Russia hysteria has reached such a fever pitch in “the swamp” that one must wonder if we’ll soon have to scrub our bars of Vodka, lest we be accused of colluding with Russia.
Congratulations if you consider that an absurd notion, but it makes about as much sense as a lot of the charges we see leveled against President Trump throughout the media — social and otherwise — these days. While countless members of Congress scream about Russian hysteria, Trump understands the importance of having a constructive relationship with a fellow nuclear power.
Merely talking to the Russians appears to be enough to merit an accusation of treason. If you doubt that, just ask Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the few in Washington who dared to refuse to toe the establishment line after Trump’s Helsinki press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and whose trip to Russia last week earned him the fury of those in constant search of another thing to be angry about.
Brinkmanship is no longer just a lesson to observe from history; it’s an active scenario playing out before our eyes. Trump derangement syndrome is actively driving the demands to punish Russia — with little regard for any consequences.
In the midst of the establishment’s collective meltdown, Paul seems to hold the un-swamp-approved belief that the “world’s greatest deliberative body” should — imagine this — try living up to its reputation and talk things out, especially with nations with whom we have sharp disagreements.
Dialogue becomes even more important when those sitting across the table from each other hold the power to obliterate millions upon millions of lives at the mere push of a few buttons.
The very same people yelling loudest about how horrible dialogue with Russia is, are the ones who recklessly invaded Iraq, gave billions to Iran, botched critical intelligence and made a politically motivated withdrawal that created ISIS.
Such a nightmare scenario should chill us all and create an intense desire for a measured, thoughtful approach to international relations — exactly the course Paul pursued during his visit to Moscow.
Those wondering about Paul’s motives should read his Atlantic column on his experiences, where he laid out his “agenda” for all to see. “My goal,” he said, “in visiting both government and opposition leaders in Russia is to promote dialogue. My hope on my return to Congress is that I will find bipartisan support for improved dialogue and continued progress on reducing nuclear arms.”
Indeed, Paul revealed early on in his trip that he obtained a commitment from Russian officials to visit the U.S. for further talks on matters of common interest to both countries, including fighting the war on terror and limiting the nuclear arsenal. Paul’s engagement is parallel to Trump’s engagement. Our nations have too much at stake, including the war on terror, Syria, North Korea and Nuclear nonproliferation.
The real question is, can the sought-after bipartisan support be found, or are the anti-Trump blinders on so tightly that even the thought of sitting down with Russian representatives to talk about such issues will immediately be ruled out across the aisle?
Remember that many of those convinced Trump is single-handedly pulling the curtain down on the Republic are the same crowd that have allowed the federal government to run up trillions of dollars of debt, cheered on endless wars all across the globe, and allowed the federal government to balloon into a giant and invasive behemoth.
Consider their track record when they tell you what you should think about outreach to Russia. Paul supports Trump, he agrees that engagement is necessary and he embraces an America First foreign policy. A policy that believes we must build roads and bridges in the US, before we fund construction around the world. A policy that we shouldn’t be involved in every corner of the world. A policy of engagement and dialogue.
Recognizing the agenda behind the establishment’s talking points and refusing to be guided by it — as President Trump and Senator Paul have done — is exactly what it will take to make diplomacy great again.
