Shutdown, ObamaCare and what it all means

Interviewed by AJ Delgado (video below), I offer my thoughts on the shutdown, ObamaCare and the broader ideological disagreements sustaining the discord.

GOP Soap Opera

The prospective 2016 GOP presidential nominees are increasingly unhappy. Not with Democrats, but instead with each other. 

Now, as I argued in The Guardian a couple of months back, conservatives should welcome policy debates that help forge the GOP's evolving identity. This process is crucial post the 2012 disaster. However, what we're witnessing at the moment has very little do with the exchange of ideas. With Christie and Paul engaged in a bitter and very public personal conflict, the GOP is starting to look like a soap opera. As Matt Lewis has noted, it was always inevitable that the 2016 field would begin to openly challenge each other. However, the tone of these exchanges does not bode well for the GOP's necessary re-branding. 

As Rand Paul and Marco Rubio illustrated during the drone debate, just because politicians disagree on major issues, this doesn't mean that they must disagree on all issues, or make their distinctions personal.

Anyway, from my viewpoint, resurgent hostility in the conservative movement is just as much about identity as it is about political manoeuvring. Case in point- at the same time as Christie v Paul, we're witnessing another battle in a different field - that of the pundits - Scarborough V Hannity. Conservatives of all ideologies realize that change is coming. In part, this explains why the internal immigration debate within the GOP has been so heated. As a result, desperate to shape change in ways that bind with their own ideological outlooks, we're seeing conservatives return to labelling. From 'RINOs' to 'wacko birds', the battle lines of conservative identity are hardening.

Sure, this gamesmanship might be amusing, but from a general conservative perspective it's also bad news. As relentless and increasingly bitter insults are thrown out and thrown back, the conservative movement will continue to fracture. As the 2014 midterms approach, this dynamic is likely to combine with other challenges- in so helping to make the GOP's electoral position an unnecessarily precarious one. 

In short, conservatives on all sides must cool the rhetoric.

Of Drones and Men - Rand Paul Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul has strong legs. 12 hours of Filibuster and counting. Senator Paul's concern? The Obama Administration's unwillingness to provide him with clarification over the use of UCAVs (Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles) on American soil. I respect Rand Paul's passion. He's taking a stand (quite literally) for a cause that is obviously crucial - there are very few issues as important as the civil liberty of the American people. He's also helping the GOP move to a more intellectual position on national security- a realm of complexity demanding of independent thought. And while I'm personally not terribly concerned that the US Government will be unleashing Hellfires on American civilians any time soon, I'm also cognizant of the need to draw scrutiny to the President's aggressive Executive. The President must understand that democracy does not equal blind acquiescence to his will.

On the flip side, I also have a few concerns here.

First, the FOREIGN deployment of UCAVs provides a critical tool for US counter-terrorism efforts. In the absence of boots on the ground (which nowadays has a distinctly weak political constituency) and in the context of a strategic environment in which our foreign partners do not want an overt US footprint in their territory, UCAVs are a major asset. They enable the United States to identify, monitor and defeat our foreign adversaries. They have allowed us to impose devastating physical and psychological losses on Al Qa'ida and its affiliates. In this regard, we should make distinction between using drones abroad and using them at home.

Second, I genuinely believe that John Brennan would make a strong DCI. He's intelligent, well respected by international intelligence agencies and has an extremely strong resume. For a start, Brennan is fluent in Arabic, an expert on the Middle East and is a former Riyadh station chief. He knows how to fight Al Qa'ida. Yes, he's not perfect. His backtracking on the CIA's interrogation program reeks of supplication to Congressional Democrats- who are desperate to ignore history. But the truth is that the CIA has much important work to do. Whether in facing down AQAP, or restraining AQIM, or continuing to exert pressure on terrorists in Pakistan, or providing accurate assessments on China and Russia, or in addressing the multitude of other concerns that we face, the CIA desperately needs strong leadership and a respected voice in the White House. Compared to Hagel at DoD, Brennan is a good choice.

Finally, I worry about how the White House will try to slander Paul and by association the GOP. If they're able to paint Paul's filibuster as an example of unrepentant GOP intransigence, then the Republican position re-the 2014 midterms will be weakened. Such a portrayal would be unfair - thus far, Obama has lacked a serious willingness to compromise. Sadly however, politics is just as much about perception as it is about reality. To avoid this spin from the White House, GOP Senators must engage Democrats to get behind Paul.
 

In the end, my position is pretty basic. I hope the President will answer Senator Paul's concerns. But I also hope that Paul recognizes the need for a functioning, well lead Central Intelligence Agency. If the President is willing to get his act together, then over the next four years, America can achieve much around the world. That opportunity is positive. But we also need to recognize the negative - America faces serious threats. Those dangers must be confronted and each day we're absent a CIA Director, our task is made more difficult. President Obama has the ball, he should meet Senator Paul's reasonable requests and then Paul should end his filibuster.

The GOP 'civil war'

As evidenced by the heated Karl Rove debate, the GOP is struggling with continuing internal discord. Conversely, the Democrats possess a relatively stable party unity.
 
From my perspective, there are two main reasons for this dichotomy.

First- social policy. Where Democrats have a pretty consistent foundation of alignment on social concerns (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice etc), Republicans are riven by division. Some believe that life begins at conception and must be protected with absolutist government action. Others are pro-choice. Some support gay rights, others stand in unrepentant opposition. Others are somewhere in between. But, because of the deep importance of these issues, concerning as they do, notions of freedom, equality, tradition, history, religion and life itself, Republican disagreements here are often profoundly emotion. As a result, conflicts over social issues are able to burrow into passionately held and often personal disputes over other political concerns. In essence, if you believe that your fellow Republican endorses rape or on the flip side, endorses murder, finding common ground on any issue is difficult. For my views on social policy, see this Week piece. 

The second reason? Contrasting understandings over the role of government. Here, while Democrats believe in the active growth of government power and the notion of government as a mechanism for good, Republicans are less sure. Some GOPers support government power in certain fields, for example on defense. Others, Rand Paul for example, believe in a government that is not only smaller, but also less active (both at home and abroad). Again, because of the importance of these considerations; foreign policy, taxation and spending etc, these disputes hold a viscerally ideological quality. A quality that spills into a deeper distrust of the opposing voice.
 

When it comes to social policy and government power, a stable party comfort or at the very least, reciprocity of respect, is crucial for a party's unity and external appeal. Presently absent of that unity, the GOP is struggling to break free from a political sectarianism that regards disagreement as treasonous stupidity. And without a coherent internal polity, Republicans are naturally unable to persuade external independent voters what we stand for. And why they should vote for us. Personally, I believe that we must stand for freedom.