At this early stage in the 2016 presidential race, before we even know the shape of the field, I always caution against reading too much into horse race polls. But surveys reflecting the broader political environment are worth paying attention to. And if a new poll is any indication of where the Republicans are when it comes to military intervention, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will have his work cut out for him.
With the catalogue of atrocities by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria growing by the day, Americans are becoming increasingly hawkish, and a new CBS poll finds that 57 percent of Americans overall — and a whopping 72 percent of Republicans — now favor sending ground troops to Syria and Iraq to fight the terrorist group. In a CBS poll taken last September, just 39 percent of Americans overall and 62 percent of Republicans backed sending ground troops.
Of all the expected candidates in the GOP field, Paul is the one who supports a non-interventionist foreign policy, and regarding the Islamic State in particular, he was on record initially opposing airstrikes before changing his position.
Paul was always going to be a long-shot for the nomination, but whatever slim hope he had was based on the idea that he could focus on economic and fiscal issues, attract supporters of his father who favor a more restrained foreign policy, and not say anything too alienating to the broader GOP electorate. In other words, in an election where national security isn’t a big issue, there was a hope that if he could avoid some of the outbursts that his father was famous for, he may convince economic voters to overlook some of their objections to his foreign policy.
But this doesn’t seem to be the type of environment that he’ll be facing. Instead, national security is a growing concern, conservatives see Obama as feckless, and they want a more aggressive approach. Furthermore, the way the Republican field is shaping up, voters will have a choice of plenty of candidates with strong conservative credentials on economic issues, so they’d have no reason to swallow Paul’s foreign policy.
Unless there’s a dramatic change in Republicans attitudes on national security in the next year, Paul will find it very difficult to do much better than winning over his father’s core supporters.
And reversing himself on a host of foreign policy issues to cater to a more hawkish electorate would prove even more disastrous to his prospects. As non-interventionist conservative commentator Jim Antle has noted, the “flip-flopper” label would be especially damaging to Paul.
Paul wants to sell himself as a politician who sticks by his convictions. Even if you don’t agree with him on every issue, the argument goes, the fact that he’s being honest about his views when they may not serve his immediate political interests means he’s less likely to fold under pressure on other issues. But once he loses the ability to make that argument, what else is left?
