April 23, 2014 Leave a comment
(Posting this without proofing, which I will do later. H/t to @talkradio200 and @AG_Conservative for putting me onto the posts.)
Wherein Rand Paul helpfully provides confirmation bias vis. my “Rand Paul Is Dangerous” post of a mere four days ago:
Apparently those tantalizing poll numbers from New Hampshire have Paul the Younger feeling a bit sparky. All good, Drone Boy. Forget that it’s April, 2014, and that the 2016 general election is more than 2-1/2 years away. Show us your hand early. Meaning, remind us on regular basis that the crazy-ass shit you said in the day (that you’re trying to nuance away from) is what you still believe.
For some reason, Paul the Younger decided to vent in National Review, of all places, about the push-back he was receiving in response to his incoherent–and more than a bit asinine–Washington Post op-ed. Perhaps Rand was responding to Ramesh Ponnuru’s link to a piece he did for Bloomberg. Hard to tell, since Rand leans heavily on petulant generalities and unnamed neocon strawmen in his National Review piece.
The knives are out for conservatives who dare question unlimited involvement in foreign wars.
Ah. Are we to the nuanced part yet?
Can’t help but wonder if he first wrote long knives, and thought better of it.
And “unlimited involvement in foreign wars”? Dude. A slight variation on the nonsense that caught my ear about “endless wars” during your grandstanding drone filibuster. Bullshit straw man.
Foreign policy, the interventionist critics claim, has no place for nuance or realism. You are either for us or against us. No middle ground is acceptable. The Wilsonian ideologues must have democracy worldwide now and damn all obstacles to that utopia. I say sharpen your knives, because the battle once begun will not end easily.
Interventionist? But it’s not fair to call you an isolationist, right?
Advocates of realpolitik, as distinct from reflexive paleo-libertarian-anarcho non-interventionists, are fleeing from realism? Oh.
For or against. Is this from your presumably forthcoming memoir, Nightmares Of My Batshit Crazy Dad?
What is this middle ground you speak of, Rand? The middle ground you proactively deny that your interventionist neocon enemies occupy?
Damn! Wilsononian, eh?
This is multiple false dichotomy straw man asshat claptrap worthy of the sort of fascism you project on your ideological opponents.
And repeat the knives like it’s a crappy chorus in a crappier song. It doesn’t make you sound paranoid at all.
Conservatives who want to read libertarian conservatives out of the movement should reread some old copies of National Review first.
Anyone get the feeling this is a Twitter conversation with a Leftist, right before ones Algonquin Roundtable interlocutor suggest that we turn off Fox News and read a book once in awhile?
From Frank Meyer to William F. Buckley Jr. to George Will — indeed, to Ronald Reagan — there is a strain of libertarianism endemic to conservatism.
I’ll cut you some slack on the use of the word “endemic,” and assume you weren’t using it in the epidemiological sense.
George Will might have a thing or two to say about that. Since the other folks are all dead, it was nice you invoked one person who could respond to your assertions.
And he goes on to paraphrase Meyer, expropriate Buckley, predictably invoke Iraq as the alpha and omega of neocon interventionism like any paleo and/or Leftist worth the name. Ho hum.
Later in the piece comes the dog whistle:
According to Peter Beinart, Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding neoconservatives, wrote that “in the use of military power, Mr. Reagan was much more restrained” than his more hawkish fans had hoped.
So either Rand Paul doesn’t know (which he sure must, given his lineage) that he just engaged in dog whistling–or else he does.
And so Paul the Younger concludes:
So as today’s young aspiring Buckleyites sharpen their knives to carve up conservatives who propose a more realist and nuanced approach to foreign policy, they should realize they’re also pointing daggers at some of their own.
Not a bit surprisingly, some folks at National Review were having none of this farce: Ramesh Ponnuru seems like someone politely scraping something off his shoe, and Quin Hillyer expands on Ramesh’s remarks.
We have a real bullshit artist on our hands here, folks. The fruit hasn’t fallen nearly as far from the tree as we may have imagined in 2010.