Mediaboss Marketing

In 2000, George W. Bush rode to the presidency with his vision of "compassionate conservatism" a brand of Republicanism that sought to take the hard edges off conservative doctrine to make it more appealing to women, minorities, and young Americans. This week, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky put forth his vision for "conservative realism" a brand of Republicanism that aims to appeal to a war-weary public and a Millennial generation with a strong libertarian streak.

It would appear to be one prong of Senator Paul's bold attempt to do what Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan successfully did before and which Republican presidential candidates have failed to do since. To win the White House, Republicans must cobble together a bloc of voters broader than the Republican base, yet they must not abandon core Republican ideals.

In Paul's case, a new brand of practical libertarianism is the bridge. By increasingly addressing issues ranging from voter identification to restoring voting rights for felons to marijuana decriminalization, he has hinted at how he might steal independent, black, and young Democratic voters should he run for president in 2016. Now, with "conservative realism," he is attempting to burnish his credentials on arguably his weakest front, at least among Republican voters: foreign policy. It is a merging of principle with the facts on the ground, and it points to the nature of his delicate balancing act.

To have a winning position and a winning coalition, he has to cobble together a fragile group, says Timothy Hagle, a political scientist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

The potential Republican field for 2016 remains remarkably hazy, in stark contrast to the Democratic field, where Hillary Rodham Clinton is the clear front-runner should she declare. The RealClearPolitics average of major polls puts Paul, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christe, and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin all within 1.2 percentage points of one another.

While Paul is not likely to be the establishment candidate, he is poised to be a major player in the nomination. Thursdays foreign policy speech was was aimed in part at separating himself from his staunchly isolationist father, former Rep. Ron Paul, while also addressing the concerns of the generally hawkish Republican mainstream. In the process, he laid out a vision that bridges Code Pink war protesters and libertarian isolationists.

The principle: "Americans want strength and leadership, but that doesn't mean they see war as the only solution." In the speech at the Center for the National Interest in New York City, Paul cited a litany of foreign policy entanglements and argued that a common thread was a national inability to distinguish between "vital interests and more peripheral interests" overseas.

That failure, he said, means that "our allies and our enemies are unsure where America stands," leading to national security consequences. He went on to say: "Reagan had it right when he spoke to potential adversaries: 'Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.' "

The goal was to lay out a concrete sense of what his libertarian policies mean in a real-world context, says Professor Hagle.

"When you talk about conservatism versus realism, it's the same difference as theory and reality, and that's what he's trying to bridge," he says. "In other words: These principles are great, but we have to also deal with hard facts on the ground and make decisions accordingly."

Go here to see the original:
What is 'conservative realism,' and can it push Rand Paul to White House? (+video)

In 2000, George W. Bush rode to the presidency with his vision of "compassionate conservatism" a brand of Republicanism that sought to take the hard edges off conservative doctrine to make it more appealing to women, minorities, and young Americans. This week, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky put forth his vision for "conservative realism" a brand of Republicanism that aims to appeal to a war-weary public and a Millennial generation with a strong libertarian streak.

It would appear to be one prong of Senator Paul's bold attempt to do what Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan successfully did before and which Republican presidential candidates have failed to do since. To win the White House, Republicans must cobble together a bloc of voters broader than the Republican base, yet they must not abandon core Republican ideals.

In Paul's case, a new brand of practical libertarianism is the bridge. By increasingly addressing issues ranging from voter identification to restoring voting rights for felons to marijuana decriminalization, he has hinted at how he might steal independent, black, and young Democratic voters should he run for president in 2016. Now, with "conservative realism," he is attempting to burnish his credentials on arguably his weakest front, at least among Republican voters: foreign policy. It is a merging of principle with the facts on the ground, and it points to the nature of his delicate balancing act.

To have a winning position and a winning coalition, he has to cobble together a fragile group, says Timothy Hagle, a political scientist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

The potential Republican field for 2016 remains remarkably hazy, in stark contrast to the Democratic field, where Hillary Rodham Clinton is the clear front-runner should she declare. The RealClearPolitics average of major polls puts Paul, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christe, and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin all within 1.2 percentage points of one another.

While Paul is not likely to be the establishment candidate, he is poised to be a major player in the nomination. Thursdays foreign policy speech was was aimed in part at separating himself from his staunchly isolationist father, former Rep. Ron Paul, while also addressing the concerns of the generally hawkish Republican mainstream. In the process, he laid out a vision that bridges Code Pink war protesters and libertarian isolationists.

The principle: "Americans want strength and leadership, but that doesn't mean they see war as the only solution." In the speech at the Center for the National Interest in New York City, Paul cited a litany of foreign policy entanglements and argued that a common thread was a national inability to distinguish between "vital interests and more peripheral interests" overseas.

That failure, he said, means that "our allies and our enemies are unsure where America stands," leading to national security consequences. He went on to say: "Reagan had it right when he spoke to potential adversaries: 'Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.' "

The goal was to lay out a concrete sense of what his libertarian policies mean in a real-world context, says Professor Hagle.

"When you talk about conservatism versus realism, it's the same difference as theory and reality, and that's what he's trying to bridge," he says. "In other words: These principles are great, but we have to also deal with hard facts on the ground and make decisions accordingly."

See more here:
What is 'conservative realism,' and can it push Rand Paul to White House?

