Rand Paul’s Risks - ...reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.

[Lucille]

Rand Paul’s Risks
From drugs to drones to immigration, reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-republican-hopes-libertarian-fears/


Indeed, reforming the GOP is as much the task Paul has set for himself as seeking its presidential nomination in 2016. He is unusually popular with young activists for a member of his party. He has spoken at venues like historically black Howard University, where he is less likely to encounter Republican voters than in Cedar Rapids.

Sometimes his efforts to broaden the party’s appeal have sat uneasily alongside his quest to be the most reliable Tea Party conservative. This has led him to thread some important needles—and also occasionally sound too equivocal. Issues like marriage, abortion, immigration, and even drugs may prove difficult to straddle.

Gillespie worries that if “Paul continues to send significantly different messages to different audiences, he will end up alienating all his possible supporters.”

That’s a real risk. But if one could win the Republican presidential nomination by sounding like Gary Johnson, Johnson would have stayed in the GOP primaries rather than running as the Libertarian Party nominee.
[Ron's '12 run discussed here]
Rand Paul’s problems are the Republican Party’s. The GOP must find a way to speak to new people and grow, without repelling its current base. It must determine how best to adapt old principles to changing political circumstances, building a fresh case for what conservatives consider permanent things.

That’s no easy task, so it’s unsurprising Paul has stumbled at times. But more Republicans need to be trying. Most other outreach-oriented Republicans tend to disrespect the base and its values, in style if not substance—think Jon Huntsman, for example. Many conservatives simply repeat campaign slogans of the Reagan era.

A more robust federalism might help both pro-lifers and drug-legalizers realize more of their short-term policy goals than rhetoric about ending either Roe v. Wade or the war on drugs ever could. Libertarians might learn to shrink government the way statists have often expanded it—through incremental steps—with politically achievable things like more lenient sentences for drug offenders, freeing more people than by talking about heroin.

But to succeed within any political party, one must first make common cause with the rank and file. Those of like mind with Paul might want to consider this verse when next in Cedar Rapids: “Be therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

[FrankRep]

incrementalism is the key

[FSP-Rebel]

Yep, the thesis here is exactly what some around here don't understand or refuse to accept, thus the "not libertarian speaking enough" witch hunt.

[jtstellar]

i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be prying

[cajuncocoa]

Sorry, he's not reforming them; he's allowing them to reform him.

[cajuncocoa]

i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be pryingI would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.

[James Madison]

incrementalism is the key

How long do you propose?

[donnay]

incrementalism is the key

That's how the hijacked government got it's power. We don't have time to slowly teach the people that they have power to change this if they want.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.

Rhetoric is rhetoric...

If someone speaks like Rand AND more importantly votes like a libertarian... they have my support.

[Warlord]

The GOP is still very conservative and resistant to change. They will not like a radical. They like hearing that they need to reach out to blacks and all that kind of thing because they look at each othe and nod in agreement and it makes them feel good. But that's as much as they can take.

[whoisjohngalt]

i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be prying

Quit worrying about the skeptics. They are a huge waste of our time and only comprise about 10% of the most hardcore libertarian base. They will never be convinced and really aren't worth our time. I know it's frustrating, but just ignore them when they get away from discussion of actual policy and start with the ad hominem.

[jtstellar]

Quit worrying about the skeptics. They are a huge waste of our time and only comprise about 10% of the most hardcore libertarian base. They will never be convinced and really aren't worth our time. I know it's frustrating, but just ignore them when they get away from discussion of actual policy and start with the ad hominem.

from an evolutionary point of view if these people were really that useless, their gene traits would have gone extinct long ago

so i really want to know what purpose they serve in any societal circle.. especially considering this coalition is exceptionally high-IQ compared to cookie cutter neo-cons and neo-libs, one can only assume we don't need much supervision here,

especially on someone like rand paul who probably has an IQ of 180+ and knows what he is doing, but these people seem to insist they know better on that supervisory role. hence i really want to know more about them. after all their gene traits have survived through thousands of years since civilization began, really makes me wonder. and in the world of IQ180+ as is the case probably with both ron paul and rand paul, you really have to wonder whether there is more than one way that works--ron's way worked to an extent, could rand's do as well in a different perspective?-- even if you were a skeptic, so, ya, i'm curious with these people

[JCDenton0451]

Yep, the thesis here is exactly what some around here don't understand or refuse to accept, thus the "not libertarian speaking enough" witch hunt.

It's hard to blame them. The Evangelicals get all the pandering, while libertarians are being asked to read between the lines...

[JCDenton0451]

I would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.
The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D

[Warlord]

The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D

Very few of Rand's supporters in Afghanistan are religious.

[JCDenton0451]

Very few of Rand's supporters in Afghanistan are religious.

You must be loyal activist then.

[Brett85]

I get tired of this idea that being pro choice on abortion is the clear cut libertarian position.

