PDA

View Full Version : Does Rand Paul Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?




cajuncocoa
04-30-2013, 11:42 AM
Let’s be clear. Rand Paul is almost certainly the best sitting United States Senator (well, perhaps second best, as the Senator from Washington D.C. doesn’t get a vote (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/the-best-senator-in-united-states-is.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter), and can therefore do the least harm). This of course isn’t saying much when talking about the psychopathic, ignorant control freaks that largely populate the U.S. Senate. In contrast, Rand seems to be more reasonable and often falls on the right side of many issues. We here at Lions of Liberty have not hesitated to highlight when he is right on an issue, such as his support for the legalization of industrial hemp (http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/08/24/rand-pauls-fight-to-legalize-industrial-hemp/) or his attempt to ban F-16 and M1 tank sales to Egypt. (http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/01/31/rand-paul-introduces-bill-to-ban-f-16-and-m1-tank-sales-to-egypt/)

On the flip side, we do not hesitate to criticize him when he’s wrong. We’ve taken him to task on his TSA “privatization” bill (http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/06/18/rands-tsa-bill-privatize-or-privatize/) and his stance on government default (http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/01/22/why-rand-paul-is-wrong-about-government-default/), among other issues. I find that we often get flak from other libertarians when we criticize Rand Paul. This flak is typically not about the substance of the issue or our specific criticisms, but more often about the fact that we criticize him at all! We’ll often hear things like “Well hey, he’s mostly libertarian and he’s the best we’ve got!” One of our fans on Facebook even recently commented that Rand Paul was just “tiptoeing the establishment line” because it “is the only way to trick these idiots into voting for him” (emphasis mine).

It’s a wonderful fantasy, isn’t it? Rand Paul spends years mixing libertarian and establishment rhetoric, just enough to “trick” mainstream voters into supporting him. He then becomes President of the United States, rips off his Neocon Suit to reveal his “Ron Paul R3volution” shirt, ends the War on Drugs, brings the troops home, shuts down the Federal Reserve and ushers in a new age of freedom and prosperity!

Unfortunately, this scenario is just that…a fantasy.

We will never achieve a more free society just by getting certain politicians to say the right things and get elected and then enact their policies. The people must change the way they view government; they must change the way they view the use of collective violence to achieve their goals, rather than through free markets and reasoned persuasion. This can only occur by communicating the ideals of liberty to the masses, and by doing so in a principled and consistent manner. Rand Paul does not always do this, and it is important for the purposes of education to point out when he does not even if his motives are sound and pure.

So why single out Rand? Why don’t we so deeply analyze the maneuvers and statements of every other politician out there? This is because Rand, rightly or not, is largely seen as representative of a libertarian movement. Is this fair, when Rand has even said that he is “not a libertarian”? (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/rand-paul-i-am-not-libertarian.html) Well, you know the old saying – “perception is reality”. And rightly or wrongly Rand Paul is seen as a “libertarian” by many and promoted as such in the media. Here’s a few recent examples from a Google search of “Rand Paul libertarian”.

For a Libertarian, Rand Paul Supports Awfully Broad Police Powers (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/rand-paul-believes-amazingly-broad-police-powers-libertarian/64496/)
Will The Future GOP Be More Libertarian? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/09/176707589/will-the-future-gop-be-more-libertarian)*
Rand Paul 2016? Libertarian Takes More Moderate Position On Military Bases (http://www.policymic.com/articles/32143/rand-paul-2016-libertarian-takes-more-moderate-position-on-military-bases)
Libertarianism challenges the old left-right divide (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/04/23/daily-circuit-libertarianism)*
*Includes photo and discussion of Rand as a libertarian

You get the idea. For better or worse, Rand Paul is seen as the leading representative of libertarianism. Therefore, when he makes a statement that is decidedly unlibertarian (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/rand-paul-u-s-should-make-clear-to-world-any-attack-on-israel-will-be-treated-as-an-attack-on-the-united-states/) it should be pointed out and corrected. It is important to protect the “brand” of libertarianism, and not allow it to be muddled by the rhetoric of politicians, even if they are politicians we like and agree with often.

This isn’t about Rand Paul, it’s about liberty.

Rand Paul’s media director, the “Southern Avenger” Jack Hunter, recently put out a columncondemning criticism of Rand (http://www.southernavenger.com/uncategorized/can-we-afford-not-to-give-liberty-leaders-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/) over his recent flap on the use of drones by law enforcement (http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-gets-cutesy-on-drones/), and calling for Rand and other liberty politicians to be given the “benefit of the doubt.” Hunter writes:


If a libertarian Republican runs, with a 99% great record – will libertarians discard them over 1%? Will they constantly fight about that 1%? Or will they give them the benefit of the doubt?

