Full text of the speech here:
Everyone is fond of saying that Rand Paul is not his father, and I’m frankly surprised that so many people expected he would be.
But here in the above speech is a good display of the differences of policy and policy objective, clearly Rand seems to be attempting to walk a very fine line, namely I can sum it up as this:
Economic conservatism plus global intervention, with hints of the Cold war.
And it almost comes across as duplicitous in the same sentence; for example:
“I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. The problem with the foreign policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations is that they never give a second thought to how America can afford what they implement.
America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.” – Sen Rand Paul http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/
Here Rand broadly advocates an old cold war tactic of “containment” or outright aggression and then in the next paragraph claims that the policy is bad as “America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman” i guess its almost like he was hoping that people didn’t notice that he advocated the former?
In fact there is a definite “Cold War” theme to the document and speech; where we might be envisioning Ronald Regan looking down the aggressive President Putin…
instead of remembering that a government (the corrupt Ukrainian government) was overthrown on the doorstep of some of the most strategic areas of the Russian Federation that exist, and that the new (and some would say pretty questionable or more corrupt) Government has arranged to go “full retard” with the IMF, which, of course was conveniently used as the primary tool of leverage against Russia in the “Kosovo” debacle of the 90’s.
So whoever your strategic policy advisor is Rand, perhaps ask him about that?
Perhaps ask him how that would be viewed from a Russian perspective, hey, maybe this is all a big misunderstanding ?
When seen in these factual historical terms Rands speech seems disappointingly outdated;
“The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.
But let me be clear: If I were President, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it” – Rand Paul
My misunderstand here is why each President should be fearful or threatened by each other?
I have to ask honestly, is that the world that all us want to live in?
it all seems very childish.
And then there is this:
“Like Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding Russia, I also believe, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.”” – Rand Paul.
What can anyone say?
I mean I’m trying as hard as I can to keep this document away from comedy Rand but… In what sort of abstract world (or fork of reality) do we exist where the US has had a “reluctance for war”?
And I guess that gets back to the core point, and its just a simple lack of credibility, as I said in my previous document unfortunately we the “people of the West” (not the Banks that occupy us) are the victims, we can rightly be called “the Soviets” in this scenario.
We don’t really know why we are starting these fights?
We don’t know why we are all in debt and the recession never ended?
We don’t know what happened to our productive capacity?
We don’t know why we don’t have Jobs or meaningful work?
And we don’t know why we have to support another “action” in a far away place with a superpower that we don’t have any natural aversion to.
Rand where I believe you may struggle in the future is in that key credibility area, where Ron your father certainly had more flexibility to express his opinion without having to take into account all the pressures and corruption that comes with a shot at Presidency.
Where the future risk lay however is that you are investing in the shortest fork of reality, you are investing in the “Cold War” theme, which does not seem credible or viable.
I can specifically explain the problem for you as it relates to why your Father Ron is so popular.
here is the explanation
Ron was saying the same thing all along something that he saw as the closest thing to the “truth” and he was doing this when the “cold war” theme was the most predominant fork of reality, his supporters would have at that time been ridiculed as “outsiders” or “tin foil hatters” , as they were investing in what was at that time a fork of reality that was not the most predominant.
But due to the decentralization of information this fork of reality slowly became and now is the most predominate, which of course lead to the rise of the popularity of your father, whom never changed his stance.
So unfortunately your investment in this “theme” of reality has put you in this credibility gap.
what to do?
I’m sorry i have no answers, centralized information is shrinking fast, the best you can hope for is that by the time of your attempt at Presidency there is still remnants of the ability to pull the same old rabbits out of the same old hats.
a decentralized stance would sound something like this:
The Ukraine was a basket case of neglect and the Russian federation is mostly responsible for those aspects, so for example if the Russian Federation had such a strategic investment in the area why did they let the situation go on with such neglect, so its a little bit duplicitous to say now that you are prepared for these actions where as before you were happy to let the Ukrainian people live under the corruption and fester in that state?
however to a degree something like this will more than likely have a net positive outcome for all involved as development policies will likely move ahead.
My general prediction is that Russia will build up the areas that it immediately controls, then when, in the future they have enough domestic political capital , they will both (the East and West) say sorry for far past misgivings, and move forward.
There are specific reason why that can not happen now as the largest demographic of the Russian Federation is of the “Soviet Baby Boomer” and on the Ukrainian Western side likely their is a large angry aspect to the demographic that was occupied in Soviet times.
So neither would accept that stance presently, which is why we are seeing the childish rhetoric right now.
But under that is certainly a development proposal and this event can finally move that policy forward hopefully for all the people of the Ukraine, both East and West.