For my money the biggest moment from yesterday’s Benghazi hearings was when Rand Paul took to the microphone and gave Hillary Clinton a piece of his mind. I’m not a huge fan of his wooden, wonkish style, but those emotionless vowels made the attack all the more harsh and hurtful. The video is above and the quote is below:
I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility [Mrs Clinton]. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.
Ouch.
I’ve written a big analysis piece for CNN (I’ll add the link tomorrow) detailing what the hearings mean for Clinton’s career, but equally important is what they mean for the Kentucky libertarian. Paul’s critique of Clinton is more powerful than that of his fellow Republicans because he doesn’t just oppose the inept handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. He opposes the entire foreign policy consensus that led to it happening in the first place. From Paul’s perspective, no War on Terror would’ve meant no war in Libya, no anarchy, no antipathy towards America, no attacks on the embassy … and no deaths. The best way to stay out of trouble is not to start any. You may find his philosophy cowardly or naïve, but it makes a lot of sense.
Those barbed lines about relieving Mrs Clinton of her post have relaunched the Paul brand as a YouTube sensation and, at time of writing, he’s on the Mark Levin show building a new fan base among Tea Party types. Besides his low opinion of Clinton, Paul also tells Levin that he thinks Boehner’s deal on the debt ceiling is “a white flag of surrender.” I’m inclined to agree. To be fair to Boehner, when the other side has overwhelming political firepower then there’s little choice but to surrender. But Paul’s right to call it what it is. When you emerge from the congressional trenches with your hands stretched upwards, you aren’t “compromising” or “negotiating” with the White House. You’re surrendering to it.
With Paul’s Republican star ascendant and Clinton’s already stuck high in the Democratic sky, it’s fun to entertain a Clinton v Paul contest. Such a proposition would be an intellectual delight because it would pit big state liberalism against small state conservatism. Clinton’s commitment to spending on guns and butter makes her the candidate of the welfare/warfare consensus – and every candidate in either party since the forties has run on a platform that is either pro-welfare or pro-warfare. By contrast, Paul is against both. In other words, a Clinton v Paul match would compel a once-in-a-century debate on every issue in every sphere of human concern: Social Security, drone strikes, the Patriot Act, debt and even the War on Drugs. Now that would be a show worth tuning in to.