If they don’t, the establishment Republican unquestionably wins.

More importantly, if libertarians cannot support liberty candidates who aren’t 100%, then no libertarian candidate ever wins.

If a libertarian Republican is lucky enough to make it into a general election, will libertarians support them against media attacks, similar to this week? Or will they give the media the benefit of the doubt, as many did this week? Obviously, there are limits, but in a general sense, if Hillary or Biden supporters go to the wall for their candidate – and they will – will libertarian Republicans do the same for their candidate?

And if libertarians won’t, does this not put liberty Republicans at a permanent disadvantage? Does this not permanently stunt our movement?
Establishment Republicans and Democrats always have a core base of support that they must expand beyond to win elections. Will libertarian candidates even have that core base of support? Will we be too busy bickering with each other to effectively confront the forces that conspire against us?



What Hunter is essentially saying here is “Guys, sometimes you just need to shut up, forget about your principles, and play along with us.”

But isn’t this the antithesis of what the Ron Paul movement was all about? Doesn’t the establishment “unquestionably win” if the message of liberty is muddled in the name of politics? Wasn’t the Ron Paul campaign successful in waking up so many to the ideas of liberty because of Dr. Paul’s consistency and refusal to compromise principle for the sake of political gain? Hunter and his ilk continue to refer to any criticism of Rand as “bickering”, as if it is just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. As if we have nothing better to do!

This attitude is understandable from those like Jack Hunter who are on the payroll of the Rand Paul political machine and have a vested interest in his political success. And people like Rand Paul and Jack Hunter are certainly much more closely in line with libertarian ideals than most others in the political mainstream. It is for this reason it is important, at least for those whose vested interest is not in political victory for the sake of victory but rather for advancing the ideals of liberty, to support them when they are right, and hold their feet to the fire when they are wrong.

And with Rand Paul recently making even Glenn Beck sound more libertarian (http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-shoots-down-rand-paul-if-police-get-drones-the-2nd-amendment-is-absolutely-dead/) than him on the use of drones by law enforcement, it looks like we’ll have a lot of fires to be lighting in the future.

Nobody will be “tricked” into supporting liberty. Rand Paul’s position as a political leader in the “liberty movement” should not grant him an eternal benefit of the doubt; rather the spotlight he is under should drive libertarians to push him further towards true libertarian views, and help educate others new to the ideas of liberty in the process.

http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/04/29/does-rand-paul-deserve-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/

Darguth
04-30-2013, 12:20 PM
I don't think it's necessarily about "tricking" people into voting for him at all. It's about pragmatic baby steps. I've seen this happen with my own two eyes. "Mainstream conservative" friends and family that thought my foreign policy stance was ludicrous, but I get them to start aggreeing with me on domestic policies where we share common values to begin with. Then we start to agree on some more "radical" domestic issues (gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc.). Finally they start to see the logical errors and inconsistencies in their ideological views on foreign policy and the rest.

No tricking was involved. I didn't start out with trying to force them to agree with me on everything or nothing either though. It was a gradual argument that I had to win over-and-over, applying consistent and logical principles across the board.

My own father used to say he wished Rand was running instead of Ron in 2012 because he liked Rand's more "mainstream" foreign policy views. He now dislikes Rand's stance on sanctions and would prefer to see Ron run again (though we know he won't, and he'll still support Rand). It was a process, he didn't become a libertarian overnight (neither did I).

I think many libertarians are so principled (not a bad thing) that they can't see the forest for the trees. Gradualism is a winning strategy. One we've been losing to for decades. We should use it to our advantage if it's a winning strategy, whether or not if it's the "perfect" or immediate solution.

FSP-Rebel
04-30-2013, 12:22 PM
I presume you're bored and that's why you posted this in this sub. I'll just say that the media will be in full attack mode which will dig in the heels of all libs behind Rand, plus daddy will endorse and campaign for him. The "good is the enemy of the perfect" peeps can just sit on their thumbs and spin.

Petar
04-30-2013, 12:26 PM
We need to trust Rand.

Rand and Ron are coordinating for a libertarian GOP takeover.

Ron is confronting the GOP directly like a "bad cop", and Rand is playing politics with it like a "good cop".

Working together in this way they are maximizing their collective effect, for liberty.

BuddyRey
04-30-2013, 12:36 PM
Great article. Thanks for posting.

I generally like Rand and plan on voting for him, but sometimes the lock-step adulation for him, and the increasingly desperate, convoluted rationalizations for every un-libertarian thing he says or does makes me feel like the critters in "Animal Farm" who see the commandments painted on the barn wall slowly change from time to time.

