If you’re of the popular dismissive mindset that “crazy libertarian views will never win an election”, then Wednesday’s vote to table Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) amendment that would have redirected $1.5 Billion from Egypt’s foreign aid in light of the recent military coup there receiving only 13 Nay votes probably seems like just another futile attempt by fringe legislators to do something radical and different. But science demands that in order to determine whether significant changes are occurring, present reality should be compared to some sort of established baseline as opposed to conveniently equating all less-than-satisfactory outcomes to each other. For example, if a child used to average 20% on his mathematics exams in school, and a month of tutoring increases this number of 50% - he is still failing every exam, but his parents would be idiots to fire that tutor. Similarly, political change happens gradually, and dismissing it simply because it has not yet delivered its stated objectives is an exercise in ignorance and complacency.

 

            So, just what significant difference is there? Well, almost every news outlet covering this has pointed out that “a similar amendment last fall received only 10 votes in support” – a report that is misleading and inaccurate. Sen. Paul did indeed propose a similar amendment to end aid to several countries in September of 2012 immediately following the Benghazi attack and other attempts by Al-Qaeda affiliated groups on our embassies abroad; but said amendment never even got any sort of vote. Without delving further into all the complex parliamentary procedure involved, Harry Reid was able to avoid brining the amendment to a vote; and the bill to which Rand Paul unsuccessfully tried to attach it eventually passed Senate by a margin of 84-8, with 2 Senators present but abstaining. The 8 Nay votes came primarily from the usual Republican “fringe” that opposes foreign aid to hostile and unstable countries – Mike Lee from UT, Jim DeMint from SC, and of course Paul himself – but nevertheless it was a vote on a sweeping legislation concerned with far more than just foreign aid, and it is not safe to say the spread was strictly along the lines of that issue.

 

            Less than a year later, Reid could not exert the muscle to avoid at least a vote to table Rand Paul’s amendment. A vote to table is essentially a vote against the amendment, but it is a multipurpose procedural loophole that, among other things, allows Senators not to openly vote “Nay” on an amendment their constituents might support. And while 13 votes isn’t any sort of winning ticket, they were specific to the issue this time and still nearly doubled from last year – coming again from the usual fringe and being joined by a few unexpected supporters, most importantly Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As a result of this, regardless of botched and watered-down reports, the vote made front page news without mention of the bill it was attached to – still contributing to a limited amount of shame and constituent disappointment for the Senators that voted to table it.

 

            What remains disappointing is the lack of support from Democrats and liberal-leaning Independents. According to popular lore, that party is opposed to foreign policy belligerence, such as using money and weapons to leverage brutal foreign dictators who disregard the human rights of their own people and in whose hands these pose a direct or indirect threat to the US – and yet not a single one joined Rand Paul in this endeavor either time around. However, foreign policy leaders on the other side of the aisle such as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have become openly critical of these practices from the White House in recent months, and a solid minority of 5-10 Democrats is likely to join the ranks of the opposition next.

 

            Looking at the somewhat boring but very influential transactional details, a trend of change of mind is visible that is likely to continue to escalate as we progress toward an election year. We just witnessed via the Amash amendment to defund the NSA in the House how much political havoc can ensue from a strong bipartisan coalition forcing a vote on a popular measure against the establishments of both parties. Such an event in the slower-to-renew but far more powerful upper House only 4 months before a midterm election will spell disaster for established foreign policy interests, even if next year’s Paul amendment to end foreign aid to Egypt and similar countries still fails miserably by a margin of 70-25 or so. Slowly but surely, the United States seems to finally be rediscovering the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson’s “entangling alliances with none” approach to foreign policy. Perhaps it is because, unbeknownst to themselves – Americans now have the information to understand just how similar the countries in question are to the unaccountable, aristocracy-ruled kingdoms of Europe at whom Jefferson aimed that line of thinking.

 

By: Neurotoxin

 

 

 

About the Editor:

Neurotoxin holds a dual BA in Psychology and Political Science and an MSW with a specialization in Community Organizing. Politically, he is a “structural anarchist”; a school of thought that believes in treating all power structures as facts of nature that should be accounted for but not preserved. This school of thought dictates that policy ought to be driven solely by its empirically calculated outcomes.

Neurotoxin is the co-owner of Edge of Chaos – a political podcast and blog that can be found @ www.edgeofchaospodcast.com and http://www.facebook.com/theedgeofchaos.