Secretary of State Rand Paul? Here’s why Trump should say ‘yes’

By: Brian Darling | November 26, 2016

Michael Vadon | Flickr

Font Size
A
A
A

Print Images Print

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky/ (A, 92%) would make an excellent secretary of state.

With all the talk of people who are being vetted for different positions in President-elect Donald J. Trump’s administration, Sen. Paul would be an excellent choice to join. I am a former Rand Paul staffer (so I am biased) and believe that there are three reasons why Senator Paul would be the best choice to be the next secretary of state.

Sen. Paul has been a leader in the Senate for a restrained foreign policy.

Sen. Paul agrees with Trump’s foreign policy

Many names have been vetted to be Trump’s sec. of state including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, President George W. Bush’s United Nation ambassador John Bolton, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%). All of those have stellar resumes, yet they don’t have the level of agreement on foreign policy with Trump as does Sen. Paul.

In a piece John Gray and I wrote this year titled “Libertarian-ish Republicans: Who is next after Rand Paul?,” we noted:

On CBS This Morning this week, Trump argued a position that reflected Rand Paul’s policy on Libya and Syria. With particular regard to removing Assad, Trump said: “Let's say you get rid of Assad, you knock out that government — who's going to take over? The people that we're backing? And then you're going to have, like, Libya? … To me it [Libya] was a total mistake … [because it left Libya a] mess.”

Trump is equally frustrated with America’s foreign policy in Iraq. As he explained quite well: “Had we not done anything — had our politicians gone to the beach and enjoyed the sun, we would be in a lot better position than we are right now. Saddam Hussein — no good guy but Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.”

Don't Miss A Tweet

Conservative Review @CR

Trump campaigned against an Iraq War that Bolton supported. Bolton wrote a piece in National Review Online on June 25, 2012 that argued for the United States to engage in “regime change” in Syria by supporting the opposition forces in Syria. These positions are contrary to the foreign policy goals that Trump campaigned on. Bolton would be a lonely voice for intervention in a Trump administration that promised less intervention in civil wars.

Sen. Paul makes the point with regard to Iran policy that “both Bolton and Giuliani have advocated for regime change in Iran, and that doesn’t sound like diplomacy—that sounds like war.” When you look issue by issue, Sen. Paul and Trump’s foreign policy are more similar than the policies espoused by Bolton and Giuliani.

Sen. Paul, when declaring his opposition to Bolton, argued “he’s opposed to everything Donald Trump ran on: that the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change made us less safe in the Middle East, including in Iraq…I don’t know how a President Trump could appoint someone who’s diametrically opposed to everything Donald Trump ran on.” Senator Paul and Trump have many similar views on how to deal with the situations in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

Americans are burned out from endless wars and would like to see a focus on ISIS, rather than the continuation of policies of intervention that makes us less safe and that distract from a focus on defeating ISIS.

Will Trump channel President Lincoln in building his cabinet?

Sen. Paul is a leader against nation building

Sen. Paul has been a leader in the Senate for a restrained foreign policy. He has fought to protect American taxpayers from sending arms to nations who have a mixed record of support for the foreign policy goals of the United States.

As Senator, Rand Paul has been very active in pushing his ideas that have proven popular with the American people.

On September 21, 2016, for example, Sen. Paul forced a vote to block a $1.5 billion sale of 153 Abrams tanks and other defense materials to Saudi Arabia. Paul argued:

Today, a growing coalition of legislators refused to sit idly by while the President inserts America into another war and an escalating arms race in an unstable region without congressional authorization or debate. As violent jihadists attack the West, the Saudis continue to fund madrassas that preach hatred and violence against the West. The Founders did not entrust the power to initiate war to the legislature lightly. Today does not mark an end, but an important next step in reclaiming Congress’ rightful constitutional role in foreign policy.

In April of this year, Sen. Paul filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act “Congress finds that neither the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).” This was an attempt to force Congress to have a vote and to authorize a war on ISIS pursuant to Article I, Sec.8 that grants Congress the power to declare war.

And who can forget Sen. Rand Paul’s epic filibuster in March of 2013 for the idea that “no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.” This filibuster that garnered nationwide support and launched Sen. Paul into the national spotlight.

Sen. Paul has been vetted

Sen. Paul ran for president this election cycle and has been vetted by the American people. Although he only secured the support of one delegate from Iowa before he withdrew from the race, his views are well-known and have been discussed and debated during the many presidential debates leading up to the Republican primaries. And his term in the Senate and service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee distinguishes Paul as a unique and appropriate choice to lead American diplomacy going forward.

For those reasons, I believe Sen. Paul would be the best choice by President-elect Trump to be the next Secretary of State.