EBounding
04-30-2013, 12:37 PM
I hope Ron runs again in 2016 so he can destroy Rand in a debate.

cajuncocoa
04-30-2013, 12:44 PM
I presume you're bored and that's why you posted this in this sub. I'll just say that the media will be in full attack mode which will dig in the heels of all libs behind Rand, plus daddy will endorse and campaign for him. The "good is the enemy of the perfect" peeps can just sit on their thumbs and spin.
This article is not an attack on Rand; it is a defense of liberty and libertarianism.

I have no argument with anything you said (other than your presumption that I might be bored; I am not)

The reason this article was important to me is because it spells out one of my own concerns: that Rand Paul's words and actions might be construed as "libertarian" when even Rand says he's not a libertarian (http://www.dailypaul.com/239264/rand-has-plainly-said-im-not-a-libertarian) (but the public perception of him is that he is). He may be pretty close to libertarian, but close only counts in horseshoes, as they say. His Dad is much more libertarian than Rand (more than a 1% difference, IMO) It remains to be seen whether Rand will think it serves him to have Dad campaigning for him, or whether Rand's campaign thinks that would be a liability, given mainstream GOP's opinion of Ron.

July
04-30-2013, 12:51 PM
It's not that Rand or whoever shouldn't be criticized. But, sometimes there is such a thing as cutting off the nose to spite the face... Hunter makes a fair point about not always playing into the opposition at every opportunity, and not always falling for every media smear that comes out.

VoluntaryAmerican
04-30-2013, 12:52 PM
Great article. Thanks for posting.

I generally like Rand and plan on voting for him, but sometimes the lock-step adulation for him, and the increasingly desperate, convoluted rationalizations for every un-libertarian thing he says or does makes me feel like the critters in "Animal Farm" who see the commandments painted on the barn wall slowly change from time to time.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, it's important for us to still criticize Rand if he goes to far. But I've seen way more irrational arguments against Rand than for him.

And yes Rand deserves the benefit of the doubt. I trust Rand Paul.

A Son of Liberty
04-30-2013, 12:52 PM
Nobody will be “tricked” into supporting liberty.

In a nutshell.

I've stepped away from the political movement, and have begun working toward teaching people the principles of the philosophy of liberty. It's great that there is a political movement which seeks to stem the tide, but the tide will not be reversed until people understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty.

+rep to you, cc. And cheers to the rest of you.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-30-2013, 01:04 PM
I don't think it's necessarily about "tricking" people into voting for him at all. It's about pragmatic baby steps. I've seen this happen with my own two eyes. "Mainstream conservative" friends and family that thought my foreign policy stance was ludicrous, but I get them to start aggreeing with me on domestic policies where we share common values to begin with. Then we start to agree on some more "radical" domestic issues (gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc.). Finally they start to see the logical errors and inconsistencies in their ideological views on foreign policy and the rest.

No tricking was involved. I didn't start out with trying to force them to agree with me on everything or nothing either though. It was a gradual argument that I had to win over-and-over, applying consistent and logical principles across the board.

My own father used to say he wished Rand was running instead of Ron in 2012 because he liked Rand's more "mainstream" foreign policy views. He now dislikes Rand's stance on sanctions and would prefer to see Ron run again (though we know he won't, and he'll still support Rand). It was a process, he didn't become a libertarian overnight (neither did I).

I think many libertarians are so principled (not a bad thing) that they can't see the forest for the trees. Gradualism is a winning strategy. One we've been losing to for decades. We should use it to our advantage if it's a winning strategy, whether or not if it's the "perfect" or immediate solution.


I hear ya. My father was a huge Goldwater fan, um, and thought George Bush Sr would make a great president because he was once heading the CIA. We know a lot more than our "families" in a lot of cases. I had to explain Northwoods, WW2 Japan, etc.

I eventually got him to vote for RP, and I think he's been daily driving a truck with a giant RP sticker for about 4 years now. (I did give him a screwed up truck he'd fix it, and he did, but he kept all the decals on, which feels great accomplishment to me even today.)

It's a funny thing. As government is able to look at us better, we've also been able to look at them a lot better. They fight that tooth and nail, but they may not win the media wars if if we can stave off a collapse.

Brian4Liberty
04-30-2013, 01:26 PM
It's not that Rand or whoever shouldn't be criticized. But, sometimes there is such a thing as cutting off the nose to spite the face... Hunter makes a fair point about not always playing into the opposition at every opportunity, and not always falling for every media smear that comes out.

