You don’t have to agree with all or even most of Senator Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism to concede that his candidacy once held so much promise.
Paul entered the race buoyed by what seemed like a burgeoning libertarian moment. From the conduct of the global war on terrorism to massive comprehensive reform packages, American political culture had grown suspicious of the federal government’s ability to avert the unforeseen negative consequences of its good intentions. For several weeks in the summer of 2014, Rand Paul led a field of nine prospective Republican presidential candidates in the polls. It was a reflection of the resonance of his message. Then came the crisis in the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, the lone wolf terror attacks, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese provocations in the South China Sea, and the polls that showed Americans had again warmed to putting American ground troops back in into combat in Iraq.
Paul’s promise did not have to end with the end of America’s brief sabbatical from history. The nation might have turned away from a dovish approach to foreign conflicts, but public opinion surveys still indicated that a small government approach to divisive social issues was finding favor among millions of Americans. Voters were warming to the legalization of same-sex marriage at a rapid rate. More Americans were rejecting the war on drugs as a failure and a waste of taxpayer investment. Some states and municipalities had gone so far as to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, directly challenging the supremacy of federal laws prohibiting its use. On the right, outspoken libertarian news outlets and television hosts were gaining not only acceptance but also popularity. If the libertarian preference for U.S. military retrenchment abroad had fallen out of favor, its social and economic prescriptions had not. A Pew Research Center survey from August of 2014 found that, more than any other age demographic, young people were the most likely to describe themselves as “libertarian.” The future for the movement seemed bright.
But the “libertarian moment” was lost. It wasn’t necessarily Rand Paul who lost it, but he did not put a halt to the ideology’s fall from grace. Paul’s performance in Wednesday night’s Republican debate exemplifies the extent to which his presidential bid has evolved from a crusade to advance a set of programs into an ego-fueled campaign to sacrifice himself in service to an unpopular and irresponsible set of foreign policy preferences.
On the debate stage in Simi Valley, California, Paul found himself in the midst of a withering and unwarranted set of personal attacks from Donald Trump. Even those anti-Trump GOP establishmentarians who were not predisposed to back Paul felt a pang of sympathy for the Kentucky senator. That compassion quickly abated when Paul spent the majority of his time making an ill-advised case against foreign interventionism by bizarrely asserting that both Iraq and the world were better off when Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime held power in Baghdad.
“Hussein was the great bulwark and counterbalance to the Iranians,” Paul averred. “So when we complain about the Iranians, you need to remember that the Iraq War made it worse.”
“We have to learn sometimes the interventions backfire,” he continued in an effort to contend that inaction was the right course for the United States to take when contemplating intervention into the Syrian civil war. “The Iraq War backfired and did not help us. We’re still paying the repercussions of a bad decision.”
This pride-fueled attempt to retroactively justify his opposition to not merely the Iraq War but most American conflicts overseas is deeply misguided. Saddam Hussein was not a force for regional stability, nor was his regime a threat America could afford to ignore. The United States inaugurated military conflicts against Iraqi forces in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2003. The United States manned, fueled, and equipped combat aircraft that patrolled the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq for over a decade, and those planes were routinely harassed and provoked by Hussein regime soldiers. As for Iranian resurgence, Barack Obama’s approach to regional power dynamics more than Hussein’s absence is responsible for Tehran’s augmented influence.
Paul’s pursuit of self-validation did not end there. The libertarian presidential candidate took a justified swipe at Carly Fiorina for suggesting that the United States should not open up dialogue with Moscow given its efforts to militarily destabilize strategically valuable areas of the world. That’s not a feasible approach to the conduct of foreign affairs, but he misrepresented American foreign policy doctrine when he suggested that such an approach was anathema. “Think if Reagan had said that during the Cold War?” Paul asked. “We continued to talk with the Russians throughout the Cold War which is much more significant than where we are now.”
While Ronald Reagan did not entirely cut off communications with the Soviets after he came into office, he appropriately viewed bilateral negotiations as an incentive for good behavior. And for much of Reagan’s first term in office, Soviet good behavior was a hard thing to come across. The Reagan administration entered office amid a low-point in U.S.-Soviet relations, after Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan prompted the West to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The Soviet-led crackdown on the Polish Solidarity movement in 1981 prompted the White House to reimpose controls on grain exports to the Eastern Bloc that had been lifted briefly as a show of good faith. An attempt to renew arms control talks in 1983, a year characterized by exceedingly deep tensions between the U.S. and the Soviets, resulted in a walkout by the Moscow delegation. It was not until 1985 and the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev to the general secretariat that Reagan found a partner with whom he could negotiate. Dialogue for its own sake has never been a fruitful approach to intergovernmental relations. Indeed, the West’s experience in conducting talks with Iran demonstrates the dangers of such a doctrine.
Paul’s debate performance wasn’t entirely devoid of praiseworthy moments. He was one of several candidates who made an able case for reform of the tax code, reduced corporate taxes, and the imposition of a flat tax rate. But Paul truly shined when he took on the issue of criminal justice and drug sentencing reform and the emerging conflict between the federal and state governments over the enforcement schedule one drug laws. “That’s not consistent with the Tenth Amendment,” Paul said of Chris Christie’s promise to ignore marijuana legalization referenda in Washington and Colorado. “It is not consistent with states’ rights. And it is not consistent with the conservative vision for the country.”
“I don’t think we should be sending the federal police in to arrest a mother and separate them from their child for giving a medicine to their child for seizures,” he concluded powerfully. This is a noble and valuable addition to the national debate. The GOP would be better off if it were to adopt Paul’s approach to drug sentencing and enforcement reform. Instead, Paul spent most of his opportunities to speak, including his closing statement, defending his unpopular position on foreign intervention. It was a mark of pride, and it rendered the arguments Paul made in favor of federalism and small government less compelling.
The tragedy of Rand Paul’s campaign is that it promised not a new direction for the Republican Party but a return to a commitment to small government that it has largely abandoned in all but rhetoric for nearly a century. Paul’s talents as a politician are obvious, but hubris has led him to fight a quixotic battle and to martyr himself upon the ground where his father fought and lost a similar battle for the soul of the GOP.
