Cruz & Paul - The Original Intent – Non-intervention in times where growth is required – Self-Defense only

One may say what they like about “political parties” and ideology, either Democrat or Republican, right or left, however, to break ranks on occasion, in the vein of George Washington seems proper. Referring to the brouhaha surrounding certain Libertarian and/or Tea Party Senators preferring to stay out of foreign frays, running against the grain of the commonly held belief of what has become known as either Republican aggression or Democrat aversion to intervention, both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have come under fire for their views on foreign policy issues. It is the wrong approach to pigeon hole either as self-serving and or off the holy grail of current events and political party lines – they are merely asserting the original and very smart foreign policy recalling the first President, George Washington.

The founders put little stock in political parties, as they felt that the focal point would be taken away from the business of a limited government and put upon a bureaucracy of the few. In this point of view, taking away of the common United States allegiance and placing it squarely in one political camp or the other, doing the good of the Party before doing the good of the nation.

Politicospeaks to Cruz walking a Reaganesque line when it comes to the Ukraine – strength through peace, and he comes under not a little criticism (view the political party comments). One might recall that peace through strength was also one of the tenants of Washington. Build up the defense, when the treasury was on the low side.

As to the piece by the Washington Post’s , Rubin, on Rand Paul being the “odd man out” in the GOP on foreign policy, she may have a point, as far as the body politic is concerned, however, again, in the vein of what is proper, Paul is doing what is right for the nation, not the GOP in all instances.

Or perhaps both articles are reflecting a concern by those who like the status quo, and the rising appeal of both Senators to a fairly wide range of independent minded individuals. There comes a time when one should look back at the history of the nation, rather than hold fast to the popular stance, and should one agree with a member of another political party, for the good of the nation, then so be it. The fact that there is much mud-slinging and finger pointing as to which Party is correct is somewhat bothersome, when the individual who is standing alone makes more common sense. The nation is buried in debt, cutting the armed forces, and investing (or attempting to invest) in major social programs, which may make this the perfect time to sit back, build a nest egg and enhance the military while using diplomacy. This allows for time to build back the treasury and the military and further prosperity the outcome of which would, indeed be one similar to Reagan’s. Which, recalling, a nation building from within both financially and militarily, is one which enjoys a bit of peace and prosperity, and the ability (which is key) of protecting itself should the need arise.