Samantha Power in Louisville

I attended this talk by Samantha Power on Monday at the University of Louisville:


I'm not sure UN Ambassador Power said anything really new about American foreign policy, but news reports tended to emphasize two points -- her call for bipartisan foreign policy and her argument against new Congressionally-imposed sanctions on Iran.

If you were not paying close attention, her arguments about the value of economic sanctions seemed to be inconsistent. She criticized the economic embargo against Cuba, claiming that after more than 50 years of failure, the Obama administrations simply wants the U.S. to try a new approach. Yet, at the same time, she praised the success of economic sanctions against Burma (a pet issue of host Senator Mitch McConnell) and other recent sanctions against Iran.

Power argued that unilateral sanctions on Cuba had failed, while collective sanctions on Iran had succeeded. She didn't really talk about this distinction vis-a-vis Burma, but I know the EU also sanctioned Myanmar (Burma). On Cuba:

Even though the Castro regime has been repressing the Cuban people for decades, it is America that has been seen as Goliath picking a fight with David. I’ve seen this first-hand at the United Nations. Last October, for the 23rd year in a row, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Out of the UN’s 193 member-states, we were only one of two that voted to defend the embargo.

As for Iran, Power argued that the international sanctions regime is largely responsible for bringing Iran to the bargaining table, where it seems willing to limit its ability to produce nuclear weapons. However, new sanctions would backfire, undermining the collective sanctions that she claimed are "exponentially more effective than bilateral sanctions alone."

If we pull the trigger on new nuclear-related sanctions now, we will go from isolating Iran to potentially isolating ourselves. We go from a position of collective strength to a position of individual weakness.

All of these points were framed around a theme of bipartisanship. Power repeatedly emphasized that Republicans and Democrats in Washington fundamentally agreed about the goals of American foreign policy, even as they disagreed about the means to achieve them:

But what is often lost in the coverage of these debates is the fact that they’re disputes about means, not ends; about tactics, not objectives; about how America can tackle complex global challenges, and not whether we ought to try. As Thomas Jefferson once put it, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

In the introductory remarks, University of Louisville President James Ramsey introduced a visiting Army War College Fellow who is auditing my graduate IR seminar this spring.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Rand Paul Update: Hypocrisy 101

Someone put a Rand Paul flyer on the billboard next to my office. When I read through it quickly yesterday, I noticed something odd that is apparently a point that he has been emphasizing in his latest ads. Fox News:

Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Rand Paul's latest ad is selling him as a Washington outsider. In a new 30-second commercial, the Bowling Green eye surgeon declares he's a "physician, not a career politician."

On his webpage, Paul takes this further, calling for term limits for "career politicians":

Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.

These are kind of strange claims from someone known primarily as the son of a long-time politician, Ron Paul.

The elder Dr. Paul, Rand's father, has served in the U.S. Congress representing District 14 in Texas continuously since 1996. However, he has been in the House of Representatives much longer as Project Vote Smart clarifies:

Representative, United States House of Representatives, District 22, 1976-1977, 1979-1985

Ron Paul has been in the House for 22 years.

Additionally, Paul lost election for that House seat in 1974 and 1976, which is why he didn't serve consecutively in the period from 1975 to 1985. He also ran for the U.S. Senate and lost in 1984 and ran for President unsuccessfully in 1988 as a Libertarian.

Even if we posit that Paul wasn't a politician from 1989 through 1996, that still means about 30 years of politics as a career choice.

So, would Rand want Ron booted out of Washington?

University of Virginia Political Scientist Larry Sabato explains that Rand definitely benefits from his father's family business:

“As we know from almost every state, having a family member in politics can be very helpful. You gain contacts, experience, you understand what the job is all about, campaigning. It’s like the family business,” Sabato said. “When he ran for president, Ron Paul was very popular with a segment of students. They are fiercely anti establishment and perfectly happy to accept Rand Paul.”

That same Miami Herald story notes that the family connection "helped the political newcomer net a big boost in contributions - in part by relying heavily on his dad's donor list."

