...
Both Pauls have drawn support from networks that include libertarians and more traditional conservative or Republican constituencies alike. For every GOP operator close to Rand, Ron could be linked to someone from the pro-business right-to-work movement or the Christian right.
And some of the differences between the father and son can be explained partly by differing political circumstances. Ron Paul long toiled in relative obscurity, achieving his first mass appeal nationally in his 70s. Rand Paul comes after his father has already won millions of votes in GOP primaries and the conditions seem ripe for expanding that success.
Persuasion is important in politics, but there is a limit to how much a politician can accomplish through education. Rand’s attempt to engage in a philosophical discussion of the trade-offs involved in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, stands as the single biggest political misstep of his still-young political career.
There are benefits and risks to each Paul’s approach. It is honorable to be the lone no vote against unwise or unjust legislation. But that isn’t sufficient to defeat such legislation. To do that, one must be interested in governing and the practical politics that make governing possible. Yet it is possible, even easy, to compromise too much and govern to no particular end other than political self-preservation.
That last concern, even more than whether to endorse Mitt Romney or bomb ISIS, is the real disagreement between Rand and his more libertarian detractors. They believe the senator will end up electing lots of Republican regulars and get devoured by the establishment anyway—or worse, become a Romney himself.
Is it possible to use politics not just to speak truth to power, as Ron Paul did, but to beat the forces of government growth at their own game?
These libertarians say no. Rand Paul thinks the answer is yes.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
Connect With Us