[July]

The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D

Yup...some of his supporters are libertarians, and others are paleocons, or socons. I notice it's just different groups of posters prioritizing different issues. There's a group that is very critical every time foreign policy comes up, and another that's critical on immigration...and it's not the same people.

My key/hot button issue hasn't really come up much lately, so.

[JCDenton0451]

I get tired of this idea that being pro choice on abortion is the clear cut libertarian position.

That wasn't my point. All I'm trying to say is that libertarians have reasons to feel abandoned by Rand. Which is kind of counterintuitive, because the future of the Republican party, if it is to have a future, will be more libertarian and less Evangelical. Lets face it: we're not going to pass a nationwide ban on abortion, and we're not going to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The sooner socons get this, the faster the party can move forward.

[FSP-Rebel]

That wasn't my point. All I'm trying to say is that libertarians have reasons to feel abandoned by Rand. Which is kind of counterintuitive, because the future of the Republican party, if it is to have a future, will be more libertarian and less Evangelical. Lets face it: we're not going to pass a nationwide ban on abortion, and we're not going to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The sooner socons get this, the faster the party can move forward.
In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.

[James Madison]

In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.

The Evangelicals you want to court are no friends of liberty. They are supporters of the Social Gospel, which always leads to statism.

[FSP-Rebel]

The Evangelicals you want to court are no friends of liberty. They are supporters of the Social Gospel, which always leads to statism.
Probably true and they'd never consider supporting someone who espouses doctrinaire libertarian position hence the nuances by Rand. I'm fine with that and care more about the bigger picture. He's such a star on fiscal matters that I'm willing to bet that when he preaches 10th amendment on social issues in the general that they'll still support him en masse enough to get elected. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it - we tried anyway. Tho, I suppose Rand and his advisers know what is a winning message and what isn't and I have confidence in their tactics as they've been really spot on thus far. No denying that.

[Maximus]

Incorrect, it is infinitely more reasonable to slam a car going 200mph into a wall to slow it down, rather than doing so incrementally.

Rand is crazy!

[James Madison]

Probably true and they'd never consider supporting someone who espouses doctrinaire libertarian position hence the nuances by Rand. I'm fine with that and care more about the bigger picture. He's such a star on fiscal matters that I'm willing to bet that when he preaches 10th amendment on social issues in the general that they'll still support him en masse enough to get elected. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it - we tried anyway. Tho, I suppose Rand and his advisers know what is a winning message and what isn't and I have confidence in their tactics as they've been really spot on thus far. No denying that.

So, you admit they will not support a libertarian candidate on social issues, but somehow they can be trusted to leave socially liberal/libertarian states to themselves? Aren't these the same people who want to spread 'democracy' to the whole world at gunpoint? And you trust them to leave you alone? Really?

These people need to go away -- China...the North Pole...Mars -- I don't care. The last thing they deserve is anything but mockery. Please do not empower them.

[AFPVet]

incrementalism is the key

Indeed... incrementalism got us here... it must bring us back :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.

Evangelicals are a dying demographic, never mind their abhorrent political philosophy. I really do not see much in common from my perspective and the NAP libertarian perspective with these folks. Beyond guns, we're really divergent. If most liberals weren't deeply partisan then there would be a greater appeal to appeal to them instead of the Old Testament Santorum Evangelical folk who want Global Empire, Centralized Theological State, and all sorts of anti-civil liberties pro-fascist policies. Is it any wonder then why many of us get upset when Rand panders to them instead of to the future and to his base of support - libertarians? There's a reason Ron brings folks together and it ain't called pandering to divergent demographics. Rand needs to hack the root, not the outermost branches.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Indeed... incrementalism got us here... it must bring us back :)

Care to demonstrate any historical successes of this approach that reversed tyranny and brought liberty to the people? I can't think of one, but on the other hand I can list oh...every single advance of liberty not to incrementalism, but to sudden, rapid and radical change.

[AFPVet]

Care to demonstrate any historical successes of this approach that reversed tyranny and brought liberty to the people? I can't think of one, but on the other hand I can list oh...every single advance of liberty not to incrementalism, but to sudden, rapid and radical change.

Yes, but not this time. They (elites) have used incrementalism rather successfully against us. If we go too fast, it will rock back against us. Incrementalism is the key here... it's all games and theory.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, but not this time. They (elites) have used incrementalism rather successfully against us. If we go too fast, it will rock back against us. Incrementalism is the key here... it's all games and theory.

How convenient. Also, I wasn't talking about how tyranny succeeds. To equate the successful methods of tyranny to liberty is foolhardy. It's easy to sell tyranny, hence why incrementalism works so nicely for them, but it's hard to sell liberty, especially piece-meal. This is why incrementalism fails for liberty. Read some of Robert Higgs work, especially Leviathan. All it takes is one crisis and you've lost all your 'incrementalism'. This, if anything is the lesson of history.

[JCDenton0451]

So, you admit they will not support a libertarian candidate on social issues, but somehow they can be trusted to leave socially liberal/libertarian states to themselves? Aren't these the same people who want to spread 'democracy' to the whole world at gunpoint? And you trust them to leave you alone? Really?

