For the past generation, Republicans have been able to argue with justice that their party is more consistently pro-Israel than that of the Democrats. That wasn’t just the result of President Obama’s antagonism toward Jerusalem and George W. Bush’s friendship. Rather, it was an acknowledgement that a significant portion of the influential left wing of the Democrats was hostile to the Jewish state, while those few Republicans who were not friends of Zion had been marginalized. While Pat Buchanan had been more or less kicked out of the GOP in the 1990s, left-wingers like the ones who booed the adoption of a platform plank on Jerusalem at the Democratic National Convention this year were numerous and not without a voice in the party’s councils. But that may be about to change.
Republicans are congratulating themselves on breaking the 30 percent mark in their share of the Jewish vote this year, even though they could point to Barack Obama’s problematic relationship with Israel. As I pointed out on Wednesday, anyone who assumes the GOP will continue to gain ground among Jewish voters needs to remember that they won’t have that advantage four years from now. But the really bad news is that the coming battle for the soul of the Republican Party will make it clear that a significant portion of the GOP probably shouldn’t be characterized as part of the pro-Israel consensus. With the retirement of Rep. Ron Paul from electoral politics, the baton of the libertarian extremist/isolationist camp will pass to his son Rand, the senator from Kentucky. The younger Paul is more politically astute and probably a lot more marketable to a mainstream audience than his father was. But he is no less opposed to a mindset that sees a strong America and a strong alliance with Israel as integral to U.S. foreign policy than the older libertarian. That makes it entirely possible that under Rand’s leadership, radical libertarians will move from the fever swamps of the GOP to the mainstream. That’s bad news for the Republican Party, and could make their efforts to attract more pro-Israel and Jewish voters even more futile than they have been in the past.
As Eli Lake writes today in the Daily Beast, the coming civil war among Republicans over foreign policy will putt two traditional rival camps — the neoconservatives and the so-called “realists” — on the same side against what could be a rising tide of Rand Paul supporters who believe their small government credo ought to mandate massive defense cutbacks as well as the withdrawal of America from its place on the world stage.
Up until now, this wasn’t much of a contest because although Ron Paul could get throngs of his youthful libertarian crowd to applaud his absurd rationalizations of rogue regimes, such as Iran, or his belief that American imperialism helped generate anti-American terrorism, most Republicans weren’t buying it. But with a leader who doesn’t come across like everybody’s crazy uncle, the libertarian faction has reasonable hopes of doing much better. It’s not outlandish to believe, as Bill Kristol said on Fox News on Wednesday, that Rand Paul is likely to be a first-tier presidential candidate in the 2016 Republican primaries. If so, and I think he may be right, then there will be no question that it will call into question the assumption that there is wall-to-wall backing for Israel in the GOP.
To say that is not to jump to the conclusion that the younger Paul is an odds-on favorite to win the next Republican presidential nomination or that his views reflect those of the majority of Republicans. I think the chances of Paul ever being nominated are slim to none and that is in no small measure due to the fact that his embrace of his father’s foreign policy views — albeit expressed by the Kentucky senator in terms that are more subtle and less likely to be viewed as crackpot theories — will cripple any hope of ever capturing the party leadership.
Some Tea Party activists, like the staffer for Freedom Works who was quoted by Eli Lake as worrying about the possibility that a budget deal would avoid crippling defense cuts, believe their small government ideology requires a complete retrenchment of American defense and foreign policy. While some in the grassroots may share those sentiments, there is every reason to believe that the majority of those who identify with the movement also have traditional conservative views about the importance of American military power. Many also believe it vital that the U.S. maintain its alliance with the only true democracy in the Middle East: Israel.
The idea that the Republican Party will go back to its pre-World War Two embrace of isolationism is based on an imperfect understanding of the party’s base and its core beliefs. To argue, as some on the both the left and the right may, that there is a contradiction between believing in small government on domestic affairs but supporting a strong military, is to ignore that the requirement to “provide for the common defense” of the nation is enshrined in the Constitution that Tea Partiers revere.
Nevertheless, Rand Paul will be far more of a force in the Republican Party in the coming years than his father ever was. That’s a problem for conservatives who hope the GOP remains a bulwark of common sense about national defense and foreign policy. It will also mean that one of the party’s most prominent spokesmen will not be someone who will be viewed as reliably pro-Israel.
"Barack Obama’s problematic relationship with Israel." n nOr Bibi's problematic relationship with Obama. (I loved how right after Obama won, Bibi declared that the US-Israel relationship has "never been stronger.")
