Blog

These are by no means all the reviews of Sen. Rand Paul’s foreign policy speech at Heritage last week, but they are particularly noteworthy. I categorized the best I could.

Glowing praise:

The Washington Times editorial thought it was an important speech that stressed the desperate need to reexamine US foreign policy. 

The Washington Times Ralph Hallow said it might be the one of the most important foreign policy speeches of our young century.

The National Interest Editor Robert Merry said it was “an event of perhaps seminal significance to the Republican Party—and the nation.” 

Daddy issues:

The Daily Beast’s David Freedlander said it was code for saying “I’m not my father.”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake said Rand was only different from Ron “in tone.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank said Sen. Paul was exactly like his father.

Rand attacks the neocons:

Buzzfeed’s Rosie Gray said Rand was taking a shot at the neocons.

The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering said Rand’s speech was a critique of neoconservatism.

Yahoo News reported that Sen. Paul said a “true” conservative foreign policy was “restrained.”

Upset neocons:

Neoconservative Jennifer Rubin said at The Washington Post that Sen. Paul’s call for less intervention was “confused,” “naive” and “silly.”

Neoconservative David Greenfield said at Front Page Mag that Sen. Paul’s foreign policy was identical to Obama’s. (formerly/http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-obama-foreign-policy/)

Neoconservative Robert Kagan at Washington Post said Sen. Paul’s “conventional” speech simply described exactly the foreign policy we have now.

Archived link: Neoconservative Fred Kagan said at AEI that Sen. Paul’s call for less interventionism was dangerous and wimpy.

Upset libertarians:

Libertarian Justin Raimondo said at Antiwar.com that Sen. Paul was too aggressive in his rhetoric.

To recap…

Some say Rand is exactly like Ron. Some say Rand is nothing like Ron. Some say Rand is kinda like Ron.

Most regular conservatives liked the speech, the neocons all hated it and at least one libertarian thought it sounded too neocon.

Those who praised the speech all pretty much agreed that we need less intervention overseas and a serious reassessment of American foreign policy. Their general consensus was that Sen. Paul represented common sense and a more prudent Republican Party on this subject.

But far, far more interesting: The neoconservatives who panned the speech were all over the place in their critiques–Rand is too dangerous; he’s too conventional: he’s Obama; he’s Ron Paul. They’re intellectually schizophrenic. They’re flustered.

A primary takeaway from these reviews is that neoconservatives are finding it exceptionally hard to marginalize Sen. Paul like they did so often (unfairly) to his father. Good.

The neoconservatives are accustomed to having a monopoly on the GOP’s foreign policy. The subtext to their reviews is concern that Republicans are beginning to listen to Rand Paul.

The neocons are worried. They should be.