Just as a thought experiment, imagine that I offered you the opportunity to sit down with a handful of congress members and have an in depth conversation about world events and foreign policy. Who would you choose to invite to your chat?
My assumption here is that you would not take this as a chance to convince anyone to change their mind about anything, but rather you would be doing this because you sincerely wanted to learn.
As an example of a recently departed member of Congress, I would find it exciting to sit down with Dick Lugar and just talk about things. I could pick his brain for hours without getting bored.
But probably among the last people I’d be excited to talk to are Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.
On a superficial level, Rand Paul is interesting simply because he doesn’t parrot some party line. But his knowledge of and sophistication about world events and foreign affairs is at such a low level that almost any Ivy League undergraduate would make for more compelling conversation.
And Rubio is just a politician, through and through. His ideas are not his own. They are either learned from biased self-interested sources or they are for sale.
So, who would you want to talk to?
Plenty more interesting people with greater talent/skill/perspective than anyone in Congress.
If you wanted to learn how a great movie gets made, the last people I’d want to talk to are the people who put the focus groups together to determine how the film should be butchered in editing to maximize the profits.
What’s the director’s vision? How did the actors get their inspiration? What was the writer trying to convey?
Politicians are by definition parochial hacks.
Maybe true, but that’s not what I asked.
None. Times too precious.
Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren
Jim McDermott, Health Care
Elizabeth Warren, Budget Proces
Diane Feinstein, Intelligence Oversight
Juan Vargas, Kurt Shrader, Agriculture
Rush Holt applied technology
But his knowledge of and sophistication about world events and foreign affairs is at such a low level that almost any Ivy League undergraduate would make for more compelling conversation.
Given TNR‘s reputation of the Peretz era, one could rightly assume that there are a lot of idiotic Ivy League graduates. Especially as it regards foreign affairs. How about we start with some people that admit we treat Cuba & and most of Central/South America wrongly?
Doesn’t really undermine my point, at all.
Yes, remember that W was an Ivy League graduate.
I have only so many brain cells left so I’d choose Rand simply because he’s willing to argue without a script. Unfortunately, what that gets him is into water his big toe can’t navigate.
Marco doesn’t seem to ever demonstrate any courage and that makes for a boring conversationalist.
Bernie Sanders would be at the top of my list, followed by Elizabeth Warren.
My first round picks would be some of the current members of the House. I am curious if they are capable of offering us some real insight into what they are doing in their committees with foreign and national security policy instead of the reflexive messaging.
These folks, for example. (It might be a bit dated after Novemeber, but post-election reflection is good no matter which side of the day one came out on.)
Topic – US Global Strategic Posture, Global Climate Change, Recovery From Over a Decade of War, Momentum on Nonproliferation
Eni Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Alan Grayson, Florida
Joaquin Castro, Texas
Brad Schneider, Illinois
David Loebsback, Iowa
Topic – Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Gregory Meeks, New York
Albio Sires, New Jersey
Brian Higgins, New York
Alan Lowenthal, California
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations
Karen Bass, California
David Cicilline, Rhode Island
Ami Bera, California
Intelligence, Emerging Threats, Capabilities
Adam Smith, Washington
Derek Kilmer, Washington
Andre Carson, Indiana
Hank Johnson, Georgia
National Security Waste, Fraud, and Preparedness
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Tammy Duckworth, Illinois
Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Rob Andrews, New Jersey
Jackie Speier, California
Adam Smith, Washington
Look at the states on the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee. You know exactly what all of the members of this committee are there for. And it isn’t to cut budgets.
Some experienced people.
Mike Gravel, Bob Graham, Sam Nunn, Al Gore, Fritz Hollings (age 92).
From the GOP:
Walter Jones, Richard Lugar, David Stockman (especially on Defense budget and procurement)
There are certain strange topics I would love to learn how they wrestle with just to understand how the Congress thinks. (1) The United States is increasingly the most expensive military in the world by far and seems incapable of producing the peace and prosperity that was the traditional goal of US policy. How can we mend that? (2) In specific layperson terms, what exactly are US interests, who decides them, which should the public understand in detail, and how far do we intend to push them and why? (3) Can we now bring our troops home from Europe after World War II? Why or why not, without referring to NATO or bilateral obligations? (4) Under what conditions will the US respond to Israeli expansion into occupied Palestinian territory?
