politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: What Rand Paul is doing is more important than trying to be a pure libertarian
Source:
Rare
URL Source: http://rare.us/story/what-rand-paul ... ying-to-be-a-pure-libertarian/
Published: Apr 22, 2015
Author: Jack Hunter
Post Date: 2015-04-22 20:11:52 by Hondo68
Keywords: libertarianish, neoconish, a transpartisan figure
Views: 766
Comments: 5
Brian Doherty’s New York Times op-ed bemoaning what he sees as Rand Paul’s lack of libertarian principle reflects genuine frustration from libertarians with Sen. Paul. Doherty is by no means alone in his frustration among libertarians. But he is missing a much larger and more important point. Right now, libertarian ideas are arguably under more serious consideration than ever before in our culture and politics. Americans fed up with big government but also not finding either of the major parties attractive, or their conventional leaders attractive, are looking for new answers and better leaders. People are looking for something different. The fact that a “libertarianish” Republican like Rand Paul is even a credible presidential candidate is a significant part of this trend. That Paul is scaring the bejeezus out of the most anti-libertarian factions of the establishment left and right at the moment, should be a pretty good indication of his effectiveness. That Rand Paul merely exists, as a political force representing a relatively brand-new faction within the GOP, but also as a transpartisan figure that continues to try to turn the whole left-right paradigm on its head—is also a pretty big deal for libertarians. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver recently analyzed how though few Americans label themselves as libertarians, sizable portions and perhaps even emerging majorities hold libertarian views on everything from the size of government to issues like gay marriage. Libertarians, like Doherty and others, might not be happy that Paul does not espouse purer libertarian views. But as the country seems to trend in this direction, as Doherty also concedes it might be, is it perhaps more important to have political figures who will actually help shepherd that migration and are effective in doing so? How many pure libertarians have been effective in doing so? How many pure libertarians would be effective in doing so? From an anti-statist perspective, it is also important, if we genuinely believe in making government smaller and shrinking the debt, that we have leaders who are actually serious about accomplishing this. How many generations of “conservative” Republicans have talked about limiting government? How many have actually done so or even attempted to do it in any serious manner? Certainly not the last Republican president. Certainly not most of the potential 2016 GOP candidates who differ little in their domestic and foreign agendas from the last Republican president. Many on the right like to dismiss libertarians because of our more relaxed and tolerant social views. But it is also libertarians who are the most serious about shrinking government in the way Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan used to talk about it. Many Republicans worry that libertarians are making their party more liberal, when in fact, they are making it more conservative in the most traditional sense. For libertarians to win, don’t they first have to be a threat to the status quo? What pure libertarian today—or ever—has made the political establishment as nervous as Rand Paul? Is not some of most hysterical pushback against Paul by those on the left who genuinely fear how much the senator as president would shrink government on the domestic front? Isn’t the collective freak-out over Paul on the right coming from hawks who fear reducing the Pentagon budget by one penny might lead to World War 3? Rand is running for president of the United States, not purest libertarian in the United States. Some libertarians might not think that’s the right decision and that’s fine. But no libertarian should pretend Paul’s presence isn’t a significant benefit to libertarianism. As Veronique de Rugy emphasizes at National Review, “Paul’s presence in this race is a real benefit to libertarianism in the longer run, whether he gets elected or not.” At some point libertarians should ask themselves: If they’re not trying to make the biggest difference possible, what is the point of their ideology? There’s a significant difference between trying to be the biggest libertarian and trying to make the country more libertarian. Plenty of libertarians have tried to do the former and have succeeded. Many have made an impact. But how big of an impact? How many noticed their mark? To what ultimate end or goal? What quantifiable political or societal transformation was actually achieved? Paul is trying something new. Millions of Americans might not understand libertarianism, but they are getting to know who Rand Paul is, see him as something different and the senator is hoping that a good number of them might be convinced to vote for him for president. A purer libertarian might argue over the validity of voting. A President Rand Paul would try to show 300 million Americans the value of liberty.
Gage Skidmore
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
It's a good argument to make against the never-satisfied purist Libertarian types and their endless debates about I-am-more-nonaggressive-than-thou.
Rand is freaking the hell out of the jerking off to war porn Republican types.
I had to chuckle that various conspicuous anti-Rand candidates have appeared. First Peter King and John Bolton, now Ms. Lindsey. It seems that Graham will get some cash (probably from Adelson) to run an attack campaign on The Rand through IA and NH and NV. A classic smother-the-baby-in-its-crib play. Whether Rand can withstand and counter the coming neocon propaganda barrage is an open question. I can see opportunities that he misses. I'm not sure his staff is up to it. He still makes statements that amount to unforced errors and he fails to really smash down the idiots like McCain and Graham when he has prime opportunities, as in his miss of going after McCain and Graham directly for being the (failed) bagmen for Hitlery and Obola in Egypt. It is the perfect example for the argument he is making, yet he doesn't use it. Inadequate staff is my first guess as to this obvious campaign failure.
Rand Paul is the GOP's stalking horse to try to do to libertarians what the GOP right-to-life boiler room did to pro-lifers: dangle a shiny object with the right label and apparently the right positions on a few issues in front of a disaffected part of the electorate, and then hope you shovel those people into the party without giving them squat. The Democrats play the race card and poverty pimp to do the same thing.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
#3. To: Pericles (#2)
Rand is freaking the hell out of the jerking off to war porn Republican types.
#4. To: Too Conservative (#0)
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
What Rand Paul is doing is more important than trying to be a pure libertarian
Some would say he is making political compromise on his libertarian principles. This is not difficult for him to do while he is in the political election attitude mode when politicians easily adapt, or mask, their principles and show more respect to the attitudes of the voters from whom they seek support. Of course, I would never say that Rand Paul is doing this.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]