That.

cajuncocoa
04-30-2013, 01:33 PM
It's not that Rand or whoever shouldn't be criticized. But, sometimes there is such a thing as cutting off the nose to spite the face... Hunter makes a fair point about not always playing into the opposition at every opportunity, and not always falling for every media smear that comes out.
Not one word of that article is about falling for media smears.

Working Poor
04-30-2013, 01:33 PM
I don't claim to be a member of the libertarian party but I certainly know I will vote for Rand as a republican running in the primary. No he ain't perfect and neither is Jeb Bush or any of the other candidates the republicans throw out there.

I think Rand come closer to mmy ideal concerning war and the economy to me these ate very important issues even more important than the drug war and I think Rand is leaning in a sane direction on the drug war. So he has my vote.

I admire the hell out of him for trying to walk the tight rope. It is the omly way he will win.

Liberty has been tied up and thrown in the trunk are we as the lovers of liberty going to open the trunk and pul liberty out and untie it or are we going to push it off a cliff into a deep ravein?

jllundqu
04-30-2013, 01:38 PM
I hope Ron runs again in 2016 so he can destroy Rand in a debate.

And how!

CCTelander
04-30-2013, 01:45 PM
Not one word of that article is about falling for media smears.


You Rand-hater, you! ;)

jmdrake
04-30-2013, 01:51 PM
This article is not an attack on Rand; it is a defense of liberty and libertarianism.

I have no argument with anything you said (other than your presumption that I might be bored; I am not)

The reason this article was important to me is because it spells out one of my own concerns: that Rand Paul's words and actions might be construed as "libertarian" when even Rand says he's not a libertarian (http://www.dailypaul.com/239264/rand-has-plainly-said-im-not-a-libertarian) (but the public perception of him is that he is). He may be pretty close to libertarian, but close only counts in horseshoes, as they say. His Dad is much more libertarian than Rand (more than a 1% difference, IMO) It remains to be seen whether Rand will think it serves him to have Dad campaigning for him, or whether Rand's campaign thinks that would be a liability, given mainstream GOP's opinion of Ron.

I hear what you are saying. I found this part of the article to be the most interesting.

And with Rand Paul recently making even Glenn Beck sound more libertarian than him on the use of drones by law enforcement, it looks like we’ll have a lot of fires to be lighting in the future.

I had to click on that. Beck actually made a good point about drones being the death of the second amendment. (Although I think that can play both ways. Drones could be a big equalizer in such a situation. It's possible to 3D print a drone. You can't 3D print an F-22.) I fear that I had back in 2009 / 2010 regarding some of the stuff Rand was saying when running for senate is "If we give him a pass on this, then what happens when we need to attack a political enemy on the same issue?" I think if people stay consistent to principle than it shouldn't matter. Actually I think the drone thing ultimately worked out for the best. Rand's enemies wanted him to lay down a "line in the sand" they could attack with some mythical hypothetical. "So the Chinese invade and there are Americans that take up arms on their side and you're saying the military can't use drones?" But I'm glad Rand came back and clarified his statement. It would have been horrid for the old one to be left hanging out there.

Antischism
04-30-2013, 01:52 PM
Rand doesn't have the years of experience nor the record that Ron Paul has, he's playing party politics and isn't a libertarian, so of course it's natural for people to be skeptical. It's healthy to be skeptical. The sooner we make compromises on issues, the quicker we are to fall face-first into a puddle of mud and walk away looking like idiots for supporting that which we opposed because it's Rand Paul doing it.

Rand has done and said things I've both liked and disliked. I'm completely against the idea of having drones in our skies, regardless of the purpose. You allow the government to fly drones and eventually, through incrementalism, we'll have nightmarish skies raining hellfire on civilians due to 'malfunctions' or some other excuse. It just adds another layer of protection so holding individuals accountable for murder is that much more difficult. I'm also not completely sold on his foreign policy, although I will say it would be a huge step in the right direction, despite him wanting to keep some military bases overseas voting for sanctions. I'm a non-interventionist first and foremost, so that's a huge issue for me.

He's great on 2A obviously, and... decent on the drug war. Basically, he's no Ron Paul, that's for sure, but he's a big step in the right direction. Someone like Andrew Napolitano would get my support over Rand were he to run, for example, but barring that, I would vote for Rand unless he manages to change my mind before 2016.

More on topic, Rand is perhaps a gateway drug to libertarianism, but definitely should not be seen as some sort of torch-bearer or gold standard for libertarianism, because he's not. Rand is a constitutionalist/conservative, nothing else. Definitely not someone I agree with on all issues, but he's far and away the best option if you consider the potential 2016 candidates.

