Latest News

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times Senator Rand Paul was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's staunchest critic during her hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

Both were propelled into the Senate in 2010 by the passion of the Tea Party movement. Both are possible contenders for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. And both are now trying to develop their commander in chief credentials through their seats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where they had high-profile opportunities this week to engage on the big issues of the moment.

But Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky are a study in contrasts when it comes to national security policy, embodying a broader debate within the conservative movement.

Mr. Rubio is challenging the strain of isolationism emanating from some grass-roots conservatives and building a reputation as an internationalist willing to deploy American power – he has advocated greater American support for the anti-Assad forces in Syria, criticized President Obama for not sustaining a sufficient American commitment in Libya and suggested that the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might be military action.

But echoing his posture on issues like immigration, he acknowledges that he is as likely to have differences of opinion on foreign policy with his conservative supporters at home and his fellow Republicans in Congress as with Mr. Obama. He sees a valuable role for global institutions like the United Nations, supports operating when possible alongside allies, and sees foreign aid as generally delivering a solid return on investment for the United States.

"Which conservative principles are we furthering by advocating disengagement from the world?" Mr. Rubio asked during an appearance last year at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"On the contrary, I think those of us who believe America has been a source of good in the world would argue that America needs to continue to play an important role in the world, as would many of our allies and even non-allies," he said. "I'm not prepared to cede the conservative label to those who would disengage us from what is going on around the planet."

Mr. Paul eschews the isolationist label attached to him by his association with his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose antiwar, inward-turning stances defined his national reputation. But Senator Paul nonetheless reflects the deep suspicion about global entanglements evident among libertarians and some Tea Party adherents, and in some ways is a perfect foil for Mr. Rubio's efforts to position himself as a moderate, mainstream leader of a new generation of Republican leaders on foreign policy.

Mr. Paul questions the value of foreign aid and the need for permanent overseas military bases. He is calling for more restrictions on presidential power to wage war, opposes American involvement in Syria and is noticeably less hawkish toward Iran than many of his fellow Republicans. As the lone member of the Senate to vote against a resolution last fall declaring that Iran could never acquire a nuclear weapon, he said, "A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war."

Taken together, these freshmen senators are a case study in how the conservative movement remains split over how best to employ America's power in the world.

Both are grappling with how to reconcile the aggressiveness of the neoconservatives, the fervor of the evangelicals, the warnings of overextension by fiscal conservatives and the efforts by traditional Republican "realists" to impose a more pragmatic, less ideological lens onto the party's approach. And with seats on the Foreign Relations Committee alongside advocates of assertive American foreign policy like Senator John McCain of Arizona, they have a platform to air their views, as they did this week in hearings on the security failures that led to the deaths of Americans at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and on the nomination of Senator John Kerry to be secretary of state.

"Looking at the Republican Party as a whole, the center of gravity is much closer to where Rubio is," said Robert Kagan, a foreign policy scholar whose thinking has shaped the views of many prominent Republicans, including Mitt Romney and Mr. Rubio.

"What Rubio represents is a particularly articulate defense of a position that has been central to the Republican Party for some period, certainly going back to Reagan," Mr. Kagan said, citing Mr. Rubio's position on promoting democratic values and projecting military strength. "Rand Paul is more of an outlier, just like his father was, but the fact that he's chosen to be on the committee means he wants to be part of the debate and wants to run on this. It will be an interesting debate to have."

Mr. Paul appears to be distancing himself in some ways from the political brand of his father, whose followers – mostly libertarians and Tea Party proponents of smaller government – are also the core of his own potential national political base.  Especially concerned about his reputation for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel, Senator Paul recently traveled to Israel for the first time, seeking to address concerns about his stance, in particular among evangelicals.

He backed the stance of the conservative Israeli government on settlements, and after returning , he told the conservative media outlet Breitbart.com that an attack on Israel should be considered an attack on the United States.

Mr. Paul has also sought to explain that his opposition to foreign aid is directed mostly at nations that he considers to be acting against American interests and values, including Egypt and Pakistan. He has backed tighter sanctions against Iran, even as he has protested the possibility of a rush to war. And as he showed at one of the hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, he is fully prepared to score partisan points on national security issues, telling Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he would have dismissed her over her handling of security at the Benghazi Mission.

Mr. Rubio, too, is willing to jump into the partisan fray. In questioning Mr. Kerry, he suggested that he did not see a cohesive worldview in Mr. Obama's foreign policy. But without taking on Mr. Paul directly, he has also sought out opportunities to portray himself as willing to take on the forces in his own party that would have the United States withdraw more from the world stage.

"My role, as someone who was elected with a lot of support from a lot of people who maybe have a different point of view than I do on foreign relations, is to lead, to go to them and make these arguments and try to convince people," Mr. Rubio said during his appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. "I have an obligation, as all of us do who are involved in Republican politics and the conservative movement, to argue about what America's role in the world should be."