I was going to post a response to this, but why bother. Trooll.
Fractious coalitions. n nMaybe someone has a Youtube showing Rand Paul hugging Medea Benjamin, both wearing Pink? n nIf America needs a strong military, then someone should be paying for it. n nY'all really do not realize the depth of the Bush43 legacy of two wars paid for with tax cuts??? n
I remember WW2 as payback for a decade of isolationism. A strong military is very expensive. A weak one even more so.
Well… you're naive. n nWW2 was a predictable consequence of the outcome of WW1, a war which your ideology fails to accommodate. Examining WW2 in a vacuum is myopic. n nRun along now, you have some history to learn.
I remember how Rand Paul sat in his office, pointedly, refusing to go to Congress as Netanyahu received ovations from both sides of the isle. n nHe is an enemy of Israel. There is no doubt about it. n nHopefully, the GOP will realize that the elevation of Paul to a more visible leadership will doom them to never having the presidency. n n n n
Nah, Romney's promises of big government and endless intervention doomed the Republican Party out of the Presidency. Your statement that Rand's an 'enemy of Israel' is libelous.
It's true. Romney's zionist handlers were threatening Michael Schueur's job, right on this same blog as a matter of fact, and behind the scenes they were attempting to silence him. Why? Because he suggested non-intervention/cutting foreign aid was the best foreign policy… to keep us out of undeclared wars such as Israel is waging and Syria where we are propping up AQ to topple Assad. Let's face it, zionism is about one world conquering theory and is no better than any others who have done that throughout history. It is NOT conservative, but it is NEOCON, which is no better than progressive. n nRomney is a thug and that is why he lost.
Yes, the 30% of Jewish voters who went for Romney this time will shrink. I don’t know if that will be significant, but it could be a problem in several states, particularly Ohio and to a greater extent, Florida.
The Rand libertarians will be very animated and might have an impact all out of proportion to their numbers. Whether they can hijack the entire party, remains to be seen.
Another four years of Obama spending might very well cause growth in the extremist Paul element.
There are other more appealing, mainstream young leaders on the GOP bench, including Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.
I don't see any necessary conflict between a smaller and less obtrusive Federal government (and curbing the Imperial Presidency that has arisen) with a robust military capability focused on defense rather than foreign adventurism/world policing. Your characterization of Rand Paul may be correct but please don't attribute his personal views to all liberals/libertarians.
Some one will fill the power vacuum. Who did you have in mind?
Your views in this article are almost bizarre in that you seem to be defending an older delusional state of the Republican party.r nI am a libertarian myself and I can tell you that they do NOT want to “cut defense”. They want to cut adventurism and the whole war on culture and unpaid debt being waged around the world. You seem to characterize libertarians in terms of those things about which you disagree. I actually think we agree on many more things, especially on the importance of liberty. I commend Republican neocons for loving America so much to want it to be well-defended. I applaud Democrats for caring about the sick, poor, and disadvantages. They now need to see that libertarians love the Freedom for all who do no harm.
"Many also believe it vital that the U.S. maintain its alliance with the only true democracy in the Middle East: Israel."
I believe that this commentator is wrong, not only his characterization of Rand Paul's own foreign policy views vis a vis the Israeli-American relationship , but also in his transparent assumptions about the heart, soul, and needed direction of the Republican Party. Rand does call for a pull-back on imperial overstretch and what could be wrong with that? Especially at a time when overseas expenditures are now placing our national further credit rating at risk. I see Mr. Tobin as a stalwart neo-con, evidenced by his numerous insinuations, and worse dead-wrong when it comes to understanding the changing character of our party. Young people like myself see the writing on the wall, we that know that the Imperial Presidency and the overseas interventionism are totally incongruent with the founding principles. Maybe it's the fortune of being well-educated under the internet era, but I am actually aware of the ideals, philosophy, and intentions of the Founding Fathers' when they framed the Constitution, and I believe in that original vision, as do millions of young Americans. We reject the cynicism and tyranny that realists and neo-cons would have us be party to, we reject the Patriot act, the Obama kill-list, the NDAA, the Empire of that Tobin and is kind embrace as the expense of liberty and morality. People like Mr. Tobin, and others of his neo-con-ilk are in reality not constitutionalists at all, but really realists and elitists who don't give a damn about limited government and just war theory. Neoconservatives exist in both parties, and I invite Tobin and his friends to quietly defect to the Democrats, to roost under the Imperialist Obama, as young people with conscience and common sense are done with the overseas bloodshed and contradictory and unconstitutional leadership of the Bush and Obama eras. I am already supporting Rand Paul for 2016 as his vision is the only one that will preserve our currency system, end the illegal and immoral foreign interventionism, and provide for the real defense of America, which has been undermined by neo-cons for decades. It's time to restore of the Constitution, and end the illegal systems. Tobin and is ilk literally disgust me, they talk about 'our position' in the world as if it's a jewel in their crown, well its a bloody jewel, forged with the blood of thousands of dead American boys over the last decade, and the lose of life and stability in the lives of millions of victims abroad in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and soon to be Iran. Enough is enough. Rand Paul 2016.
