Appeasement is strength

Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand, [edit: it turns out this probably isn’t true, but for the purposes of this post I’m going to treat it as “constructively” true, as lawyers say] which is arguably less creepy than naming your kid “Hubbard.” Arguably.

Negotiating from a “position of strength” is a fairly vague term. Since the American military is and always has been vastly larger than Iran’s, one might argue that every American negotiation with Iran, including President Obama’s, have been from a “position of strength.” If there is such a thing as negotiating with Iran from a position of weakness, though, it would probably take the form of a deal in which we promise to give Iran more weapons in return for it letting some of our captives go free.

But a Reagan skeptic fails to grasp the higher truths of the Reagan cult that are apparent to the Republican Party. It is a truism for the faithful that all of Reagan’s beliefs were correct, even the Reagan beliefs that contradicted other Reagan beliefs. Likewise all of Reagan’s actions projected strength and are worthy of emulation, even his underhanded appeasement of a radical regime that led to a massive scandal. Even Reagan’s appeasement projected strength. That’s just how great he was.