Which is a progressive coalition. But an alliance between constitutionalists/Jeffersonian libertarians and those that consider themselves Reagan Conservatives. I think Rand is trying to get both extremes within these existing coalitions to moderate their stances a bit. Eject the neoconservative influence but do so in a more reasonable fashion than Ron advocated. Split off the reluctant interventionists from the ideological imperialists. The troops can't just "march home tomorrow" as Ron often says. That statement alienates many would-be supporters who see it as untenable. I think if his rhetoric was milder on this issue Ron could have actually won the nomination. He would have lost some anti-war liberals but gained a lot of garden variety conservatives. I know many of them and they say they cannot support Ron Paul because of this issue. They aren't ideological neocons. They simply support the military and the use of force in some circumstances. They can come around with a little support and coaxing. Focus on troop buildup in Europe, Japan, etc, and wasteful Pentagon spending rather than Arab wars to start. Rand Paul is clearly not an anarchist, nor is he a neoconservative. He's probably closer to Pat Buchanan but with a little less olde time religion. I like it.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: