January
26th 2013
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Rand Paul & Republican Party & Ron Paul
This is outrageous. Rand is now officially off the list of potentially acceptable 2016 candidates. His dad needs to put that boy over his knee and give him a good whipping and send him to his room.
“…absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and I think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United Sta tes.”
We really need to start to identify potential candidates who can carry the non-interventionist banner in 2016, because Rand Paul is not one of them.
Ryan on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:09 am #
He’s BSing his way to a 2016 presidential bid. Obligatory for doing so is (1) supporting the troops and (2) pretending Israel is our friend. I would cut him some slack. One has to appear non-hostile to Israel since the Jews control 25% of GOP donations, and he’s preempting the nastiness of a 2016 presidential bid given the malicious attacks on his father.
Some bull crap is obligatory. You just have to sprinkle it around liberally, and throw it at your adversary’s footpaths, and not let it contaminate your main course.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33852499.jpg
savrola on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:14 am #
I’d have a brace strapped to my knees to prevent them from jerking so much, were I you, Red.
RedPhillips on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:48 am #
So spin this positively then Sav.
RedPhillips on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:51 am #
Ryan, even if it is of little meaning actually (a debatable position anyway), it is a huge concession rhetorically. We need people who are rhetorically willing to stand up to the pro-Israel bullies. This is giving into them. (This is what I posted on Jack Hunter’s Facebook page where he is trying to do damage control.)
Washington's Farewell on 27 Jan 2013 at 1:09 am #
Ryan, this is not spreading a little bs around. This is lubing up, bending over and spreading your cheeks.
Rand is now the bitch of the pro-Israel lobby.
Sean Scalloin on 27 Jan 2013 at 1:42 am #
“He’s BSing his way to a 2016 presidential bid. “
He can do that if he wants but I won’t be to wave signs for him nor will a lot of other people. Not that he needs me to do so but beyond politics what’s dangerous if he does win he’s basically giving a blank check to Israeli to bomb Iran. It’s a complete upheaval in regards to U.S. policy.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Jan 2013 at 4:07 am #
I’ve had my doubts about Rand for some time now, precisely over this issue, but his current statement removes all doubts. He should not be supported by any anti-interventionist. What’s more, he’s not even being politically smart. He’ll never be able to out-Zionist Marco Rubio on this subject and public opinion in the US is slowly but inexorably turning against the idea of giving Israel a blank check in any event.
Tenther on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:29 pm #
Get up off your knees Rand and quit servicing the Israel lobby. Have some self respect.
savrola on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:39 pm #
For years all of you have consistently believed that every new year would bring an Israeli attack on Iran, just as the neos believe that every year will bring an Iranian attack on Israel.
Neos and Paleos are both wrong on this, because they have an aversion to real politik.
Rand has to go the extra mile to convince primary voters that he’s pro Israel. So what?
I personally support Hezbollah, but I understand Rand’s yielding to popular opinion.
I blame you, Red, not Rand for this decision.
That being said, I still don’t support him.
RedPhillips on 27 Jan 2013 at 6:34 pm #
“For years all of you have consistently believed that every new year would bring an Israeli attack on Iran”
Where have I said that? Find it. I haven’t said that because I don’t believe it. I don’t put it past Israel to do it, but I was never certain they would. But I have never thought the US would attack first because our leaders are evil, but they’re not complete blithering idiots. An attack on Iran would be incredibly foolish. That is why I never thought the idea that we should support Obama because he was less likely to plunge us into war with Iran was persuasive because I didn’t believe Romney was damn fool enough to do it either.
That’s why this debate is more important rhetorically than actually. Rand’s statement may have little real world policy implications (beyond our current posture), but it matters because it concedes the premise.
Mortimer on 27 Jan 2013 at 7:42 pm #
Rand is such a disappointment.
Matt Weber on 27 Jan 2013 at 8:17 pm #
I don’t know, it seems pretty unremarkable. Put in practical terms, how is what Rand saying any different than the status quo? If Israel were attacked–determinedly, not a once-off terror attack–does anyone really believe that the US would not support Israel, even intervening were Israel looking like it could not prevail?
