it's simple. if you criticize Rand for playing within the GOP, what the $#@! are you doing on a RON PAUL site?
disclaimer: I am not pro-trump.Originally Posted by PierzStyx
Just my humble opinion....
Rand works tirelessly to promote the ideas of freedom and liberty. He is forced to work within a certain framework. He has no choice, unless you'd rather see duct tape placed over his mouth which is essentially what would happen if he stopped working within that framework. Rand made a pledge to SUPPORT the eventual nominee. He upheld his pledge. Many others did not. By doing so, they not only went back on their word, but they are essentially saying Clinton would be a better choice.
Rand is not promoting Trump. But he is also not turning his back on him like the others. If Trump is elected (which at this point, I doubt), Rand will have a much better chance to offer support in the way of advice/education, which would be of the utmost importance. I actually DO believe in the idea that people are capable of changing for the better. Even if it seems like a lost cause or a total impossiblity, there is still a .000000001% chance that perhaps some things that Rand promotes and fights for will not fall on deaf ears in a Trump presidency. But I think there would be a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000001% chance if Rand was one of those who went back on their word.
More importantly and urgently, he also has a senate re-election, do you really think it is wise to do something so drastic as going back on your word, and refusing to support your party's nominee? How would that go over with the voters??
Lastly, "Support". One of the definitions of that word is to "bear the weight of". Think of how Rand's father Ron worked in Washington all of those years amongst the worst evil, can you imagine the weight he had to bear? I think about that a lot, and I have no idea how the man did it. That is the true sign of strength, resilience and determination. To continue, year after year after year after year, fighting and fighting amongst THAT. and not giving up. It's not possible to work OUTSIDE the framework he was (and Rand is) in, and believe that any change is actually going to occur. Great strides will never be made if we are not able to even make small steps. And small steps is where we are right now. We cannot go backwards.
peace..
Last edited by PursuePeace; 10-20-2016 at 07:08 AM.
If he didn't care to be a politician he wouldn't be one. If he didn't care about accruing power as a politician he wouldn't be on his knees for the Party elites.
Libertarians should be seeking power, in order to use it to implement libertarian reforms.
That's kind of the whole point of being involved in politics...
I'm sure it was something he considered, but staying neutral not only would be going back on the pledge, but it would get him national press. That attention would look a lot like what it looks for Paul Ryan, though probably not as bad because Rand never waffled. The play here is to stay off the national shows as much as possible, and Rand can do this by spending time in KY on his Senate campaign talking about real issues.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
True, for a libertarian being involved in politics is a sort of defense mechanism but as PierzStyx pointed out there is a danger to compromising principle for the sake of power. What I don't agree with though is the assertion that Rand Paul is doing what he is doing in order to suck up to the party and political elites. If that were the case his voting record would be very different than what it is now, I like his voting record but what I do question his tactics. As the candidacy of Donald Trump is showing being perceived as giving the finger to the man can be good politics, it is shame that Trumps policies aren't as good as his tactics.
I too disagree with that assessment. Rand's not "sucking up" to the party elites in the sense that he's compromising his principles (as is evident from his stellar voting record). He is trying not to gratuitously insult them, and work with them when possible. This makes him more effective as an advocate for liberty, not less effective.
The party elites are by and large not anti-libertarian, in the sense that they have some deeply felt animosity toward our principles. They're mostly unprincipled altogether, and just want to get reelected and retain/augment their power. We can work with people like that at times E.G. If McConnell wants Rand to campaign for other Senators, in exchange for McConnell using his influence in KY to help Rand get on the POTUS ballot (as actually happened this past year), there's nothing wrong with that. That helps us.
Trump isn't a sitting Senator. He can insult the party bosses without consequence. Rand can't.I like his voting record but what I do question his tactics. As the candidacy of Donald Trump is showing being perceived as giving the finger to the man can be good politics, it is shame that Trumps policies aren't as good as his tactics.
In any event, Rand's tactics were working just fine until the political narrative changed.
...all of the sudden we went from "libertarian moment" to "Messicuns r rapists!"
He was leading in the polls for a while, and was clearly on the path to being the "anti-establishment" alternative to Jeb/whoever this cycle.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with Rand's strategy; events outside his control ruined things this cycle.
We'll have to see what the landscape looks like in two years before we can say how Rand should play it next time.
Maybe he should continue doing what he's doing, maybe he should make a theatrical break with the party elite, ala Trump.
Which strategy is best depends on the situation.
True, they want power above all else and libertarianism is one of the biggest threats to that because the reductions in the size and scope of government that libertarianism calls for will reduce said power along with it.
True, and the narrative did change and not for the better. But I am worried that such a move may make more people who are looking for an anti establishment voice distrustful of him, Trump will crash and burn eventually and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that sinking ship.
Which is precisely where he needs to be.
We'll just have to disagree. Accruing power can mean different things for different people. Listen, there is much about Rand that I do not like. I've made that clear right here on these forums at a time when if you criticized Rand you were told to S.T.F.U. When all is said and done if we had 99 other Senators like him we would be a lot better off.
Amen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us