How Rand Paul Is Helping To Reinvent Republicans

[NACBA]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/rand-paul-republicans_n_6521584.html


This story was originally published on Ozy.

It’s true that the Republican Party remains a lot older, whiter and male-er than the American population as a whole. But that doesn’t mean the party isn’t changing — it’s just not changing in a way that’s always visible to the naked eye. In fact, the GOP is undergoing a kind of evolution as it figures out how to maintain unity among its pro-business, social conservative and libertarian factions. Those dividing lines are going to be on sharp display as the 2016 presidential campaigns gear up.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is, of course, the poster child for the libertarian movement within the party, but he’s not the only one embracing a more laissez-faire attitude on certain issues, such as drugs and gay marriage, that social conservatives abhor. More mainstream Republicans, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also offer some crossover appeal on social issues. Paul lines up with the pro-business side in supporting President Barack Obama’s recent moves to ease the long-standing embargo on Cuba. Where they diverge is on spending, particularly on government programs that benefit the business community. There, the right wing and the libertarian movement are on the same page, happy to whack away at spending even at the expense of businesses.

The growing power of libertarian ideas in the Republican Party is no flash in the pan, according to anti-tax icon Grover Norquist. Rather, libertarianism is “a long-term trend with no obvious roadblock in sight,” he writes in an OZY op-ed. Paul, in other words, is just the beginning.

[Brett85]

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is, of course, the poster child for the libertarian movement within the party, but he’s not the only one embracing a more laissez-faire attitude on certain issues, such as drugs and gay marriage, that social conservatives abhor

When has Rand ever done that? This kind of false reporting is going to hurt Rand in Iowa if it continues to happen.

[Tywysog Cymru]

When has Rand ever done that? This kind of false reporting is going to hurt Rand in Iowa if it continues to happen.

Yep, in the primary he'll be portrayed as a social liberal and if he makes it to the general he'll be portrayed as a hardcore social conservative culture-warrior.

[mit26chell]

When has Rand ever done that? This kind of false reporting is going to hurt Rand in Iowa if it continues to happen.

Rand's position is to leave gay marriage to the states vs the other republicans who want a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rand's position is Constitutional and much more laissez-faire, the other position is not.

[Brett85]

Rand's position is to leave gay marriage to the states vs the other republicans who want a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rand's position is Constitutional and much more laissez-faire, the other position is not.

Well, I guess you can see it that way. I'm not sure if that's what the Huffington Post actually meant by that. And I think other Republicans like Walker and Rubio and others have started to take Rand's states' rights position as well. (It likely won't matter as the Supreme Court will likely declare that there's a Constitutional right to gay marriage)

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Well, I guess you can see it that way. I'm not sure if that's what the Huffington Post actually meant by that. And I think other Republicans like Walker and Rubio and others have started to take Rand's states' rights position as well. (It likely won't matter as the Supreme Court will likely declare that there's a Constitutional right to gay marriage)
And it will be the greatest christmas gift (in june) the GOP has ever experienced, although the base is too stupid to see it. When the issue is decided in June, the GOP will literally be committing suicide if it continues to make a big deal out of it. But, if they just shut up and accept a ruling which affects no one besides the individuals getting married, they honestly can start to repair their image with young people and independents. Thankfully, it will be the SCOTUS that legalizes it (rather than a Democrat legislature), so there is less room for partisanship over who takes credit for the outcome.

Rand's position can (and likely will) be that the issue has already been decided (will be by then, and we all know which way it's gonna go) and it's not the job of the President to make decisions on this issue anyway. I highly doubt anybody will be running in 2016 on repealing gay rights, other than maybe Huckster and Frothy. They have to realize by now that there is no path to the Presidency with their positions. I really hope they try to run on states ignoring federal marriage laws, because it will forever discredit the social conservative movement.

[Brett85]

And it will be the greatest christmas gift (in june) the GOP has ever experienced, although the base is too stupid to see it. When the issue is decided in June, the GOP will literally be committing suicide if it continues to make a big deal out of it. But, if they just shut up and accept a ruling which affects no one besides the individuals getting married, they honestly can start to repair their image with young people and independents. Thankfully, it will be the SCOTUS that legalizes it (rather than a Democrat legislature), so there is less room for partisanship over who takes credit for the outcome.

Rand's position can (and likely will) be that the issue has already been decided (will be by then, and we all know which way it's gonna go) and it's not the job of the President to make decisions on this issue anyway. I highly doubt anybody will be running in 2016 on repealing gay rights, other than maybe Huckster and Frothy. They have to realize by now that there is no path to the Presidency with their positions. I really hope they try to run on states ignoring federal marriage laws, because it will forever discredit the social conservative movement.

I basically agree, although I think the fight will shift to defending the civil liberties of those who oppose gay marriage, making sure that they aren't forced to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies. Hopefully Rand takes the lead on that.

[Brett85]

On another note, was it smart for Rand to vote for this amendment which states that human beings are responsible for climate change? It seems like if he goes down that route it could hurt him with Republican voters as well.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011

[Krugminator2]

On another note, was it smart for Rand to vote for this amendment which states that human beings are responsible for climate change? It seems like if he goes down that route it could hurt him with Republican voters as well.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011

Those kind of votes are such meaningless show votes, but it will be used against him. Believing that humans contribute to global warming has nothing to do with saying something should be done by government with carbon taxes or more regulations. The average GOP voter is incapable of understanding that though.

Rand has to basically choose between being a science denying illiterate or appealing to the illiterates that make up the party.

[RabbitMan]

On another note, was it smart for Rand to vote for this amendment which states that human beings are responsible for climate change? It seems like if he goes down that route it could hurt him with Republican voters as well.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011

The vote was for saying that climate change EXISTS, not whether it was man made or not. And it is an amendment being tied to the Keystone Pipelone bill. Doesn't matter. Irrelevant. Passed Senate 98-1.

[Brett85]

The vote was for saying that climate change EXISTS, not whether it was man made or not. And it is an amendment being tied to the Keystone Pipelone bill. Doesn't matter. Irrelevant. Passed Senate 98-1.

No, this was a different vote. This vote was 59-40, with only 15 Republicans voting "yes." It wasn't the 98-1 vote.

[Brett85]

Believing that humans contribute to global warming has nothing to do with saying something should be done by government with carbon taxes or more regulations. The average GOP voter is incapable of understanding that though.

I hope Rand can make that clear to them. Because there are enough other issues that the GOP base is suspicious of Rand on. I don't think he wants to be seen as actually less libertarian on this issue than other Republicans in the race.

[Crashland]

I hope Rand can make that clear to them. Because there are enough other issues that the GOP base is suspicious of Rand on. I don't think he wants to be seen as actually less libertarian on this issue than other Republicans in the race.

I don't see human-caused climate change as being a particularly libertarian or non-libertarian issue. It's a scientific question, and most politicians, and most people in general for that matter, love weighing in as experts on things they truly know close-to-nothing about. I personally don't really care who signs off on what if it is just a matter of endorsing or not endorsing a scientific claim, although I am sure the base cares... On the other hand, if some climate change is actually caused by humans, then what to actually do (or not do) in response to it is very much a political question.

[torchbearer]

Yep, in the primary he'll be portrayed as a social liberal and if he makes it to the general he'll be portrayed as a hardcore social conservative culture-warrior.


This is correct.

[idiom]

Well, if it came to Hillary vs Rand, Rand could go libertarian and make Hillary the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Then all the bloviating interventionist bigots can go back to being Dems.

[torchbearer]

Well, if it came to Hillary vs Rand, Rand could go libertarian and make Hillary the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Then all the bloviating interventionist bigots can go back to being Dems.


wet dream. can't happen. would end the matrix.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Well, if it came to Hillary vs Rand, Rand could go libertarian and make Hillary the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Then all the bloviating interventionist bigots can go back to being Dems.

Never will happen. Gay marriage has the support of the establishment elites because it's an issue meant to distract people from the real violations of rights.

[FSP-Rebel]

Rand needs to rage his focus on the economy and how his economic freedom zones (or something similar) would get people back to work no matter what their race or ethnicity is. Team up with the republican businesspeople and drive this home, it'll boost everyone that has a desire to improve their families. This is the crucible issue of our time and the only non-distraction at the moment. I realize that he can't force this into being but the message is something he should take everywhere and then make his points on other issues in a secondary manner.

[Crashland]

Never will happen. Gay marriage has the support of the establishment elites because it's an issue meant to distract people from the real violations of rights.

All the more reason to get gay marriage over with so that people won't be distracted by it anymore.

[philipped]

They have to realize by now that there is no path to the Presidency with their positions. I really hope they try to run on states ignoring federal marriage laws, because it will forever discredit the social conservative movement.

You have now made provided futuristic political proof that this ruling will probably be one of the more historical ones I will be alive to see. *mind blown*

[philipped]

Rand needs to rage his focus on the economy and how his economic freedom zones (or something similar) would get people back to work no matter what their race or ethnicity is. Team up with the republican businesspeople and drive this home, it'll boost everyone that has a desire to improve their families. This is the crucible issue of our time and the only non-distraction at the moment. I realize that he can't force this into being but the message is something he should take everywhere and then make his points on other issues in a secondary manner.

An economically centered campaign focusing on populist constitutionally based issues.

[Peace&Freedom]

All the more reason to get gay marriage over with so that people won't be distracted by it anymore.

Principle is not a distraction. That's like arrogantly telling pro-lifers to "just get used to legalized child killing, already"---not gonna happen. Much or most of the moral traditionalist population is never going to be "over with" or "get used to" treating homosexual or sin-based unions as the same thing as a couple joined in HOLY matrimony. Sin is not holy, and cannot be blessed by God, which is what the rite of marriage implies.

And gay advocates are simply going to keep the "distractions" coming anyway, by moving on to pushing gay adoption, gay K-12 education, gay theology and whatever else the elites think they can force on the rest of us. The distractions don't end, they just get expanded to a new frontier, so the social right is going to continue taking a stand, if they have any principle in this area. Similarly , libertarians cannot "get over with" or just get used to ever expanding government, taxes, wars, or tyranny either. You end the distractions by confronting the establishment, not by rolling over to them front by front.

[Crashland]

Principle is not a distraction. That's like arrogantly telling pro-lifers to "just get used to legalized child killing, already"---not gonna happen. Much or most of the moral traditionalist population is never going to be "over with" or "get used to" treating homosexual or sin-based unions as the same thing as a couple joined in HOLY matrimony. Sin is not holy, and cannot be blessed by God, which is what the rite of marriage implies.

And gay advocates are simply going to keep the "distractions" coming anyway, by moving on to pushing gay adoption, gay K-12 education, gay theology and whatever else the elites think they can force on the rest of us. The distractions don't end, they just get expanded to a new frontier, so the social right is going to continue taking a stand, if they have any principle in this area. Similarly , libertarians cannot "get over with" or just get used to ever expanding government, taxes, wars, or tyranny either. You end the distractions by confronting the establishment, not by rolling over to them front by front.

The pro-life issue is not comparable. No one's human rights get violated when two consenting adults have a relationship.

I'm not asking anyone to treat gay marriage as holy, only that they keep the state out of deciding what is or isn't a holy sanctioned-by-God union. And those poor children that might get adopted by a gay couple... I suppose it would be better for them to leave them in state custody, or in the custody of parents who don't even want the child or who can't afford it, or with a single parent, or aborted...

[LawnWake]

People are overestimating how libertarian the Republican party has gotten and I fear that by the G.O.P. being wrongfully associated with libertarianism will hurt libertarianism more than it will help the Republican party.

[Crashland]

People are overestimating how libertarian the Republican party has gotten and I fear that by the G.O.P. being wrongfully associated with libertarianism will hurt libertarianism more than it will help the Republican party.

I think people are overestimating the current libertarianism of the GOP, but not overestimating the trend. It's just not happening overnight. I'm still hoping for a more swift political realignment rather than the GOP just slowly evolving, but not sure how realistic that is.

[Brett85]

People are overestimating how libertarian the Republican party has gotten and I fear that by the G.O.P. being wrongfully associated with libertarianism will hurt libertarianism more than it will help the Republican party.

I don't see how the GOP has become more libertarian at all when you see polls which show Romney and Bush way out in front of the other Republicans running. It's just really sad. It just seems like it's getting more and more hopeless all the time.

[Warlord]

I don't see how the GOP has become more libertarian at all when you see polls which show Romney and Bush way out in front of the other Republicans running. It's just really sad. It just seems like it's getting more and more hopeless all the time.


The early polls mean nothing. Guilani once led the polling in 2007 for a long time and was considered the frontrunner. He went no where in Iowa or NH> same for Bush

[Peace&Freedom]

The pro-life issue is not comparable. No one's human rights get violated when two consenting adults have a relationship.

I'm not asking anyone to treat gay marriage as holy, only that they keep the state out of deciding what is or isn't a holy sanctioned-by-God union.

The state should then BOTH stay out of doing that, and out of conferring legitimacy on the gay unions that the religious ceremony and term "marriage" conveys, by staying out of marriage altogether. The libertarian view is, separate marriage from state, not "keep the the social right from using the state on the issue, but allow the social left to use the state, to make their view the norm." What next, shall the state issue government baptism licenses to atheists, so that they can also declare themselves officially baptized, just like believers?

[Crashland]

The state should then BOTH stay out of doing that, and out of conferring legitimacy on the gay unions that the religious ceremony and term "marriage" conveys, by staying out of marriage altogether. The libertarian view is, separate marriage from state, not "keep the the social right from using the state on the issue, but allow the social left to use the state, to make their view the norm." What next, shall the state issue government baptism licenses to atheists, so that they can also declare themselves officially baptized, just like believers?

Yes, I share that opinion that gov't should stay out of "marriage". If anything, it could recognize only "civil unions" whether gay or straight, therefore it would not be making a religious statement by using the term which religions apparently have a monopoly on. Or, as you said the state could just not recognize anything. I don't have a particular preference.

[LawnWake]

I think people are overestimating the current libertarianism of the GOP, but not overestimating the trend. It's just not happening overnight. I'm still hoping for a more swift political realignment rather than the GOP just slowly evolving, but not sure how realistic that is.

I think the actual evolution that took place was in the perception of the party: it is perceived as becoming more libertarian. But any possible libertarian influx in there is not enough to really offset the party's trajectory. I do think there is an upwards trend in libertarian politics as a whole, thoguh. But I think this trend is mostly outside of American electoral politics.


I don't see how the GOP has become more libertarian at all when you see polls which show Romney and Bush way out in front of the other Republicans running. It's just really sad. It just seems like it's getting more and more hopeless all the time.

Yeah. I think the only trend in the GOP isn't them becoming more libertarian, but being called more libertarian.