It has long been clear that the alliances between the establishment and grassroots, as well as the social and economic conservative wings of the Republican party have been, and always will be, fragile and tenuous. But there has been a tendency, for me at least, to overlook the divide between “paleo-conservatives” and “neo-conservatives” that developed over the last decade or so.
The paleos have long held to the traditional conservative notion of a small government and a foreign policy infused with realism, but not so much idealism or adventurism. Then the Bush years crystalized (some might say Kristol-ized) a palpable division in the GOP akin to the Democrats’ battle for the soul of their party between their moderate and leftist wings. (By the way, news flash – that battle is over and the leftists won).
Led by George W. Bush, the neos ascended and challenged the paleo norm – deciding that, despite the declaration by Bill Clinton, of all people, that the era of big government was over, big government had in fact become inevitable, so instead of trying to shrink it, they might as well use it for their own ends and swell the federal budget with programs such as the No Child Left Behind education initiative and Medicare prescription drug entitlement. And they attempted to steal the hearts and minds of the GOP’s conservative base with an idealistic, even utopian vision of spreading democracy to the least democratic region of the world…regardless of whether the ground was fertile for such a radical experiment.
This fundamental paleo-neo division, which faded into the background of the party’s abject failure in 2012, has not only been awakened in the wake of the Rand Paul filibuster, but expanded into a paleo-neo-libertarian triangle.
Neocon Sen. John McCain, fresh from one of those inside-the-beltway, establishment highbrow luncheons with President Obama, felt compelled to take the floor of the senate the day after the filibuster and insult his fellow Republican senator, saying Sen. Paul was “pulling a political stunt to fire up impressionable libertarian kids sitting in their dorm rooms,” and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Sen. Lindsey Graham said much the same. And one of the godfathers of neocon thought, Bill Kristol, essentially closed the deal with his op-ed which dismissed Sen. Paul as “a representative of the code pink faction of the Republican Party.”
Stop for a moment and consider the mind-bending political calculation made by Sen. McCain that the most profitable course of action for a party still reeling from a shattering defeat in November is for a dinosaur like him who is synonomous with GOP futility to publicly ridicule the one guy who has actually managed to generate energy in the party’s base.
But then, what else would you really expect from McCain? It is actually sad for someone so widely viewed as a loser to continue to do everything he can to confirm that image. But it is maddening to those who understand that the GOP is the only viable political vehicle available to conservatives and libertarians.
Fact is, the drone remote control assassination program raises multiple constitutional questions and is a danger if left undefined and unchecked. Do we not owe it to ourselves to debate and clarify the limits of a policy that has allowed one man – the president – to compile a hit list and serve as judge, jury and executioner? Barack Obama may or may not be using this assumed power responsibly, but how can we know without aggressive inquiry tempered by legitimate national security concerns?
The idea that Sen. Paul is fear mongering, as Kristol charges, is nonsense. He is clearly not saying that any president is likely to kill an American non-combatant in our homeland. He is saying that this administration, which has all too frequently ignored the constitution, has failed to define just how far they believe the constitution allows them to go with drones. Any hint of the type of ambiguity expressed by Attorney General Eric Holder in his response to Sen. Paul’s question about targeting Americans is troubling enough to justify high visibility for the issue.
The time to consider such a question is not when we are in the midst of a security or constitutional crisis, but before one emerges. Do you buy car insurance before an accident, or after?
The establishment should at least stipulate that Sen. Paul’s filibuster is profitable, if only because it animates the debate that must take place in the party between the paleos, neos and libertarians. We are long past the point where wholesale demonization of Barack Obama is sufficient.
So the sides are drawn, the battle is joined, and what will the GOP become? Perhaps the only value in losing an election you simply could not afford to lose is that it necessitates a blank canvas upon which the future ideological foundation of the party will be drawn.
Their one-and-done, tea-party driven success in the 2010 elections postponed the day of reckoning the GOP should have faced years before. But in a party devoid of leadership for more than half a decade, such soul-searching is now not only necessary, but vital, because only out of such self-examination will leaders emerge.
Perhaps Sen. Paul is such a leader.