Here’s another one where I don’t know what anyone wants to see.
savrola on 27 Jan 2013 at 8:47 pm #
And why does it concede the premise, Red?
C Bowen on 27 Jan 2013 at 10:23 pm #
I am with Mr. Weber on this one. No one is going to attack Israel because they have nukes. And most of us are entirely conditioned to assume false flag for the sort of triggering event that might fit this position.
No need to isolate ourselves more, fresh off the Plague Tour, by going crazy over a little line that Obama might say. More impressive if one jumped off the train when Rand voted for Iran sanctions.
Anyway, I am a Rand skeptic up my way and don’t want to see the so-called “liberty movement” the post-Ron Paul thing, attach their horse to him either, but Brzezinski mentioned in 09 that the US should threaten to shoot down Israeli planes that violate Iraqi air space in an attack on Iran–was that the non-interventionist position? Certainly the nationalist position.
Tough spot.
Sempronius on 27 Jan 2013 at 11:41 pm #
The Rockford Institute should hold a conference and call for a convention involving the US, Russia and the EU giving Iran guarantees in case of an attack upon it by Israel.
The three powers should commit to attacking Israel in defense of Iran and of regional and international stability.
It would open up quite a lively debate.
savrola on 28 Jan 2013 at 12:00 am #
An excellent idea.
Sempronius is right that there should be Paleo institution which might potentially hold such a conference, but the Rockford Institute is apolitical, and there no other Paleo institutes capable of doing it.
Especially seeing as Red, Sean and Colonel Sanders among others steadfastly refuse to do anything constructive at all.
C Bowen on 28 Jan 2013 at 1:03 am #
Semp & Sav;
You are just being dramatic–the topic in reference is defending the sovereignty of Iraqi airspace, a topic near and dear to all of our hearts. Iraqi airspace is like little Montenegro.
In 07-08, I suggested to nationalist friends on Original Dissent, skeptical if supportive of that version of the Ron Paul thing, that shooting down violators of Iraqi air space was the angle to work so I feel I have a good sense of the/this thing.
Rand hasn’t spoken on that, hence I leave the wiggle room–no need to jump off now, if still on board.
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 3:01 am #
Matt and Sav, don’t be dense.
As I said in Patroon’s Mali post, one thing that distinguishes non-interventionism is it’s desire for America to act like a normal country and not believe it must play some exalted role on the world stage and assume additional burdens for itself.
This security guarantee concedes two important points to the interventionist – that America has some special role to play and that Israel is different (more special) from any other ally. This is exactly the opposite message from what we should be advocating. We should be saying that America has no special role to play beyond mere national defense and that Israel is an ally like any other, not some super special ally. Rand’s statement concedes the whole game.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Jan 2013 at 5:12 am #
Red,
Israel is not an ally at all, no matter how many times the term is used. The US has no treaty of alliance with Israel. We should be working on getting out of actual formal alliances such as NATO and those in the Far East, not to mention the UN.
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 11:04 am #
Kirt, I argree we should be getting out of formal alliances. By ally I mean loosely a nation with which we have friendly relations, not just ones we have a formal alliance with.
Matt Weber on 28 Jan 2013 at 2:59 pm #
Yeah, from a non-interventionist standpoint there were many other things that Rand could have said that were more ideologically sound. But being realistic, he wasn’t going to say any of those things, because he’s not crazy. Israel is one foreign policy issue where you are working against not only the establishment but the base as well, and given that Ron Paul was perceived as being anti-Israel it is probably not a bad idea for Rand to emphasize that he is not. If he were doing something other than stating the status quo, then I would be more concerned.
I hope he isn’t gearing up for a 2016 presidential bid. After Obama I think I will have had enough of junior-senators-turned-presidents. Rand needs time in office to establish himself, as well as to let the Republican Party recover from its current malaise. Let Rubio or Ryan et al take the fall for the next decade or two.
Sempronius on 28 Jan 2013 at 3:45 pm #
Why should we get out of “formal alliances?”
Are we too good for everybody?
savrola on 28 Jan 2013 at 5:33 pm #
The point is, Red, that Rand has no choice but to make such concessions, because other ideas are off the table.
And non-interventionism isn’t big with primary voters because you and Sean and the other Paleo writers resolutely refuse to change public perception on these points.