Always follow the money.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Rand Paul

Kentucky held a primary yesterday that received national attention thanks to the participation and victory of "tea party"-backed Senate candidate Rand Paul, son of libertarian Representative Ron Paul of Texas. The seat is currently held by Republican Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame former baseball pitcher. The race was noteworthy because Mitch McConnell's preferred (and groomed) candidate, Secretary of State Trey Greyson lost the race.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic ballot, state Attorney General Jack Conway defeated Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo and won his party's nomination for the same Senate race. Rob Farley declared this "Good news from Kentucky... Conway is more progressive than Mongiardo and polls better; against the Randernaut he might have a chance."

Frankly, I suspect most Kentuckians know little about Rand Paul. I'm also betting that Conway will make sure that voters learn a lot more before November.

What's to know?

Like his better-known father, Rand opposed the Iraq war -- and he thinks the "murky" Afghan war needs to be formally declared by Congress. Those are defensible positions, but they are clearly not reflective of Republican policy in the last decade.

Many of the policies Rand and Ron Paul reject were proposed and implemented by Republicans in power during the Bush era: bank bailouts, deficit spending, war without end, etc. This is likely why Dick Cheney supported Greyson in the primary and why neoconservatives are alleged to be upset by his prospects for success.

Indeed, Paul himself says that he typically agrees with his father on policy issues:

Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues?

Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree.

He then notes that his father will sometimes introduce an earmark, while he thinks "the whole system is broken down, and it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t put earmarks on bills."

He thinks drugs should be a state issue, which is an evasive way of saying that the federal government shouldn't make them illegal. Right?

Libertarians oppose drug laws, but what about health and safety issues? How much should the federal government do to help save lives? The New York Times Magazine asked him this question in April:

But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.

I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

The "nanny state" is a line used by people who don't think the government should try to limit tobacco consumption, promote better nutrition, etc. However, these examples may also mask antipathy towards environmental regulations, occupational safety and health standards, minimum wage laws, etc.

Paul has a somewhat dystopian view of the economy and is fairly cynical about the culture as well:

I see us in the latter stages of the Roman empire, when you have bread and circuses to placate the mob... I think there’s a danger that we could destroy our currency and be like 1923 in Germany, with the Weimar currency, with money in wheelbarrows. Germany was a civilized country in Europe, and they destroyed their currency and then elected Hitler, so things have happened before and they could happen again.

Paul certainly isn't a Keynesian as he favors a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He is "worried that the deficit will consume our nation."

The bipartisan Keynesian economics we witnessed in 2008-2009 reflected legitimate concerns that the banking and credit system would collapse without emergency assistance, thus destroying the economy and provoking another Great Depression.

I cannot wait to hear what Paul has to say about that topic, as well as aid to Israel, farm subsidies, Social Security (!), public education, etc.

Helpfully, Trey Greyson's campaign maintained a website of "randpaulstrangeideas.com." It seems to have been taken down, but the google cache of the central issues is still available for now. Here's an idea of what it used to look like.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Republican Fratricide

For months, Kentuckians have been hearing rumors that Republican Senator Mitch Mcconnell wants his colleague Jim Bunning to retire and abandon his quest for reelection. McConnell apparently worries that Bunning will lose the seat to a Democrat in the next home state election.

This week, Bunning popped off about McConnell:

"Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader (McConnell), we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (seats) in two election cycles," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. "And if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle.

"So if leadership means anything, it means you don't lose … approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership."

Apparently, McConnell forgot that Hall of Famer Bunning was once notorious for hitting opposing players with pitches.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Domenici

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) is no longer part of the coalition of the willing.

The Senator's official webpage quotes from his Fourth of July news conference:

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”

The Senator added, "I am unwilling to continue our current strategy."

Like some other Republicans, Domenici is running for the cover of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Domenici supports legislation to implement ISG recommendations cosponsored by Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

The bill is intended to create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of American combat forces in Iraq by March 2008. Under S.1545, the U.S. military could maintain a long-term but more limited presence in Iraq—focused on protecting American personnel and interests, training and advising Iraqi forces, and carrying out counterterrorism and special operations missions.

Other cosponsors include Republican Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Susan Collins (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), and John Sununu (NH).

Not all of these cosponsors have called explicitly for troop withdrawal from, but I'm fairly certain that more of them will. Why?

Well, it is simple, really. Many of them are up for reelection in 2008: including Alexander, Collins, Domenici, and Sununu.

Oh, and do not forget Senator Mitch McConnell (KY).


Visit this blog's homepage.