Who can give Hillary Clinton a run for her money in 2016? Rand Paul, according to progressive HBO talk show host Bill Maher. While I’m hesitant to cite celebrity personalities, particularly Maher, the relevant foreign policy stance debated on “Real Time With Bill Maher” was quite significant. Especially given that those of the “youth” vote are now consistently rejecting traditional news sources and instead receiving current event stories from comedic personalities like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Maher stated that while other conservatives at CPAC were calling for action, Paul is “the one guy who says quite the opposite, like his father, he is for not for having an American empire. That’s the thing I love about the Pauls.”
Indeed, that’s a refreshing change from the consistent war hawks in both parties — Clinton, McCain and any other politicians pinning for the military establishment.
In fact, Maher’s guest, Andrew Sullivan agreed.
“I think Rand Paul’s attempt to say what most people in this country really understand, which is we don’t need to run the world,” Sullivan said. “We don’t want to run the world. America would be in a better place if we were less interested in our own power and more interested in freedom.”
Interesting. More please.
This is attractive to us as young people. We’ve seen terrible outcomes of pointless wars and poor strategies. We also see the effects of giving billions of dollars to countries that will ultimately not care too much for us no matter what we do — trillions of dollars in several war-torn countries and then no control over their affairs? Been there, done that.
It’s just foolish to think money solves their problems. It’s not common sense — and fortunately Rand Paul understands that, while everyone else doesn’t.
Regarding the recent Ukraine and Crimea setbacks, the younger Paul called for a strong stance, but involvement, particularly pledging money that equates to taking poor people’s money in this country only to have it passed to wealthy people in Russia, is the wrong course of action. How refreshing.
Imagine that type of leadership in the White House in a time that the L-word is sorely lacking. Consistent leadership that holds America’s interest at heart but a practical sense for dealing with problems abroad — i.e., refusing to take “action” that will ultimately serve our interest in almost no way.
Putin is a bully, using tactics that resemble an overplayed hand via a tiny card-table game in the garage of his best friend’s house. There are more pressing issue of international diplomacy than dealing with his pointless yearning to be considered “serious,” as if his shirtless body on horse pictures doesn’t already accomplish that goal.
With these foreign policy stances on Russia and other countries, and not to mention other common-sense views on domestic concerns that touch both conservatives and progressives alike, Rand Paul may actually excite the young GOP. Or the even more coveted young independents or the former young Obama enthusiasts.
That’s enough to give anyone a run in ‘16, including the Clintonian clan. Let’s just hope that the far conservative wings in the primaries don’t alienate common sense in favor of more empire-building. Let’s hope that Paul can convince people that his ideas are worth believing in and that his ideas can make a difference on both sides of the aisle in Congress. And, importantly, that his leadership style is exactly what America needs right now.
Cory Ferraez is a third-year law student from Columbus.