John Sommers II/Reuters

If Rand Paul is the most interesting man in politics, as Time magazine recently put it, perhaps this says more about the state of American politics than it does about Rand Paul. Still, the senator from Kentucky is at least willing to question conventional foreign-policy thinking by staking out a position of non-interventionism. Pauls challenge is to square these ideas with a GOP base that remains committed to a Reaganite model of peace through strength. On Thursday night, in a speech at the Center for the National Interest, he outlined the Paul Doctrine, and used every available trick to reconcile his thinking with traditional GOP beliefs.

First of all, Paul stressed, the GOP doesnt have to give up its principles to back his brand of "conservative realism.

Americans yearn for leadership and for strength, but they don't yearn for war, he declared.

Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail.

We cant retreat from the world, but we cant remake it in our own image either.

Strengthening American leadership, maintaining a strong military, and refusing to retreat are true Republican ideas. But according to Paul, waging a quixotic crusade to spread American ideals is something that Obama would dream up.

Rand Paul Rethinks the Art of Diplomacy

Paul also tried to legitimize his ideas by placing them squarely in the midstream of historic GOP foreign-policy thinking. He sprinkled in ample references to heroic Republicans of past and present like Ike, Reagan, and Kissinger. By implication, all of them would readily endorse Paul in the GOP primary.

Paul also echoed the Republican Weinberger-Powell Doctrine (outlined by Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of defense, and Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the 1980s and early 1990s) by presenting a series of tests that should be passed before using forcefor example, only fighting wars to protect vital U.S. interests and with congressional support.

See the rest here:
The Wars Rand Paul Would Fight

By Paul Waldman October 24 at 12:08 PM

Anyone who remembers the 2012 GOP presidential primaries knows that the 2016 contest will involve a lot of arguing about whos the most conservative candidate. Any contender who has strayed from party orthodoxy on anything will have to undergo a sustained campaign of grovelling and humiliation to prove to Tea Partiers, religious conservatives, and everybody else that he will be faithful and true forevermore. This process leaves its participants battered and bruised, diminished in the eyes of general election voters.

But what if placating the right isnt as hard as it appears? That question is right now being contemplated by Rand Paul, who is running for the White House harder than anybody.

Paul has now given a speech outlining his foreign policy vision (which every candidate is supposed to have). The speech shows just how Paul is navigating the tension between the two competing incentives that will define his candidacy. On one hand, he needs to reassure Republican voters that hes conservative enough for them, but on the other hand, he also very much wants to be the different kind of Republican who will continue to receive glowing media coverage and prove appealing to moderate general election voters.

If you took out the five Reagan references and changed some words and phrases here and there, the speech Paul gave could have been delivered by Barack Obama. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat, apparently, is that the Republican says that we should always be prepared for war, but war should be a last resort, while the Democrat says that war should be a last resort, but we should always be prepared for war. Paul also added the controversial ideas that American values lead the world, and were stronger abroad when our economy is stronger at home. And also, Reagan Reagan Reagan.

The interesting thing is that, despite the similarity of Pauls ideas to those of Obama, Pauls speech showed that it probably isnt all that hard to give GOP voters what tey want on foreign policy. All it takes is a little dexterity to push the right buttons, as Paul does in this passage:

Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS, I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states.

In the end, only the people of the region can destroy ISIS. In the end, the long war will end only when civilized Islam steps up to defeat this barbaric aberration.

He takes a policy position many Republicans will disagree with, but leavens it with the mention of the long war and civilized Islam, giving a nod to the clash-of-civilizations sentiment so common on the right. Mission accomplished.

This is a marked contrast to the domestic realm, where there are many specific positions that are beyond negotiation. You have to support tax cuts, oppose Roe v. Wade, proclaim your hatred of Obamacare, want to Drill Baby Drill, and so on. Paul has stepped outside of conservative orthodoxy on a few domestic issues, such as with his criticism of mass incarceration. But thats easy to do now, since crime rates have plummeted since then, the issue has receded and base conservatives wont be angry with him for taking a contrary position. And at any rate, for some time, Paul has been slowly stepping away from the libertarian ideas on domestic issues that GOP voters would find truly objectionable, like legalizing drugs.

View original post here:
How Rand Paul is playing the GOP base, and what it means ...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) outlines his foreign policy stance at a dinner hosted by the Center for the National Interest on Oct. 23, 2014 in New York City. CBS News

NEW YORK -- Echoing previous warnings against intervention abroad, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is urging the United States to be cautious about using military force and pressed instead for diplomatic settlements.

"Americans want strength and leadership, but it doesn't mean that we see war as the only solution," Paul said Thursday during a dinner hosted by the Center for the National Interest in New York City.

The comments are widely considered to be the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate's first comprehensive outline of his foreign policy views.

"Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail," Paul said. "There is a time to eliminate our enemies but there is also a time to cultivate allies."

Paul described the use of force as "an indispensible part of defending our country" but insisted it should be a last resort and only initiated through Congress.

He called Libya an example of "the wrong way to do things," criticizing President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for engaging in war without "[anticipating] the consequences."

"Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and a safe haven for terror groups across North Africa," Paul said.

On the U.S. strategy to combat ISIS, Paul voiced his support for airstrikes against the terrorist group but rejected supplying Syrian rebel groups with weapons, which he says wind up in enemy hands.

"The ultimate sad irony is that we're forced to fight against the very weapons we send the Syrian rebels," he said. "ISIS is stronger because of our weapons."

Visit link:
Rand Paul calls for restraint in U.S. military engagement