Bastiat's The Law
04-30-2013, 01:57 PM
I don't think it's necessarily about "tricking" people into voting for him at all. It's about pragmatic baby steps. I've seen this happen with my own two eyes. "Mainstream conservative" friends and family that thought my foreign policy stance was ludicrous, but I get them to start aggreeing with me on domestic policies where we share common values to begin with. Then we start to agree on some more "radical" domestic issues (gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc.). Finally they start to see the logical errors and inconsistencies in their ideological views on foreign policy and the rest.

No tricking was involved. I didn't start out with trying to force them to agree with me on everything or nothing either though. It was a gradual argument that I had to win over-and-over, applying consistent and logical principles across the board.

My own father used to say he wished Rand was running instead of Ron in 2012 because he liked Rand's more "mainstream" foreign policy views. He now dislikes Rand's stance on sanctions and would prefer to see Ron run again (though we know he won't, and he'll still support Rand). It was a process, he didn't become a libertarian overnight (neither did I).

I think many libertarians are so principled (not a bad thing) that they can't see the forest for the trees. Gradualism is a winning strategy. One we've been losing to for decades. We should use it to our advantage if it's a winning strategy, whether or not if it's the "perfect" or immediate solution.
We've been losing to the gradualism strategy for a century now. If we actually got our people in positions to implement our ideas we could reverse course and fundamentally turn this country around in a relatively short amount of time. When the public sees our policies paying dividends in their pocket book and beyond there will be a huge groundswell of support. If things break our way, I think we could see tremendous progress within a decade. Hell, Rand could even be instrumental in choosing his successor if he can get this country back on track. The powers that be strive to divide us more than ever now and would relish us splintering and failing when victory was within our grasp. I truly believe if Rand wins, we have the opportunity to make the 21st century a libertarian golden age. If we lose this battle, libertarianism goes back up on the shelf and may not be dusted off again until a couple centuries later and then looked upon as being a peculiar footnote to history. Our time is now.

Bastiat's The Law
04-30-2013, 02:07 PM
Rand doesn't have the years of experience nor the record that Ron Paul has, he's playing party politics and isn't a libertarian, so of course it's natural for people to be skeptical. It's healthy to be skeptical. The sooner we make compromises on issues, the quicker we are to fall face-first into a puddle of mud and walk away looking like idiots for supporting that which we opposed because it's Rand Paul doing it.

Rand has done and said things I've both liked and disliked. I'm completely against the idea of having drones in our skies, regardless of the purpose. You allow the government to fly drones and eventually, through incrementalism, we'll have nightmarish skies raining hellfire on civilians due to 'malfunctions' or some other excuse. It just adds another layer of protection so holding individuals accountable for murder is that much more difficult. I'm also not completely sold on his foreign policy, although I will say it would be a huge step in the right direction, despite him wanting to keep some military bases overseas. I'm a non-interventionist first and foremost, so that's a huge issue for me.

He's great on 2A obviously, and... decent on the drug war. Basically, he's no Ron Paul, that's for sure, but he's a big step in the right direction. Someone like Andrew Napolitano would get my support over Rand were he to run, for example, but barring that, I would vote for Rand unless he manages to change my mind before 2016.

More on topic, Rand is perhaps a gateway drug to libertarianism, but definitely should not be seen as some sort of torch-bearer or gold standard for libertarianism, because he's not. Rand is a constitutionalist/conservative, nothing else. Definitely not someone I agree with on all issues, but he's far and away the best option if you consider the potential 2016 candidates.
If Rand wins, voices like Napolitano's would be amplified tenfold. I like the gateway drug analogy by the way. The masses have been conditioned over the past 80 or so years to appeal to central authority, and its going to take a true believer in liberty and a gifted communicator to walk that back slowly while educating them on matters the public schools conveniently omitted. Rand will excel in that role; he'll truly connect with people and start changing hearts and minds our way. Rand is just the prologue in this epic.

Bastiat's The Law
04-30-2013, 02:19 PM
I hope Ron runs again in 2016 so he can destroy Rand in a debate.
I look forward to Rickrolling you with videos of Ron stumping for his son at every venue possible.

EBounding
04-30-2013, 02:26 PM
It’s a wonderful fantasy, isn’t it? Rand Paul spends years mixing libertarian and establishment rhetoric, just enough to “trick” mainstream voters into supporting him. He then becomes President of the United States, rips off his Neocon Suit to reveal his “Ron Paul R3volution” shirt, ends the War on Drugs, brings the troops home, shuts down the Federal Reserve and ushers in a new age of freedom and prosperity!

A President Ron Paul couldn't do all those things either, except bring the troops home.