So Rand does what he must. I’m sure he wishes he could do otherwise, but since he gets ZERO help from PALEOconservatives, what choice does he Have?
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 6:57 pm #
Sav, you live in your own world with your own vocabulary and no one has any idea what you are talking about. I am one man with a blog. I’m not exactly sure what you think I can change. I write blog posts. I occ. publish articles. I argue on interventionist wedsite. I attend GOP functions at times.
Semp., because formal (“entangling”) alliances get us involved in disputes we shouldn’t be involved in.
Matt, Rand needs to stand up to the pro-Israel bullies because the pro-Israel bullies need to be stood up to, not given in to. If not Rand then who? That is why this is such a significant rhetorical concession. The battle for ideas has to be engaged before policy will change.
Sempronius on 28 Jan 2013 at 7:29 pm #
“Semp., because formal (“entangling”) alliances get us involved in disputes we shouldn’t be involved in.”
Is that all they do? Why shouldn’t we get involved in certain disputes? Once again I ask: Are we too good for everybody?
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 7:48 pm #
Matt, Rand’s concession is similar to the Republicans who conceded that we might need to raise taxes. If the belief is that taxes aren’t too low, but that we are spending too much, then you can’t concede that taxes may need to be raised without conceding the premise. Then you have conceded the premise and are fighting on their battlefield. How much should taxes be raised, how, and on whom? Not whether they should be raised at all.
This is the foreign policy equivalent. Rand didn’t concede the economic point. In fact, he was one of the most vocal naysayers. So why did he concede the foreign policy point? You can say we should have friendly relations with Israel and still be in line with non-interventionism. This was uneccesary and gratuitous. In fact, he even went out of his way to make the point. The interviewer didn’t ask him that point blank.
Matt Weber on 28 Jan 2013 at 8:13 pm #
Was this a concession to a general “interventionist” point of view, or was it a concession on Israel specifically? That is, if you take Israel off the table right away, does that make people more or less likely to hear you out on other ways of reforming foreign policy?
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 10:02 pm #
Semp, you are getting it exactly backwards. We enter into entangling alliances because we think we are special and the world needs us. If we didn’t think we were special then we would avoid such alliances. It is conceivable that an alliance could be in our national interest, but “entangling” alliances (such as a mutual defence treaty) should be avoided. What do we get out of NATO, for example?
RedPhillips on 28 Jan 2013 at 10:09 pm #
“Was this a concession to a general “interventionist” point of view, or was it a concession on Israel specifically?”
I suspect Rand Paul intended it to be the latter. But Israel is the elephant in the room. A lot of interventionists don’t really care about other areas of the world.
C Bowen on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:04 am #
Red;
My point seems to be lost, but foreign policy positions have to be put in kick-ass phraseology in order to have populist value–or ‘non-interventionism’ will be absorb by the Left as “new” Americans do not give a crap about lines in the sand in the Middle East.
Semp pushes the point to the ‘crazy’ which the neocons exploit since they studied and learned about Semp.’s point; we are suppose to be the metaphysicians who figure some other way out.
As I noted, Paul really didn’t say that much–it hurts our pride, but not Helms at the Wailing Wall hurt, right?
RedPhillips on 29 Jan 2013 at 3:13 am #
C Bowen, I have actually given how to sell non-interventionism to the right a lot of thought. Since non-interventionism and interventionism are diametrically opposed, it is hard to imagine any sort of middle ground. The closest I have come is some sort of Jacksonianism, but that is unsatisfactory for several reasons. Realism likewise.
I am convinced that a lot of support for interventionism is emotional and based on the visceral feeling that interventionism is the tough manly posture and non-interventionism is wimpy. This is why I emphasize that exaggerating threats, a key component of interventionism, is chickish. Also that going it alone and minding our own business is the truly manly posture. Think of it as rugged individualism writ large. Also that interventionism is a species of globalism. No conservative wants to be a globalist.
