Rand Paul insists he’s not an isolationist. Libertarians give Paul a pass

Rand Paul insists he’s not an isolationist. Luckily for him, many in his libertarian base are willing to let him keep saying that.

A movement that often demands ideological purity is, for now, largely giving the potential 2016 presidential contender a pass, even as he appears to take some foreign policy positions that are well beyond traditional libertarian limits.


Libertarians say they’re willing to look the other way because the Kentucky Republican — the son of isolationist iconoclast former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — is their best hope for taking their views into the mainstream and all the way to the White House. In more than a dozen interviews at a libertarian conference last week in Alexandria, Virginia, many attendees said they understand if Paul, who recently came out in favor of airstrikes against militants in Iraq, has to hedge on some issues to gain broader appeal — but that they still believe he’s one of them at heart.

( Also on POLITICO: House GOP replaces law firm in Obama lawsuit)

“He’s playing two games,” said John Walsh, a former professor of physiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. “He’s trying to position himself so he doesn’t get tripped up and ruled out [of 2016], and at the same time, maintain his anti-interventionism.”

Paul already faces deep skepticism from many establishment Republicans. They are quick to note that he once espoused isolationist-leaning views, such as arguing for an end to all foreign aid, including to Israel; reining in defense spending; and expressing deep reluctance to intervene in the Middle East. He has since distanced himself from some of those positions — saying, for instance, that he would not support ending aid to Israel anytime soon — but hawkish members of the GOP donor class remain unconvinced.

“When people meet Sen. Paul in person, they’re impressed by him, and he exceeds the expectations they have based upon the rantings of his father,” said one Republican who works closely with hawkish GOP donors. “He can change his positions now and come across as friendly in one-on-one meetings, but he still, at some point, is going to have to explain for his previous positions. And by the way, if he actually flips to a pro-Israel or more interventionist foreign policy, he’s going to lose a lot of his base libertarian, isolationist supporters.”

( Also on POLITICO: Will Dems go all-out to beat Roberts?)

But at last week’s Liberty Political Action Conference, it was clear that for now Paul maintains a large reservoir of support even among the most hard-core libertarians.

More than 600 ardent libertarian activists gathered for the event, which is tied to Ron Paul, who is idolized at LPAC. Those gathered were far from mainstream Republicans: Many are deeply anti-war and pro-pot; several could be heard muttering conspiracy theories about how past presidential elections were stolen from Ron Paul; one screamed at a reporter for “ruining America.” Yet they represent an energetic segment of the grass roots that would be vital to a Rand Paul presidential bid.

Already, such activists helped elect Paul to the Senate in the 2010 tea party wave, and they also helped fuel Ron Paul’s presidential bids in 2008 and 2012.

The elder Paul never gained traction with most of the Republican Party, but he had strong showings with young people in the early-voting states. Ron Paul’s losses clearly weighed heavily on attendees who were grappling with his son’s potential White House run. Many mainstream Republican supporters distinguish between Rand and Ron in an effort to reassure; at LPAC, doing so was a lament.

( Also on POLITICO: Walden: 'I'd rather be us than them')

“Well, Rand’s not his father,” sighed Tony Kampner, an author from Chicago. Rand Paul, Kampner said, is “just more willing to compromise.”

“Ron appeals to the purists,” said J.P. Tait, a 35-year-old photographer from Arlington. “But Rand, though he has virtually the same policies, talks in a way that’s acceptable to what we call the mainstream.”

Rand Paul often bristles when asked about his father, and he has made clear that he wants to be viewed as his own person. He has sought to explain — with some success in the broader Republican Party — that being cautious about intervention doesn’t equate to isolationism.

He has held meetings with some of the most hawkish donors in the GOP, has visited Israel and made other overtures to that wing, including bringing on Lorne Craner, who served in former President George W. Bush’s State Department and worked for Sen. John McCain, to serve as a foreign policy adviser. (McCain, however, is one of the most vocal interventionist voices in the Senate, and he and Paul often clash.)

But in private meetings with major libertarian-oriented donors on the sidelines of an Americans for Prosperity activist summit in Dallas late last month, Paul affirmed his non-interventionist views, and contrasted them with those of his more hawkish prospective 2016 rivals, according to people familiar with the sessions. They said the message was well-received, since many top AFP donors — including the billionaire Koch brothers — opposed the Iraq War and generally bristled at the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy.

Paul has tried to make the case that, when it comes to foreign affairs, intervention should be done cautiously and on a case-by-case basis. But critics charge that his message has been inconsistent.

In June, Paul raised serious concerns about whether the United States could succeed in taking on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, saying that while airstrikes shouldn’t be ruled out, they could turn America into Iran’s air force.

But by September, in a Time magazine piece headlined “I Am Not an Isolationist,” Paul said he would have “acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS” than President Barack Obama had up to that point, and called for “destroying” the group “militarily.” Then on Thursday, he delivered a strongly worded speech opposing arming rebels in Syria.

“He’s a conservative realist who will look at each situation,” said Doug Stafford, a senior political adviser to the senator. “He has said over and over that the top threat in Syria was from jihadist rebels. That’s why he opposed joining the war on their side last year. Now that the interventionists are choosing a new side in the war and choosing to go after ISIS, Sen. Paul will vote to authorize this action.”

Diana Castillo, a computer programmer attending the LPAC event, said she was disappointed and surprised that Paul would back bombing the militant network but that she was open to hearing his explanation.

“I think maybe he’s saying things as a political strategy,” Castillo said, adding that she could forgive Paul because “he’s better than everything else out there.”

Zoe Russell, a 27-year-old member of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition, disapprovingly cited Paul’s support for Israel and for sanctions on Iran (which the senator has both supported and opposed). But the activist cast it as a matter of pure politics.

“It shows he’s going to run for president,” Russell said, adding that if Paul made it to the White House, “at least he’d be cautious.”

Despite their overall support for Paul, libertarians interviewed also warned that their tolerance extends only so far.

“I’m not going to bend on my principles, just because it’s somebody from our ilk,” said David Dudenhoefer, a Michigan coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty, a group sponsoring LPAC. “But I have not seen” Paul go too far.

Zach Werrell, who managed the campaign of Dave Brat — the Republican who beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a stunning primary earlier this year — said that there is a “threshold of acceptability” and that so far, Paul is “well above that.”

Walsh, however, said that as conflicts continue in the Middle East, he hopes that Paul would ultimately hold the anti-interventionist line.

“It’s getting to be more important for him to be very consistent in his anti-interventionist stance,” Walsh said. “Because two years down the road, I promise you, the situation in the Middle East is going to be worse.”

Kenneth P. Vogel contributed to this report.

Correction: This post has been updated to correct J.P. Tait’s name.

CORRECTION: Corrected by: Jennifer Shutt @ 09/24/2014 05:53 PM Correction: This post has been updated to correct J.P. Tait’s name.