The future of the Rushpubliscum Party doesn’t look a whole lot better than the past does.
Kland Paul is cited in this article as being representative of an ascendant philosophy in the Rushpubliscum Party. What benefit, if any, is there for the American people? Well, it may be true that we won’t be going off to war anymore (and it may not: it is my opinion that every pronouncement Kland Paul makes about opposing war hawks must be taken with a pound or two of salt, since Kland is a reliable mouthpiece of, and water boy for, the very people who love the profits that come from warfare,) but one can expect the never-ending GOP wars on women, minorities, and poor people to continue unabated. These modern-day “Libertarians” are talking about rich white men when they speak of “freedom.” For minorities, the “freedoms” would come in the form of businesses now “liberated” to refuse them service, and women could expect to be “free” to become the property of a man, and little else. The war component is the only thing that differs Kland Paul from Paul Ryan, and, as I said, I’m skeptical of even that.
If either of these directions is the future of the Rushpubliscum Party…. keep it.
Ten years after reaching the height of their influence with the invasion of Iraq, the neo-conservatives and other right-wing hawks are fighting hard to retain their control of the Republican Party.
That fight was on vivid display last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) here where, as the New York Times observed in a front-page article, the party appeared increasingly split between the aggressively interventionist wing that led the march to war a decade ago and a libertarian-realist coalition that is highly sceptical of, if not strongly opposed to, any more military adventures abroad.
The libertarian component, which appears ascendant at the moment, is identified most closely with the so-called Tea Party, particularly Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, whose extraordinary 13-hour “filibuster” against the hypothetical use of drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. territory on the Senate floor last week made him an overnight rock star on the left as well as the right.
Republican unity was not helped by the hostile reaction to Paul’s performance by Sen. John McCain, and his long-time ally, Sen. Lindsay Graham, whose national security views tilt strongly neo-conservative and who are treated by most mainstream media as the party’s two most important foreign policy spokesmen.
McCain dismissed Paul and his admirers as “wacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone” and charged that Republican senators who joined Paul – among them, the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell – during his oratorical marathon should “know better”.
But, beyond drones, the party is deeply divided between deficit hawks, including many in the Tea Party who do not believe the Pentagon should be exempt from budget cuts and are leery of new overseas commitments, and defence hawks, led by McCain and Graham.
The split between the party’s two wings, which have clashed several times during Barack Obama’s presidency over issues such as Washington’s intervention in Libya and how much, if any, support to provide rebels in Syria, appears certain to grow wider, if for no other reason than deficit-cutting will remain the Republicans’ main obsession for the foreseeable future.
For now, it appears that the deficit hawks have the upper hand, at least judging from the reactions so far to the Mar. 1 triggering of the much-dreaded “sequester” which, if not redressed, would require the Pentagon to reduce its planned 10-year budget by an additional 500 billion dollars beyond the nearly 500 billion dollars that Congress and Obama had already agreed to cut in late 2011.
“Indefensible,” wrote neo-conservative chieftain Bill Kristol in his Weekly Standard about Republican complacency in the face of such prospective cuts in the military budget.
“(T)he Republican party has, at first reluctantly, then enthusiastically, joined the president on the road to irresponsibility,” he despaired.
The great fear of the neo-conservatives is that, given the country’s war weariness and the party’s focus on the deficit, Republicans may be returning to “isolationism” – a reference to the party’s resistance to U.S. intervention in Europe in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Dec 1941.
The actual small-government, limited-military types, I do have some respect for, even if I disagree with them about some aspects of their philosophy. As I sit here, I am hard-pressed to think of even one authentic article on the national scene. Paul (who made a 2016 Presidential campaign speech on the Senate floor, and nothing more) sure as hell isn’t the authentic article; his views on women, minorities, and the desirability of droning the border areas eliminates any serious discussion of this corporate clown as a “Libertarian.” Actual Libertarians are as hard to find these days as actual Liberals are, and I believe we could use a lot more of both.
And a lot fewer of the corrupt, complacent types we now see in Congress.