JDP on 29 Jan 2013 at 4:49 am #
“I personally support Hezbollah”
lol
Sean Scallon on 29 Jan 2013 at 7:28 am #
Larison has another good take on this. Rand’s mixed messages are hurting what he’s trying to do for the GOP.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rand-pauls-unnecessary-security-guarantee-ii/
Sempronius on 29 Jan 2013 at 8:02 am #
“Since non-interventionism and interventionism are diametrically opposed….”
This is false.
RedPhillips on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:58 pm #
“This is false.”
Interventionists believe that America taking a wildly disproportionate role on the world stage is essential to maintaining the modern global order as we know it.
Non-interventionists want us to mind our own business.
Interventionists think we need an even bigger military.
Non-interventionists think we need to vastly downsize the military. Some non-interventionists even think we should scrap the standing army.
Interventionists see threats everywhere. (Because the threats they see aren’t just to America alone but to our allies, world order, our current global dominance, etc.)
Non-interventionists think America is virtually immune from invasion. (Their view of a threat is much more limited.)
I could go on, but why don’t you elaborate.
Brian P on 29 Jan 2013 at 2:33 pm #
As nauseating as Rand’s words may be at this point, he will tower the alternatives in 2016 simply by cutting foreign aid and not receiving cash from lobbyists.
My guess is that Rand has thought through the role play of an Israeli-Iranian cold war. He may realize Israel’s level of hotheadedness against the Muslims and allow them to carry out their own war if they have the balls, which is exactly what they’ve lacked up to this point. If his goal is to get Israel financially and politically independent of the United States that would be a major game changer.
An independent Israel might make mean a more aggressive Israel that attacks first — in which case we could be relieved of the burden of protecting them.
In a different scenario I can foresee any of our atomic-bomb boasting allies being on the receiving end of a terrorist attack(s); again this does not necessitate war or retaliation against any specific nation on our part.
Regardless of our current relationship with Israel — I believe the probability of an Iran, or any other nation, bombing Israel to be very low given Israel’s own atomic arsenal. It’s then left to game theory. Nukes on the other hand are game-enders. I have a hard time seeing a nation attack Israel outright. It takes a suicidal nation to launch an atom bomb on another nuclear capable country and other than, of course, the role of the indispensable and exceptional nation that beats up on nuclear incapable tribes, we haven’t seen much else and I’d say we have little to fear with Rand in office saying nothing of the likelihood he curtails the empire.
In addition, supposedly Israel is already being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis, so claim the Israeli lobbyists, and we do not retaliate outright with clear declarations of war. An independent Israel may allow for murky promises to fade into obscurity and evolve into the equivalent of our treaty with Taiwan. As much as we’d also love for that to dissolve completely, it’s a far lesser evil than our current relationship with Israel which drifts further away from a non-interventionist’s ideal with every blank check we sign on bended knee.
Bibi demonstrated this last election how the US president’s “friend” can complain incessantly and then return post-election all hugs and smiles. This happened simply because there are not many other ankles Bibi can tug while pleading gaga’s from the prone position. I see a more independent Israel backing off only further, showing their true colors of being nothing more than a meowing cat that now panhandles for crumbs and receives not even a shekel-sized bite. We can anticipate their looking elsewhere for a meal and less stains on our lawn down the line.
Matt Weber on 29 Jan 2013 at 3:41 pm #
Yes, Israel is the elephant in the room, but in this case it seems wise not to try to take down the elephant right away. Going straight at Israel is bound to fail the entire cause, because it will be spun as anti-semitism or at the least having a particular animus against Israel rather than some kind of principled non-interventionism. This is why TAC is so ineffective with this, because they immediately betray that they do not like Israel and have it in the crosshairs, so everyone gets defensive and that’s the end of it.
Hauptmann on 29 Jan 2013 at 3:51 pm #
It is simple. There are two possibilities:
First: He told the trough. And that means that he sold out.
Second: He pretended that he had sold out. That means he lied. His father did not.
I would never vote for a candidate who sold out to Israel lobby or who is a lier. Nor I would ever vote for a candidate who attacks his own father in the public.
So, whatever is the truth, he is out off the list.
savrola on 29 Jan 2013 at 7:19 pm #
“I am one man with a blog.”
If you’ve finally decided to accept responsibility for this site, how’s about you stopping Foghorn Leghorn from editing my posts in reply to his articles?