And real loopy question. (5) Don’t you think it is time that the nations of the Americas agreed with Russian and China to link our electrical grids as we roll out photovoltaic generation? What are the foreign policy and national security implications of such a move?
We shall see just how dumb he is.
Soon.
Watch.
Dumb like a fox, I’m thinking.
Watch.
AG
P.S. How can he be so dumb if he keeps on coming up on the right side of so many policy questions? Cuba’s the latest one. Dumb luck? Stupid courage? Maybe. Soaring intelligence does not seem to have been the governing factor in the choice of U.S. presidents over the history of this country. Great political instincts count for more. He is being increasingly successful at voicing the positions of a growing majority of Americans of all economic levels and societal groups. The PermaGov media will not be able to non-person him this time as they did his father unless he makes a big, Howard Deanesque mistake. So far? He’s rolling!!!
Like I said…we shall see.
Rand Paul is much smarter than he looks, and he is much craftier as well. Dems had better not take him lightly. He’s not a light-weight. He’s inexperienced, but is not a dummy. He is also going to co-opt a lot of young people, since many are going libertarian. The D party has lost many as the D party does not give a shit about American college students.
And Rand Paul gives a shit about college students? Really? Libertarianism pretty much by definition means higher tuitions and free rein for predatory college loan outfits. The fact that he appeals to some college students should not be confused with caring about them.
Wrong. He’s a moron.
This statement, for instance, is monstrously stupid and irresponsible:
“I don’t think we really want a commander-in-chief who’s battling climate change instead of terrorism.”
Or look at this dreck.
Crafty cleverness combined with narcissism often looks like smarts. It’s not. But only because obvious when a huge spotlight and megaphone is placed on/in front of the individual. Paul is about as informed, intelligent, and thoughtful as GWB.
Rand is an MD. So, he did something right.
No, really. Look at what he has to say about climate change:
Oops. Posted too quick. But look at that statement. First of all, it’s clear from these observations that he knows nothing about climate science. For instance, we have paleoclimate data going back millions of years, which is how we know that the climate changes over time. And of course the why of climate change is not at all a mystery. The most relevant factor that we’re dealing with right now is a rapid increase in greenhouse gases. And so forth.
So that’s ignorance, which is one thing, because ignorance is curable. But then let’s note something important here: Rand Paul doesn’t know how ignorant he is. As his comment about “anybody who’s ever studied any geology” shows, he actually thinks he knows what he’s talking about. That’s even clearer here:
And that’s where you go beyond ignorance into proud and incurable stupidity.
Total non sequitur. He may be an MD (or is he an osteopath?) but I wouldn’t go to him if I was sick. I want a doctor that can follow a chain of symptoms logically.
he’s an optometrist or ophthalmologist, self certified, i.e. he created his own board then certified himself iirc. i’m not going to use the google to find the details
Maybe God certified him.
I don’t often agree with you, AG, but we are both on the same side (reservedly) WRT Sen Paul. He’s a man to watch. He is at this moment climbing up the back of that moron Rubio. Rubio and the other Cubans are losing bigtime in the court of US opinion. For 98% of the US, the whole Cuban embargo is soooo 1964. What is the point of maintaining an ineffective policy for another 53 years?
Rand’s opponents in the primary will point out that he came out in forceful agreement with President Obama on a few issues. The court of public opinion of all Americans will not help Rand in the primaries. The select group of Republicans who choose to vote in the primaries will hate Obama with the heat of a thousand suns.
Rand has almost no chance of winning the Republican nomination. I’d be interested in hearing from the Paul fans how they think he can persuade the Republican base.
Remember John Huntsman. What exactly will Rubio and Cruz have to offer Hispanic voters now? Reinstating the embargo to protect the revolution?