Does the author of the article really think a President Rand Paul would be no different than the others in the past 30 years? Does the author really think Rand is pretending to be a neocon? :confused: If Rand's pretending to be a neocon, he's doing a terrible job.

erowe1
04-30-2013, 02:28 PM
lionsofliberty.com?

Never heard of it.

From the OP it looks like some buffoon in the peanut gallery who likes to pat himself on the back and imagine he's relevant every time he whines about something on the internet.

Christian Liberty
04-30-2013, 02:54 PM
@CC- +rep to be given for saying the things that are hard to say.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do at this point. I feel like Rand could be an undercover agent for Ron Paul, but he could just as easily be an undercover neocon. I trust Ron Paul when he says he THINKS Rand has the best of intentions, but he's also obviously biased toward his son, and doesn't recognize just how unique he truly is. If I had to guess, I'd say both of these things are false, Rand is not a neocon nor is he an undercover libertarian hero. He's just an ordinary constitutional conservative, or at least, that's how he's going to rule. Just because his last name is Paul doesn't make that any better, but regardless of that, its pretty darn good compared to the alternatives. He is NOT a libertarian though, or at least, his current policies aren't.

When I don't know what I'm supposed to do, I roll the dice. I've literally got nothing to lose. I'm in New York, so it doesn't matter anyway, but even if it did, Rand can't be any worse than what we've got. He can only be better. Hopefully a lot better, but certainly at least somewhat better. I also wouldn't want to disapppoint the members of the libertarian movement who DO completely believe in Rand by not being a team player. If I find out I'm wrong in four years, I'm wrong, but until then, I've got no better options so I'm going to vote for Rand and hope it works.

For the record, while do admit to hardcore libertarians (That includes most of you guys) of Rand's imperfections, when I talk to conservatives who "Just thought Ron Paul's foreign policy went too far" or somesuch, I do tell them "Well then, you'd probably like Rand because [X, Y, and Z.] And I get that there are more of those people than there are people upset with Rand for not going far enough on FP. So I do totally get his strategy, if his ultimate goal is indeed the same as Ron's (Which is possible, but I'm not convinced.)


I hope Ron runs again in 2016 so he can destroy Rand in a debate.

I don't know if that would even happen if he tried. Granted, Ron is a lot more philosophical than Rand, but Rand is a political strategist. 90% of people would say Rand won that debate, even though they'd be wrong.


In a nutshell.

I've stepped away from the political movement, and have begun working toward teaching people the principles of the philosophy of liberty. It's great that there is a political movement which seeks to stem the tide, but the tide will not be reversed until people understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty.

+rep to you, cc. And cheers to the rest of you.

I care more about political debate (A chance to communicate) than I do about political activism per say, but I see nothing wrong with voting for the 80% candidate over the 10% candidate even though he's not a purist. I'll admit to people that I disagree with Rand on stuff, but I'll still back him.

I probably have the same reservations you do though. I'm rolling the dice along with the chance to win SOMETHING, in spite of the warnings of most of the hardcore Rothbardian ancaps (Which, admittedly, I am not one of, I'm more like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano politically than I am with guys like Rothbard and Rockwell, though I appreciate anarcho-capitalist contributions to libertarian philosophy, they ARE the most consistent even if I don't always think their perfet consistency can work). I might be wrong, but even still, what do I have to lose? So Rand Paul sucks and four years later I just vote LP. He's not going to be any WORSE than anyone else, in fact, I'd be SHOCKED if he wasn't at least a little better.


Rand doesn't have the years of experience nor the record that Ron Paul has, he's playing party politics and isn't a libertarian, so of course it's natural for people to be skeptical. It's healthy to be skeptical. The sooner we make compromises on issues, the quicker we are to fall face-first into a puddle of mud and walk away looking like idiots for supporting that which we opposed because it's Rand Paul doing it.

Rand has done and said things I've both liked and disliked. I'm completely against the idea of having drones in our skies, regardless of the purpose. You allow the government to fly drones and eventually, through incrementalism, we'll have nightmarish skies raining hellfire on civilians due to 'malfunctions' or some other excuse. It just adds another layer of protection so holding individuals accountable for murder is that much more difficult. I'm also not completely sold on his foreign policy, although I will say it would be a huge step in the right direction, despite him wanting to keep some military bases overseas voting for sanctions. I'm a non-interventionist first and foremost, so that's a huge issue for me.

He's great on 2A obviously, and... decent on the drug war. Basically, he's no Ron Paul, that's for sure, but he's a big step in the right direction. Someone like Andrew Napolitano would get my support over Rand were he to run, for example, but barring that, I would vote for Rand unless he manages to change my mind before 2016.