And since when was CT a “blog.” CT as I remember, was around in the early pre-blog period, before Lee Shelton moved on. I’m pretty sure the archives for this site go quite a bit before 2007.
“I write blog posts. I occ. publish articles. I argue on interventionist wedsite. I attend GOP functions at times.”
And I’ve given you plenty of examples of how to improve these things and create a more powerful Paleo presence.
But you resolutely refuse to seek a better course.
Therefore you have no right to criticize Rand.
My own GOP grassroots contacts have demosntrated to me that Rand’s calculation was correct, and he’s made a good decision, as far as his candidacy goes.
Also, I just noticed this bit of tomfoolery at the end of your article.
“We really need to start to identify potential candidates who can carry the non-interventionist banner in 2016″
My God, Red, will you never learn anything but to seek out a man on a white horse, waving a flag as a palliative for all your political problems?
RedPhillips on 29 Jan 2013 at 7:28 pm #
I don’t know who Lee Shelton is. This blog was started in 2007. It was the brainchild of “Bede.” Bede, Patroon and I were the original bloggers as far as I recall.
Above you said, “Rand has no choice but to make such concessions, because other ideas are off the table.”
How do you put other ideas on the table without putting them on the table?
savrola on 29 Jan 2013 at 7:31 pm #
And I will add that there is nothing in the world that can convince an elderly primary voter that the U.S. should not spill the blood of their grandchildren for Israel.
We have already lost that fight completely. Elderly Republicans have been brainwashed too completely.
savrola on 29 Jan 2013 at 8:25 pm #
Politicians don’t put ideas on the table, Red, writers and thinkers put ideas on the table.
RedPhillips on 29 Jan 2013 at 9:11 pm #
“writers and thinkers put ideas on the table”
What do you think we are trying to do here?
savrola on 29 Jan 2013 at 10:44 pm #
I have no idea Red. I really don’t.
You rehash old, irelevent issues. You refuse to broad your outreach, you ally with guys who’ve never won a fight in their lives, you don’t promote new blogs, don’t do conferences, don’t do symposiums. don’t improve your public speaking, don’t add avenues of outreach to the site. Have I forgotten anything?
Sempronius on 30 Jan 2013 at 12:42 am #
“I could go on, but why don’t you elaborate.”
Interventionist is a generic term. It doesn’t detail, nor distiguish, the many alternatives, both practical and theoretical, that can be categorized within it.
Observe. Sparta and Athens are at war. Non-interventionists wish to remain neutral. One group of “inters” wishes to support Athens against Sparta. Another group wishes to support Sparta against Athens. The latter two are both “interventionists;” but what a difference between them!
The opposite of pro-Athenian intervention in this case is not non-intervention. The opposite of pro-Athenian intervention is pro-Spartan intervention.
You feelin’ me now Red?
RedPhillips on 30 Jan 2013 at 1:08 am #
So are you suggesting that the US should intervene on behalf of the Palestinians?
But yes, in fact, non-interventionism is the opposite of either pro-Athenian or pro-Spartan interventionism in a sense. And pro-Athenian and pro-Spartan interventionism are flip sides of the same interventionist coin. Just as liberal internationalism and neocon interventionism are flip sides of the same coin, whether either side wants to admit it or not. Non-interventionism is the only real challenge to the reigning orthodoxy. The interventionists know this which is why they react so hysterically to it.
More than just a game | Conservative Heritage Times on 30 Jan 2013 at 6:05 am #
[...] Hunter’s latest Southern Avenger article was critical of those who weren’t exactly enamored of Rand Paul’s recent statement concerning Israel and U.S. protection thereof if said nation [...]
JDP on 30 Jan 2013 at 6:27 am #
“This is why TAC is so ineffective with this, because they immediately betray that they do not like Israel and have it in the crosshairs, so everyone gets defensive and that’s the end of it.”
well there is a line between legit criticism and essentially making implacable hostility toward Israel, regardless of the circumstances, the core of your “conservatism” like TAC does.
it’s cool though, they can keep whining that the Israel Lobby ™ has everyone brainwashed while pushing slightly-less liberal liberalism on everything else, and wondering why they aren’t taken seriously as a conservative publication.