Who is it that you think Hillary Clinton wants to face and who is it that the Obama crowd are setting up? Jeb? Mitt? or Rand? The duopoly will dump Rand before he ever gets close to the GOP nomination. Not because he’s libertarian, but because to their minds he’s erratic and untrustworthy (in his loyalty to them). If he does make it to the GOP primary, he’s in the position that George McGovern was in 1972. The establishment go on a campaign funding strike. Or quietly shift even more funding to the Clinton campaign.
The PermaGov media always fluffs the feathers before they cook the goose. Almost every candidate gets at least one brief appearance as “leading candidate” before the hatchet falls.
Nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear his answer about the future of Nauru, Vanuatu, and Bangladesh from him, among other interesting foreign policy questions. Another is what he would propose to build down the world’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. If he can run on with some detail for twenty minutes on each of those topics and demonstrate that he has some clarity that he hides for the benefit of the Wall Street media, I might give your optimistic take on his outcome more credence. Political instincts (enough of them) are required to win; policy knowledge is required to government. Americans in the past 46 years have forgotten that.
I see Obama clearing the field rather than setting up anyone. The torture report brings back Bush the failure, makes things more difficult for Jeb, Cuba undercuts Rubio and Jeb. Maybe Harry Reid will retire and publish Mitt’s tax returns
All this makes it easier for us to have a real primary
Yes.
So it has gone these last 50+ years.
But…has the massive disenchanment with the media and the whole governmental system, especially among people who really give a shit…has that worm turned (with the help of the internet) to the point that there might be a real change about to take place? Something beyond the means of the PermaGov to affect? i’m beginning to think so. I really am. The ongoing success of Rand Paul despite the best efforts of the PermaGov media to cast him as the fool that Booman so wrongheadedly paints him is a very interesting phenomenon. We shall see, soon enough. Massive money may not be enough no matter where it is spent to stave off the utter disgust of the American people with how things have been going since the 2007 economic collapse.
Let us pray.
Or be preyed upon.
AG
P.S. You also ask:
I think Rand Paul would clean her clock simply on the basis of having been part of an outsider movement for all of the time that this country has been tanking post-9/11. Mitt? A bad joke told twice doesn’t get any better. Jeb? His last name is a albatross hung around his neck. I don’t know who she’d rather face, but I know who she shouldn’t want to face. Rand Paul represents the next generation and he has no baggage as far as the collapse of the U.S., is concerned. The other two? Generations of albatrosses fly about their heads on a daily basis, and that albatross shit stinks up the neighborhood anyplace that they may be. Hillary has her own albatross problem, of course…Billbatross. Plus her tenure as Sec. State during a period where U.S. foreign adventures went from bad to worse, from Al Qaeda to ISIS.
It’s gonna be an interesting year, that’s for sure.
The question really was who do you think Hillary would most want to run against?
Nixon.
AG
She attended Nixon’s grandson’s wedding to the daughter of a 2013 NYC GOP mayoral candidate. She goes wherever the elites meet to greet — and doesn’t hold a grudge against any that were once her public enemies.
Yeah, but…Nixon is both totally discredited and dead. That’s a win/win, isn’t it?
AG
Nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear his answer about the future of Nauru, Vanuatu, and Bangladesh from him, among other interesting foreign policy questions.
I can answer that. Rand Paul doesn’t give one single goddamn about the future of Nauru, Vanuatu, and Bangladesh. He doesn’t take climate change seriously, which is one of many reasons who he’s a fraud and a dope.
A word about Rand Paul.
As it happens, I used to be friendly with his brother, who attended the medical school where I worked back in the early 90s. He was a nice guy who didn’t seem to take himself or much of anything all that seriously. But he did often echo things his dad Crazy Uncle Liberty liked to preach. He also tended to be ignorant about the world and not very curious about it either.
Everything I’ve seen and read from Rand leads me to believe that this is a trait that Dad passed down to his boys. Ron, however obtuse, at least seems to be a true believer in the hogwash he sells. Rand is far more willing to adopt whatever position he thinks will buy him the most votes. But I don’t think anybody in that family has a grasp of the world around them. Dull company, indeed.
Depends on what I get to carry into the room.
Ha, ha, my thought as well. Can I bring my baseball bat? Does it help if you think of it as a big stick?