I think Rand Paul will have his hands full running for re-election in 2016.
"the libertarian extremist/isolationist camp"_If you can't accurately portray a position then you can't accurately argue against it. Ron Paul is the farthest thing from "isolationist" there is. He is a non-interventionist. Those who would empose trade and travel santions are "isolationists". Do your homework (or just continue to look foolish).
The GOP supports Israel, not because of Judeophilia or a desire to woo Jews' votes, but because supporting Israel furthers American interests. Israel is a leg upon which Western civilization rests. If we let Israel fall, what would then be our fallback position in the face of Islam? There wouldn't be one. This is justice for many on the left, who see America and Western civilization as uniquely responsible for all the success motivated grudges the left holds, from colonialism to the attacks on us of 9/11. Its all our fault.__Don't think the Islamists aren't watching. They know that if the West lets Israel go, we will have surrendered our moral foundation for existing, our purpose in the world, and would have no stomach for defending ourselves. Libertarians are dreaming of an America splendidly isolated from the tumult and risk of the world. It exists only in their minds. America has many enemies with designs upon us, even if we pretend we can live safely behind a wall of isolation.
Ask the people in the concentration camp known as GAZA about that.
Anyone else notice that as we Jews become more assimilated we vote more Republican? Fortunately, Jews voting for Obama still outnumbered those voting for Romney by more than 2:1.
Actually, you are incorrect; the overall percentage of the Jewish people who voted for Romney came from a more traditional background, whereas the more assimilated Jew and the more non-traditional Jew percentage wise voted for Obama.
My advice is look after your own house first: American Jews are disgraceful in their mindless support of the democrats. As relative energy Independance dawns the entire Middle East will lose strategic importance. Is abortion more important? Wake up your cohort!
Jonathan you write this article even after getting "crushed" in the election? Really? The GOP absolutely has to cater to "Libertarians, Little r republicans, the liberty movement, Ron Paul Conservatives, etc." or your party will be irrelevant not winning anything for the foreseeable future. n nFor instance just do some investigative journalism for once instead of some neoconservative opinionated hit piece. The spread in vote totals for Romney's losses in (all the battleground states except one in case you forgot) against Obama was smaller than just the Ron Paul primary total votes cast. n nPaul people would have done 4 things this election; Vote Libertarian, Write in Ron Paul, Not vote or even (in my case) vote for Obama to spite the GOP. Very few Paul conservatives would have lowered themselves enough to vote for the GOP "Savior" Romney. We tend to vote for people with principles, fresh ideas, and common sense approaches to our problems. n nMake no mistake, OUR message brings in Hispanics, Blacks, Young people, Women, etc NOT yours. The current GOP platform alienates other nations and fellow Americans. OUR message bring in Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Not yours. n nYou have a quickly shrinking base, you only got 57% of the Texas vote and lost basically every battleground state to a President with 8% unemployment, horrible record, etc. n nRand Paul may or may not be the Liberty candidate in 2016, no one knows who the grassroots will rally around. n nAnd for gods sake, at least read a wiki entry or something on isolationism. Here we are 6 years post Paul and you people still do not understand the basic premises of isolationism, blowback, non-intervention, defense spending vs adventurism, and so on and so forth. n nSigned, nThe rEVOLution n n"You can't win without us"
Anyone who believes Gaza is "a concentration camp" should go there and discover the truth. n nNewHampshire's comments show how the Paul-bots hijack the truth because they are so convinced of the Lie that Never Dies: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", although I assume Ron Paul prefers the Henry Ford Senior version "The International Jew".
"Thats a problem for conservatives who hope the GOP remains a bulwark of common sense" rolmao "common sense" bahahaha
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Anti-Israel people fit into two categories, those who believe Israel is immoral, and those who think America's relation with Israel hurts our national interest. n nThose who argue national interest put a lot of emphasis on the largely symbolic support provided by the US, and spend less time looking at the actual actions taken by the U.S government. When you look at actions instead of words, Israel doesn't get it's way every time.