Rand Paul moved Tuesday to reassure hawkish Republican primary voters that his libertarianism stops at the water’s edge.
Recognizing the biggest threat to his 2016 prospects, the Kentucky senator attempted to blunt long-standing charges from inside his own party that he is an isolationist and to the left of President Obama on foreign policy. In a speech declaring for the White House, Paul vowed to support a robust military and get tough with “Islamic extremism,” while signaling opposition to the Obama administration’s negotiated framework to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
“I will oppose any deal that does not end Iran’s nuclear ambitions and does not have strong verification measures,” Paul said, in front of a throng of supporters inside a hotel ballroom in Louisville, Ky. “The difference between President Obama and myself — he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness.”
Paul, 52, is the second prominent Republican to announce for president. He followed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who launched March 23 in Lynchburg, Va., and preceded Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is set to open his White House bid on Monday in Miami. Cruz, Rubio and the rest of the deep field of Republican contenders embrace the muscular foreign policy that has defined the GOP since Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Paul is the son of a libertarian icon, former congressman and two-time GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul — who revitalized an Old Right tradition of both foreign and domestic non-interventionism that resonated powerfully with Americans across the political spectrum. Since his 2010 Senate campaign — his first for elected office — the Tea Party-affiliated Rand has partially followed his father’s lead — sometimes making conspicuous efforts to cultivate ties with establishment hawks but generally approaching foreign policy differently than most in his party.
Paul opposes elements of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program to detect terrorists; backed Obama’s pursuit of détente with Tehran, and has voted against foreign aide. With the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s rise, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Iran’s saber rattling, Paul’s foreign policy has become a liability in his quest for the GOP nomination.
“For the average Iowa caucus goer, Paul’s foreign policy is a huge hurdle to overcome,” said Isaiah McGhee, a former Iowa GOP official who lives near Des Moines. “That is the Achilles heel for him.”
Paul’s domestic agenda has broad appeal across the GOP, particularly his push to limit the size and scope of government, reduce federal spending and lower taxes.
The senator hopes to use these policies as a base to reach traditional Republicans, while growing his support, and that of the party overall, through adoption of positions typically associated with Democrats. That includes criminal justice reform to attract minorities, and protecting the privacy of mobile devices to win over young voters. On Tuesday, Paul pledged to run for president as a different kind of Republican, staking out populist positions while painting Washington as the problem.
It could carry him far.
McGhee said Paul has an opportunity to “win, place or show” in Iowa on the basis of his appeal on domestic issues, important if the Kentuckian hopes to advance beyond the first nominating contest of the primary season. But the senator runs the risk of undermining his appeal with a less aggressive foreign policy that, while appealing to war-weary Republicans in the 2012, is out of step with the GOP’s 2016 electorate.
“Rand Paul should not be talking about foreign policy as his opening line with Republican voters. His appeal is on economic issues,” said Republican foreign policy hawk and adviser Richard Grenell. “His non-interventionist world view won’t go over with primary voters who are horrified by seeing people burned alive in cages by terrorists on the offense.”
Foreign policy has registered in recent public opinion polls as a motivating issue for GOP primary voters. They worry that Obama has accommodated enemies of the U.S. and ignored allies, blaming him for the spread of the Islamic State and for what they view as Israel’s precarious security in the face of threats of nuclear annihilation from Iran. They want a Republican presidential nominee who will reassert aggressive U.S. leadership around the globe.
This dynamic presents a challenge for Paul that is particularly acute.
Many of his core supporters were attracted first to his father, and now to him, because of his velvet foreign policy. Paul needs to hold onto this base while assuaging concerns among traditional Republican voters that he would back down from America’s enemies and abandon traditional alliances, much as they believe Obama has done. They could be turned off by Paul’s Senate voting record and pronouncements on international affairs that are, at times, ambiguous and contradictory.
Paul tried to thread the needle in his announcement speech. He promised to do whatever it takes to defeat America’s enemies but repeatedly characterized that goal as one of “defense.” That is a stark contrast from many of his competitors for the nomination, who have called for a more offensive posture against countries and non-state actors that threaten the United States and its allies. Paul subtly derided their more aggressive approach as “nation-building.”
Paul, as he has done repeatedly, sought in the address to protect himself from criticism by recasting his noninterventionist approach as the true heir to Reagan’s national security policy. On his support for engagement with Iran, Paul said: “Everyone needs to realize that negotiations are not inherently bad, that trust but [verification] is required in any negotiation, but that our goal always should be, and always is, peace, not war.”
Republican insiders are skeptical that this pitch will simultaneously satisfy traditional GOP voters and Paul’s “liberty activists.” A Republican operative associated with another GOP contender called the foreign policy portion of Paul’s presidential announcement speech incoherent and said it was a type of rhetoric Obama would be comfortable delivering. Even Republicans who are less critical, and see more opportunity for Paul to succeed, argue that he is going to have a hard time winning the nomination with this message.
“The opportunity is to galvanize his father’s base and the libertarian non-interventionist wing.” said Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant based in Florida. “The risk is of course externalities like Iran, al Qaeda, [the Islamic State], et al, [could] blow up the cozy fortress America bubble. The risk also comes [from] the fact that there is a deep, deep concern that he is wrong on Israel among the donor class. That’s not going to have a good outcome.”
