Inability To Respectfully Debate Disagreements

Ricochet has a recent article, Has Rand Paul Stepped in It? Over on Powerline, their link to the article was "Rand Paul defames Christian conservatives."

Defames? Really? Wow, he must have said some awful stuff! Then I read the article. Hmm. Not so much. The manufactured defamation comes from this statement:

I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that overeagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.

From the article:

Evangelical leader and supporter of Israel Gary Bauer told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, “Senator Paul is ‘mining’ these discontents but his characterization of Christians as ‘anxious’ to go to war is an outrage and will hurt him.”
...
A senior GOP leader with close ties to the Jewish community told Rubin that Paul’s statement is “factually wrong and demonstrates a lack of knowledge and naiveté.” He said the Senator’s remark “defames Christian conservatives, which, by the way, is not smart politics for someone looking to run for president in 2016. Many conservatives are very worried about the pull on the party, led by Sen. Paul, to a neo-isolationist posture.”

An "outrage!" He "defames" Christian conservatives (said by a "senior GOP leader" who doesn't have the courage to attach his name to the statement)! OK, speaking as a Christian conservative, can we put our big boy pants on and stop pretending we're "outraged" every time someone says something about us with which we disagree? And this is by no means limited to Christian conservatives -- being "outraged" every time you are criticized seems to be the new normal.

The category "Christian conservative" is a huge one. And, certainly, encompasses people whose instincts are both peaceful and aggressive. This should not be news to anyone.

After the 9/11 attacks I found myself quite sympathetic with Ann Coulter's exhortation: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Of course, that was never going to happen (the "convert them to Christianity" part), and lacking that fundamental transformative step, my enthusiasm for what we actually did "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and embrace peaceful 'moderate' Islam, allowing them to set up governments that deferred to Sharia law" sure waned over time.

Given that our public and political culture has deteriorated to a point that where we are so enthralled with the Cult of Diversity and Multi-Culturalism that we can't make rational judgments about our cultural superiority over a bunch of backward Middle Eastern hellholes, the best course is to simply keep out and let them kill each other as much as possible.

But clearly, there are some of us Christian conservatives who have been eager, perhaps overeager, to go to war. It's a fair depiction. As Paul describes, I would probably still characterize myself as a very strong supporter of Israel and probably more willing to go to war in its defense than I would be for many other nations. Paul's disagreement with me on this issue isn't an "outrage," it's a valuable counterpoint. I don't feel "defamed" that he called me on it. Instead I'm glad that he brings it up, so we can talk about it.

If we really could talk about it instead of ranting about how outraged and defamed we're feeling (hold on while I pause for a good cry).

So lets talk about it. How many times over the past 65 years have we had to go to war for Israel? I count, um ... zero times.

The truth is, Israel is really good at taking care of itself, and I don't think the U.S. nation as a whole is in any way in danger of diplomatically abandoning it, even under a Paul presidency. In other words, this is a big deal over nothing.

The list of issues that are of more import to this nation is virtually endless. Even if Paul treated Israel as badly as Obama as treated the U.K., hey, it's only for eight years. Also, the President is not the whole of the government. So we're talking about something that's inconsequential in a long-term relationship.

Would I accept eight years of slightly distancing ourselves from Israel for eight years of a President who respects libertarian ideals and constitutional limits on federal power? I sure would!

Obama's not exactly an enormous cheerleader for Israel, but even he has felt constrained by popular opinion to give lip service to our relationship with Israel. I doubt Paul would be any worse. He could hardly do any worse than Obama in foreign policy overall.

As for the accusation of "neo-isolationist," as others have said, that usually means "someone who doesn't like my war." We're all "isolationists" when we don't want to go to war. And shouldn't we, in most cases, not go to war?" I have no sense that Paul would refuse to defend American interests. That doesn't mean sending men to die at every turn.