In the Syria saga, we are getting a good glimpse of how political decisions are made in a gargantuan democracy, and we are also getting quite a cash payout — worth a great deal to me at any rate — of Ron Paul’s apparently quixotic presidential runs.
Let me state the conclusion first. I am convinced that – despite the blinkered limitations of pure libertarianism when it comes to foreign-policy in the Middle East – the presence of a significant libertarian mindset in the Republican Party has been beyond helpful in this situation. I think an ideologically pure libertarian foreign policy would be a disaster. But I also think the current endless war policy is a disaster, and I like very much the fact a good portion of our population — for whatever reasons — has gotten kind of surly about it.
Let us be frank. There are many in the GOP who tend to give reflexive deference to the president when it comes to military actions like this, in which phrases like “in harm’s way,” “our men and women in uniform,” and so on can be used, but the presence of the libertarian faction within the party has meant an argument needed to have been made. In order to do something like this now, you actually have to persuade somebody. In this case, because there wasn’t a good argument, we have had a surprising turn against Syrian military action among mainstream conservatives. Obama’s dithering gave that opposition time to think for minute and coalesce.
I mean, think about it. What are the odds of every war being a good idea?
Second, this whole fiasco, combined with Obama’s wafted-way-above-his-pay-grade-hubris, has apparently given us the great gift of Obama’s second term being lived out in lame-duck city for perhaps a full three years. The president has beyond bungled this whole thing, and is pretty miffed that the Syrians on both side of their conflict have not given him the affirmative action waiver that he has repeatedly requested. They won’t even return the State Department’s calls anymore.
In short, the president is now manifestly in that realm where his paradigm and self-identity are being completely overwhelmed by things like “experiences,” “events,” “exigencies,” “emergencies,” and “eggs.” I only said eggs because I needed another e to make it flow to the end.
The president is in a bad jam, pretty much of his own making, and pretty much everybody knows it. I am anticipating things getting, simultaneously, much muddier and much clearer, by which I mean that it will be very clear how muddy it is.
How is it that Obama being decisive is a bad thing when it seems to be giving the Republican’s exactly what they want in this case? He has been uncertain and unconvincing in his plan, but so has everyone else.
*indecisive
Of his own making? Oh not entirely. There was a twenty plus year popularly supported precedent and President Obama now finds himself behind the curve of shifting (I’m glad to say) public opinion. Also, he was just in over his head from the start, which might amount to a kind of half excuse for him. If it wasn’t for the hubris accompanied by not-my-red-line responsibility ducking I might even feel a little sorry for him. Anyway, I too am would like to think we have reached some kind of turning point and I see some hopeful signs. But not being… Read more »
I think you mean Rand Paul
It is the Democrats he has to convince. They want to be reelected
L., no, I meant Ron. I think he is the one who shifted the base in that direction. I believe that Rand is benefiting from it though, and like Rand’s (more tempered) approach, compared to Ron’s.
Eschaton? But I do like eggs, too.
Doug, I would just like to thank you for using words like “quixotic” in your post. Country boy, publicly educated people like me need to be stretched and you manage to use words outside my vocabulary just enough so that stretching occurs but it doesn’t come across as snooty or annoying but still gives me a new word every once in a while. I would also like to thank apple for giving me the “define” option for highlighted text.
Ron Paul and libertarianism may be too simplistic to function, but at least he/it isn’t riddled with corruption.
Libertarianism fails when it believes that humans own themselves. As Christians, we cannot embrace that thinking, but many of their other principles are correct.
John Brigham wrote:
Good distinction. Well said.
“An ideologically pure libertarian foreign policy” would be what exactly? There is a libertarian approach to war but what would do you mean by a “pure” form of libertarian FP? Libertarians have only argued mainly in regards to FP the issue of armed conflict. Could you elaborate how you see this disaster from a pure libertarianism because I dont see it.
Libertarianism fails when it believes that humans own themselves John Brigham, this is a misleading yet common criticism of libertarianism. Libertarians do not claim that we own ourselves in some metaphysical sense. This is not at all the case. This is not a boast of cosmic rebellion against the Creator (Adam/Lucifer style). The notion of self ownership is merely an axiom in libertarian circles that argues that our rights to our own person means that others can not violate them unjustly. Thats a simplified but generally accurate description. This is also very biblical. Private property implies ownership which implies the person owning has rights to his/her person (self… Read more »