I support anti-war candidates. (Know any?) |
He's a Republican at heart.
Underneath -- or perhaps on top of -- all that "freedom" and "liberty" stuff, he's really just a privileged white male.
And anyway: Libertarians? There's no political "there" there . . . .
And yet.
Given that the Democratic alternative in 2016 is a war hawk ("One Little Word That Will Sink the Hillary Clinton Presidential Run ('Obliterate')") maybe what we should be doing is thinking about opening up some political space.
I therefore propose that we put the real question into the political discourse: just how systematic does an antiwar candidate need to be?
THESIS: A big move toward US demilitarization counts more than the next 9 things.
![]() |
U.S. military bases throughout the world (Source: elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com) |
And the first step among first steps is consistently saying NO! to the temptation to intervene.
So: you can have a list as long as your arm of all of Rand Paul's misstatements, errors, inanities, immaturities . . . . it's all irrelevant. Getting the one big thing done is what matters.
Part and parcel of this is evaluating how Paul maneuvers in the legislative context. He can be a moving target (to say the least). See: "What Rand Paul Thinks About Defense Spending" by Nick Gillespie in Newsweek, April 7, 2015.
ANTITHESIS: It's not enough to be isolationist; we need a leader who will build the Peace System.
"A Global Security System: An Alternative to War" helps make clear that the problem of war is systematic, and that it's not enough just to say "No!" to war -- it's necessary to dismantle the war system and build a peace system in its place.
Therefore, one must ask of Rand Paul or any other "antiwar" candidate, "Do you support measures such as . . . "
* "Create a Nonviolent, Civilian-Based Defense Force"
* "Strengthen International Institutions"
* "Create a Stable, Fair and Sustainable Global Economy as a Foundation for Peace"
* "Create an Environmentally Sustainable Global Marshall Plan"
(and more . . . )* "Strengthen International Institutions"
* "Create a Stable, Fair and Sustainable Global Economy as a Foundation for Peace"
* "Create an Environmentally Sustainable Global Marshall Plan"
Let the debate begin!
Related posts
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/301ed/301edc90fa0c78c7ff7cc3aa571f4a84e2ecc3fd" alt=""
(See News Worth Spreading: "There IS An Alternative to War!" )
Yesterday, as all the other senators sat patiently through the obfuscation of Barack Obama's Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey -- Rand Paul gave 'em hell.
"Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution and if we vote you down — which is unlikely, by the way — you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with a war that your Congress votes against."
(See Obama's Syria "Vote" in Congress: Democracy? or Theater? )
Hillary Clinton signaled the beginning of her 2016 presidential campaign with a spread in People magazine in June . . . not to mention the publication of a memoir, Hard Choices. It's a campaign full of "get tough" posturing.
(See One Little Word That Will Sink the Hillary Clinton Presidential Run ("Obliterate") )
There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.
(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )
No comments:
Post a Comment