RedPhillips on 30 Jan 2013 at 12:01 pm #
The only writer at TAC that strikes me as openly antagonistic to Israel is Scott McConnell.
RedPhillips on 31 Jan 2013 at 12:31 am #
Sav, you want the US to intervene on behalf of Palestine but you lecture me for not playing politics right? Just what constituency is that message supposed to appeal to? But Paul was right to pander to the pro-Israel bullies? Please explain?
Savrola on 31 Jan 2013 at 3:12 pm #
How do you infer that? I’m not sempronius.
And to my knowledge Hezbollah is not seeking US intervention on its behalf.
Hawthorne on 01 Feb 2013 at 1:26 am #
Sempronius is the yang to Raimondo’s ying. They are blinded by over considering one country, out of many, from entirely different angles, producing radically different outcomes.
If we dial back to Serbia, would Semp have suggested the neocon position to work with Muslims against those hated Communists? Should the ‘non-Interventionist thing’ have supported aiding Serbia against it’s threats?
Or should we do what we did and say–boo Clinton, interventionism!? That my oh so grand above it all position, and all I got was George W. humble foreign policy for it.
I am sure there was some middle ground we could have worked out that we can yet apply right now to Syria, on the home turf of our enemies.
Kirt Higdon on 01 Feb 2013 at 11:56 am #
I don’t get the reference to Raimondo. He’s an across the board non-interventionist and doesn’t favor siding with either Palestinians or Israelis. And he and the other founders of antiwar.com did so to oppose US intervention in the Balkan wars. Again, he did not favor taking any side. The US is in fact intervening in the Syrian civil war both by supplying “non-lethal” materials to the rebels and encouraging Turkey and various Arab countries to supply weapons and provide safe havens for the rebels. The proper course should be strict non-intervention. As far as the “home turf of our enemies” is concerned, I thought that was Iran or Mali or Libya or Pakistan or (oh, what the hell!) half the world.
RedPhillips on 01 Feb 2013 at 4:47 pm #
Raimondo supports non-intervention, but he is clearly emotionally invested in the plight of the Palestinians. It comes through in his language. I suspect this is what Hawthorne was referring to.
Rand Paul Clarifies His Israel Security Guarantee | Conservative Heritage Times on 01 Feb 2013 at 10:37 pm #
[...] Rand has felt enough heat for his recent statement that he felt compelled to have his team do some damage control. The clarification helps a [...]
Kirt Higdon on 02 Feb 2013 at 12:10 am #
Red, I’m not sure about what you mean by Raimondo being emotionally invested in the plight of the Palestinians since you don’t give any specific examples. I’ve contributed to Palestinian charities and for that matter to a Serbian charity. The Catholic Church (and I’m sure other churches) takes up collections to aid Palestinian Christians. If that sort of thing is what you are talking about, it has nothing to do with urging either military or non-military government aid, let alone intervening in actual fighting. Still less is it interventionist to criticize severely a foreign government. Why should the Israeli government be exempt from my or Raimondo’s criticism when the US government is not?
C Bowen on 02 Feb 2013 at 1:17 am #
Red—exactly, if I mean in a critique of language employed to tactically lead towards the stated end.
Just like Raimondo’s refusal to give the BNP’s Nick Griffin any credit for standing a forefront against the globalist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if being supportive of Israeli nationalism–the point Raimondo zeroes in on for criticism (and of course Nick is the bete noir now of British nationalist circles so maybe everybody won–which is not to say the criticism of Griffin is not warranted, only that non-interventionism is my goal for my country so I don’t care about England.)
Sean Scallon on 03 Feb 2013 at 4:01 pm #
At this point I don’t believe any potential candidate would have such serious differences with Rand to make any potential candidacy viable and credible. Nor are the even closely to be President. For better or worse Rand has inherited the mantle of leadership. But if one puts not their trust in prices, then offer critiques of Rand Paul is much healthier for a broader, mature community than blind worship does.
Rand Paul Does the PC Pander at Howard University | Conservative Heritage Times on 11 Apr 2013 at 8:07 pm #
[...] that Rand Paul become Rander Paul in tribute to his ability to pander with the best of them. First Israel. Then amnesty. Now PC. [...]