More on topic, Rand is perhaps a gateway drug to libertarianism, but definitely should not be seen as some sort of torch-bearer or gold standard for libertarianism, because he's not. Rand is a constitutionalist/conservative, nothing else. Definitely not someone I agree with on all issues, but he's far and away the best option if you consider the potential 2016 candidates.

Yeah, this is basically what I think.

If Rand wins, voices like Napolitano's would be amplified tenfold. I like the gateway drug analogy by the way. The masses have been conditioned over the past 80 or so years to appeal to central authority, and its going to take a true believer in liberty and a gifted communicator to walk that back slowly while educating them on matters the public schools conveniently omitted. Rand will excel in that role; he'll truly connect with people and start changing hearts and minds our way. Rand is just the prologue in this epic.

I hope you're right. I don't think Rand is as pure as you do, but I've also got nothing to lose by trying and hoping, so I'm going to try and hope.


I look forward to Rickrolling you with videos of Ron stumping for his son at every venue possible.

Ron Paul isn't a heartless jerk like I am, of course he's going to support his family. The most I could imagine him doing is doing nothing, and Rand would pretty much have to suck for Ron to do that, I think. I'm probably one of the 5% of the people on the planet who would ever even consider campaigning against any of my family members, and even so, that would be mostly against neocon Bush lovers and social theocrats. If I had a family member who was exactly like Rand Paul, that would probably be closer than I could dream of. As I said, I'm a principled jerk, but even I would support my family member if he were like Rand, and I likely wouldn't talk publicly about the 10, maybe 20 percent of the time when he's just wrong.


A President Ron Paul couldn't do all those things either, except bring the troops home.

Does the author of the article really think a President Rand Paul would be no different than the others in the past 30 years? Does the author really think Rand is pretending to be a neocon? :confused: If Rand's pretending to be a neocon, he's doing a terrible job.

Ron probably could, if he were willing to use executive power. Personally, I think he should, they've violated the constitution already, they're traitors. Fighting fire with fire is legitimate. Ron wouldn't dare do it though, I don't think...

July
04-30-2013, 04:06 PM
Not one word of that article is about falling for media smears.

Yeah but Jack's article was though. The issue I have with this response is that no one was really suggesting that Rand is above criticism, or that libertarians should just shut up. They are just asking for people to not immediately jump to conclusions and to look at the facts first before reacting hysterically. Criticizing Rand for actual non liberty positions he holds is one thing, pushing trumped up media attacks is another. That's not teaching and it isn't protecting the liberty movement brand, it's just helping political opponents set their narrative.

MarcMadness
04-30-2013, 08:39 PM
A President Ron Paul couldn't do all those things either, except bring the troops home.

Does the author of the article really think a President Rand Paul would be no different than the others in the past 30 years? Does the author really think Rand is pretending to be a neocon? :confused: If Rand's pretending to be a neocon, he's doing a terrible job.


At no point do I claim President Rand Paul would not be different, or would not be better than past Presidents. In the comments below I even say that none of this means don't support Rand is politics is your thing. I don't think Rand is "pretending to be a neocon" as much as trying to walk a rhetorical tight rope, but that ends up confusing the issues and pissing off both bases.

So while Rand may be better than most, and may even be the best available choice for President 2016, my point was that none of these things put him beyond reproach and, at least for libertarians, his non-libertarian stances on certain issues should be criticized. In fact I think it's important they are, so we can say, "hey I like Rand due to his positions on a, b, and c, but as a libertarian I disagree with him on x,y,z. He's still the best choice, and I'll vote for him".

My point was that the Jack Hunter's of the world need to not get their panties in a bunch when Rand gets criticized by libertarians. I think it's important for clear libertarian views to be expressed as such, and when Rand makes those views blurry, powerful and bold voices must step up to clarify the issues.

If not, how else can we justify attacking the "real" bad guys on those very same issues?

MarcMadness
04-30-2013, 08:41 PM
My criticisms of Rand are not based on trumped up media attacks. I've never seen a trumped up media attack that took a libertarian position. I criticize Rand when he takes non-libertarian positions, and the piece was written mostly to defend against those that have criticized me for my own criticisms of Rand, as well as to address the exasperated Hunter's freak out over legitimate criticism of Rand's drone stance.

He did not misspeak, and he later clarified that police in the future will use drones and that he's ok with that "within constitutional limits". I am not.

jclay2
04-30-2013, 08:47 PM
In a nutshell.

I've stepped away from the political movement, and have begun working toward teaching people the principles of the philosophy of liberty. It's great that there is a political movement which seeks to stem the tide, but the tide will not be reversed until people understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty.