These people need to go away -- China...the North Pole...Mars -- I don't care. The last thing they deserve is anything but mockery. Please do not empower them.

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

[Korey Kaczynski]

That's how the hijacked government got it's power. We don't have time to slowly teach the people that they have power to change this if they want.

The Fabian socialists used incrementalism to great success. However, conservatism is the NATURAL order, and any sort of leftism is the abberation. So perhaps incrementalism works for them moreso because of their corruptive power towards idiots.

[Korey Kaczynski]

The GOP is still very conservative and resistant to change. They will not like a radical. They like hearing that they need to reach out to blacks and all that kind of thing because they look at each othe and nod in agreement and it makes them feel good. But that's as much as they can take.

The GOP needs to actually "get" conservatism instead of parroting nonsense and thinking they can out-liberal liberals.

[James Madison]

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

They've been this way since the 19th Century. Every dubious piece of legislation can be attributed to these morons.

[Brett85]

Social conservatives are far better than the neo-conservatives. Many social conservatives are allies of the liberty movement, such as the Constitution Party.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Social conservatives are far better than the neo-conservatives. Many social conservatives are allies of the liberty movement, such as the Constitution Party.

When one ascribes social conservatism we're talking politically, not personally. Many in the CP would not be labeled social conservative esp. someone like Chuck Baldwin who wants to for instance, legalize all drugs and doesn't want to make crimes of vices. If you want your die in the wool social conservative...look no further than Rick Santorum. Now, tell me again, how they're allies of libertarians? They gave us cot damn prohibition TWICE, destroyed localism, and chased away the Mid-West libertarian bastion of the party (Taft/Buffet). Yeah...real great folk they are.

Also, need I remind folk of what Barry Goldwater thought of these people?

[James Madison]

Also, need I remind folk of what Barry Goldwater thought of these people?

I'm interested.

[brooke499]

If the post is about GOP reform and creativity....there needs to be unity with a common goal and purpose.That focus needs to be protecting defending and upholding the U.S.Constitution and STANDING on behalf of our U.S.Constitution as Senator Rand Paul just did. Demanding that our Constitution BE NOT undermined,usurped,or
ignored,and that the Constitutional laws not be overpowered or violated.For that day....was a historic moment I for one will never forget.Ever! I also loved that moment that everyone in the room both Republican and Democrat filled the room with the sounds of clapping,it was all heroic. We need hero's once more,strong leaders,unafraid to stand in the gap,protecting our liberty,freedom,and to be the voice of the people. The people....need to be heard,listened to,and brought into the equation in order to improve relations.I'd love to see a web board,where our elected representatives actually pose a question regarding something we are facing in our country.ask for a 50 word or less response.Then take the time to read through the responses.There is wisdom to be found in a multitude of councilors.Interaction with the American Citizens might just be a novel idea,then write to one.Tell them what YOU thought.There needs to be a bonding that has been lost.There also needs to be a better format for bi-partisan ,level headed,think tanks,round tables for discussion. A much better format.We are ALL American citizens,and ALL of the people want one thing overall, to be a democracy.to be free.to be happy.to feel safe.to laugh,to sometimes disagree,but working all together for this very freedom.U.S.A.land of the free.

[FriedChicken]

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

I think that's kind of an entertaining post coming from a libertarian. Libertarians have a reputation for the exact same thing, only other issues.

[supermario21]

Goldwater didn't care for the theocratic element of the religious right. He wouldn't have had a problem with people like Ron or Chuck Baldwin, social conservatives but not theocrats.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Goldwater didn't care for the theocratic element of the religious right. He wouldn't have had a problem with people like Ron or Chuck Baldwin, social conservatives but not theocrats.

Neither Ron or Chuck are social conservatives. Again, must I reiterate what that term actually means?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm interested.

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerfull ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus, God, or Allah, or whatever one calls the supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.

-- Barry Goldwater in the LA Times 17 SEPT 1981

Yeah...he has even harsher words for the So-Cons (Falwell / Robertson / etc.) and their ilk.

[TheTexan]

I like Rand. Really, I do. I think his intentions are in the right place.

But this plan sucks. Bad. The plan is to basically hold the entire country's hand until they like freedom.

First off, that's not going to happen. Most people do not want to be free. They want to exercise petty control over others, and have most of their choices made for them. No amount of hand-holding will change this.

Second, what's with the incessant desire to get people to like us? This "plan", inherently requires at least a majority to work. Isn't relying on a majority just a little bit hypocritical, considering that most people here generally understand that it was the tyranny of the majority that got us here in the first place?

The simple fact of the matter is we will never have the majority of people needed to consistently pass freedom legislation. And, as long as we are relying on that, we will never make progress, because pursuing that as a realistic goal is nothing short of delusional.

It's only once we accept that we are a minority, and stop caring about what the majority thinks, can we assert our rights as individuals and truly make progress.