually ignored. What Rand Paul has managed to achieve is a shift in the perception of certain younger Republicans by Americans at large. As long as this perception is maintained and reinforced, the older neoconservative establishment (McCain, Graham) will appear continually more weak and irrelevant, as will anyone who sides with them (Kristol). Youth, vigor, and new (sounding) ideas sell. Standing for principals can sell too, but only as long as the vast majority of the population completely agrees with said principles and they require no explanation to understand them. A "stinger missile launched by a drone into a Starbucks" was a powerful image that every American could relate to. The vague elusive behavior from the White House was also clear and was clearly emphasized during and after the filibuster. This was crucial, because Americans needed to see Obama wobble on a matter of the Constitution, they needed to see him fail in leadership at a critical time (ie the sequestration), and they needed to see him concede to the opposing party.
Will this result in non-interventionism becoming the new paradigm in the GOP? That might be a long way off. Making John McCain look like an irrelevant old fossil is easy, convincing Americans to care about ending foreign wars, closing foreign bases, ending foreign aid, et cetera is much more difficult. Considering that Obama's presidency ended much of the anti-war movement, it's obvious at this point that the anti-war movement pre-2008 was more anti-Bush than it was anti-war. If a non-interventionist politician becomes President and actually enacts non-interventionist policy, using the bully-pulpit effectively to make the hawks look like fools... that might work, but only if said politician is elected to two terms and non-interventionism is cemented into national policy by its longevity. Nevertheless, a single 9/11 would throw that model completely to the wind. Politically, interventionism is easy, anti-interventionism is hard.
As I stated above, American opinions are not shaped by principle. If they were, Michael Scheuer's brilliant and scathing critique of interventionist foreign policy would have been more than sufficient to scuttle Bush-era militarism.
Will this result in non-interventionism becoming the new paradigm in the GOP? That might be a long way off. Making John McCain look like an irrelevant old fossil is easy, convincing Americans to care about ending foreign wars, closing foreign bases, ending foreign aid, et cetera is much more difficult. Considering that Obama's presidency ended much of the anti-war movement, it's obvious at this point that the anti-war movement pre-2008 was more anti-Bush than it was anti-war. If a non-interventionist politician becomes President and actually enacts non-interventionist policy, using the bully-pulpit effectively to make the hawks look like fools... that might work, but only if said politician is elected to two terms and non-interventionism is cemented into national policy by its longevity. Nevertheless, a single 9/11 would throw that model completely to the wind. Politically, interventionism is easy, anti-interventionism is hard.
As I stated above, American opinions are not shaped by principle. If they were, Michael Scheuer's brilliant and scathing critique of interventionist foreign policy would have been more than sufficient to scuttle Bush-era militarism.