+rep to you, cc. And cheers to the rest of you.

I really believe this is the most imminent course of action to be taken. There is a 0 chance of changing direction when a massive majority of voters actually defend their slavery. Education is the way to go. Plus I get very annoyed with the political/meaningless shell games.

Sola_Fide
04-30-2013, 08:50 PM
In a nutshell.

I've stepped away from the political movement, and have begun working toward teaching people the principles of the philosophy of liberty. It's great that there is a political movement which seeks to stem the tide, but the tide will not be reversed until people understand and embrace the philosophy of liberty.

+rep to you, cc. And cheers to the rest of you.

Agree. Anything else will just contribute to the perception that government will reform itself, using it's own principles, which is absurd.

NorfolkPCSolutions
04-30-2013, 08:57 PM
We need to trust Rand.

Rand and Ron are coordinating for a libertarian GOP takeover.

Ron is confronting the GOP directly like a "bad cop", and Rand is playing politics with it like a "good cop".

Working together in this way they are maximizing their collective effect, for liberty.

...maybe. I'm a hothead, so I prefer a more straightforward approach; in effect, a more principled approach. The kind that, admittedly, doesn't get one very far in politics. This is one of the reasons I loved Ron so much in the House - no vote after no vote after no vote. If my study of our founding fathers and the atmosphere of the day is correct, hotheads and the more level-headed folks are needed to make the game play, so...ah, what do I know, anyway.

I do see one flaw in your logic, sir. Ron is no longer in a position of power, and is a polarizing figure. Rand is polarizing because there is an R before his name every time he's on TV. Therefore, I don't see how the strategy you posit here plays forward. Elaborate, and I will gladly read and consider with an open mind.

I've waffled so much on supporting Rand, I'm choosing to withhold judgement on the man's character and his ideas. The game is still in its first quarter, so to speak, and if he were a quarterback, the guy would have dropped 9 snaps and thrown 6 picks by now. And his play calling is all fucked up.

Heard he was good in college, though.

cajuncocoa
04-30-2013, 09:00 PM
At no point do I claim President Rand Paul would not be different, or would not be better than past Presidents. In the comments below I even say that none of this means don't support Rand is politics is your thing. I don't think Rand is "pretending to be a neocon" as much as trying to walk a rhetorical tight rope, but that ends up confusing the issues and pissing off both bases.

So while Rand may be better than most, and may even be the best available choice for President 2016, my point was that none of these things put him beyond reproach and, at least for libertarians, his non-libertarian stances on certain issues should be criticized. In fact I think it's important they are, so we can say, "hey I like Rand due to his positions on a, b, and c, but as a libertarian I disagree with him on x,y,z. He's still the best choice, and I'll vote for him".

My point was that the Jack Hunter's of the world need to not get their panties in a bunch when Rand gets criticized by libertarians. I think it's important for clear libertarian views to be expressed as such, and when Rand makes those views blurry, powerful and bold voices must step up to clarify the issues.

If not, how else can we justify attacking the "real" bad guys on those very same issues?


My criticisms of Rand are not based on trumped up media attacks. I've never seen a trumped up media attack that took a libertarian position. I criticize Rand when he takes non-libertarian positions, and the piece was written mostly to defend against those that have criticized me for my own criticisms of Rand, as well as to address the exasperated Hunter's freak out over legitimate criticism of Rand's drone stance.

He did not misspeak, and he later clarified that police in the future will use drones and that he's ok with that "within constitutional limits". I am not.+rep and thanks for responding! You wrote an excellent article IMO, and addressed the main concerns I have about Rand Paul's success. It's not about Rand himself; it's about the public's perception of Rand as a libertarian. If anyone is still confused about what I mean by that, please re-read the whole article. I can't say it any better than Marc did.

Michigan11
04-30-2013, 09:11 PM
Well I had a dream while awake back in the winter of 06' while I was laying down, a very interesting picture came into my mind. To describe it would be hard via a forum type set like were in, but it convinced me that truth has two sides to every issue, and that neither was wrong, yet only each side is known to those who percieve and know each side.

In other words, those that defend Rand and those that attack Rand, are both standing back to back whether they and we all know it or not.

I know this, we are a force to be reckoned with when in full armor and riding along with each other, and yes it will happen again very soon.

MarcMadness
04-30-2013, 09:16 PM
+rep and thanks for responding! You wrote an excellent article IMO, and addressed the main concerns I have about Rand Paul's success. It's not about Rand himself; it's about the public's perception of Rand as a libertarian. If anyone is still confused about what I mean by that, please re-read the whole article. I can't say it any better than Marc did.

Thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated.