See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Rand Paul in Retrospect
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/ ... 02/04/rand-paul-in-retrospect/
Published: Feb 5, 2016
Author: Justin Raimondo
Post Date: 2016-02-05 07:17:34 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 437
Comments: 18
Pragmatism in pursuit of power is no virtue We are being treated to many – all too many – prognoses of Rand Paul’s presidential campaign and its untimely demise: Bonnie Kristian over at Rare.us blames the rise of ISIS, the latest foreign bogeyman to scare our laptop bombardiers into hiding under their beds: Nick Gillespie blames Donald Trump, the all-purpose piñata of the moment, but otherwise Rand did just fine. Perhaps the most thoughtful of all is Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, who sees the problem but comes up with the wrong solution. But we’ll get to all that in a moment. I try not to repeat myself, but when dealing with Sen. Rand Paul it seems unavoidable. Indeed, in order to diagnose the disease that ate away at the heart of what could have been the most successful libertarian – and staunchly anti- interventionist campaign – ever, I have only to quote myself, writing way back in July: “[T]he Rand Paul that we were all hoping for – someone who would stand up to the War Party and refute their propaganda – is no more, if he ever existed in the first place. Instead of refuting the lies he’s joining in the telling of them – and in doing so, he’s crossed the Rubicon as far as libertarians and all those who oppose war with Iran are concerned. “What makes a sad situation far worse is that Sen. Paul’s turn toward the neocons hasn’t helped him one bit: instead, it’s hurt him. In the past few months his support, once in the double digits, has been cut in half. The latest PPP poll has him down to a mere 4 percent. This dramatic drop coincides precisely with his efforts to appease people who are never going to support him. His campaign’s effort to ‘broaden the base’ has in reality marked a turning away from the base of supporters who were brought into politics and the GOP by his father. Not a very smart strategy, but then again the know-it-all ‘professionals’ running the campaign think they’re being ‘realistic.’ And yet: what good is a self-described pragmatism that turns out to be not very pragmatic?” I said essentially the same thing even earlier, all the while encouraging Sen. Paul when he was right: but you get the idea. Sen. Paul began to believe the hype he had generated in the mainstream media, back when he was polling double digits and was effectively the frontrunner. His goose was cooked when President Obama echoed all that “most interesting politician in Washington” hyperbole – it went right to his head. He began to believe that the movement his father had created and so carefully nurtured would follow him anywhere, and that his goal was to straddle the fence between libertarianism and “movement” conservatism. But as Dan McCarthy points out so effectively, there already was a Ted Cruz, who is a much cannier politician than Rand, and all the pilgrimages to Israel and all the meetings with Bill Kristol would never get the neocons off his back. Instead of taking them on, he capitulated to them – and in this election year, weakness is a vote-killer. As right as Dan is about the strategic and tactical errors made by Rand’s campaign, he is dead wrong about the alternative: a simple comparison between the vote totals won by Ron Paul and Rand Paul should be sufficient to make that case conclusively. Dan avers that instead of being more like Ron, Rand should’ve been more like … Dwight Eisenhower. We need to go after the “Eisenhower Republicans,” he says – which raises the question: Are any of those guys still alive? Rand should have run a campaign more along the lines of the one his father ran, with one big difference. Ron is a nice guy, even a gentle one. He patiently explained the principles of liberty to youthful audiences and had them roaring “End the Fed!” It was a libertarian activist’s dream come true. But Dan is right that it wasn’t enough: after all, he didn’t win, did he? He didn’t even come close. What was missing was the one element essential to any successful revolutionary, especially in these tumultuous times, and that is demagoguery. Oh boy, I can hear all those jaws dropping: what is he saying? What can he mean? Here’s what I mean: “For many years now, demagogues have been in great disfavor. They are not sober, they are not respectable, they are not ‘gentlemen.’ And yet there is a great and growing need for their services. What, exactly, have been the charges leveled against the demagogues? They are roughly three in number. “In the first place, they are disruptive forces in the body politic. They stir things up. Second, they supposedly fail to play the game in appealing to the base emotions, rather than to cool reason. From this stems the third charge: that they appeal to the unwashed masses with emotional, extreme, and, therefore, unsound views. Add to this the vice of ungentlemanly enthusiasm, and we have about catalogued the sins of the species demagogue.” That’s good old Murray Rothbard, the founder of the libertarian movement, writing at a very dark time in the history of libertarianism: it was 1954, the very idea of limiting government power was almost completely unknown, the neocons were celebrating “the end of ideology” (an earlier domestic version of the “end of history”), and there was no real libertarian movement (or peace movement) to speak of. The dominant intellectuals were fully supportive of the Holy Trinity of Empire, Big Government, and Big Business, and the Old Right of Bob Taft had been displaced by the mush-mouthed internationalism of … yes, Dwight David Eisenhower. What was a libertarian to do? Why, wish for someone to break the circuit of statist “centrism” and challenge the status quo. In short, Rothbard was hoping for a libertarian populist to arise, in short: a demagogue! “… All demagogues are ideological nonconformists and therefore are bound to be emotional about the general and respectable rejection of what they consider to be vital truth. But not all ideological nonconformists become demagogues. The difference is that the demagogue possesses that quality of mass attraction that permits him to use emotion to stir up the masses. In going to the masses, he is going over the heads of the respectable intellectuals who ordinarily guide mass opinion. It is this electric, short-cut appeal direct to the masses that gives the demagogue his vital significance and that makes him such a menace to the dominant orthodoxy.” Now there is a demagogue in the presidential race, one who fits perfectly into the definition cited above, and we all know who he is. Yet Trump is hated by libertarian intellectuals, as well as by the liberal and conservative elites. This in spite of the fact that he’s stolen a good many elements of the libertarian foreign policy platform. As I’ve pointed out here and here, he alone opposes a new cold war with Russia. Bonnie Kristian says the alleged rise of ISIS somehow derailed Rand Paul’s campaign, and yet Trump – the GOP frontrunner – is telling yuuuuuge audiences that we should let Putin take care of ISIS, and he’s getting yuuuuuge applause. He’s telling us that our shiftless “allies” are taking advantage of us – and isn’t this just a popularized version of the libertarian/anti-interventionist critique of foreign aid? Why, he asks, are we protecting Europe, Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East – while “they’re screwing us over”? He wants out of Europe: forget Ukraine, he says. Of course, libertarians have been saying this for ages – but The Donald, like the demagogue he is, says it and gets listened to. Is he a consistent anti- interventionist? He’s not a consistent anything, and that’s the problem with many demagogues, and especially Trump – he’s 80 percent emotion and (at best) 20 percent program. Yet Trump’s particular peccadilloes are beside the point, the point being that the broad themes he’s pushing – an unaccountable elite, a complicit media, an incompetent self-sacrificing downright suicidal foreign policy – are pages torn from the libertarian book. This is true even on the immigration issue, which both Ron and Rand pushed before Trump seized on it in a big way. Rand Paul was so busy trying to impress the Beltway pundits, and sucking up to the very elites he was supposed to be overthrowing, that he forgot why he was running in the first place – or, to be fair (for a change), it seemed like he forgot. He began to sound like every other Republican politician, mouthing platitudes about “Big Government” and tiptoeing around his own father, hoping GOP voters would mistake him for a conservative. It didn’t work because it didn’t deserve to work. Yes, but what, you ask, is the alternative? Trumpismo is not an alternative, but a purely negative phenomenon: it is against the elites, against the status quo, but only the gods know what it will bring us if it triumphs. No, I don’t agree with the hysterical leftists – and their libertarian doppelgangers – who insist Trump represents the rise of “fascism.” These people are so coddled, and simultaneously so addled, that they have no idea what real fascism consists of: it is, in short, a fist in the face. That isn’t Trumpism, not by a long shot. The real danger isn’t Trump, but his Establishment competitors, first and foremost Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her regime will combine the worst aspects of progressivism in a single package: an escalation of our foreign policy of global interventionism and the concomitant march of the Leviathan State at home. The yapping warmongers of the GOP – Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc., ad nauseam – are just as bad if not worse, with Rubio potentially the most dangerous. The rise and fall of Rand Paul’s presidential ambitions present us with a lesson: the danger is that we fail to learn it, and instead compound failure with yet more error. The opportunists among us will “learn” that they didn’t sell out fast enough and soon enough, and they’ll jump on the Cruz bandwagon-to-nowhere, abandoning libertarianism altogether. Our sectarians will retreat to their fortified compounds, secure in the knowledge of their own spotless virtue: forgetting that just as Rome wasn’t built in a day so it didn’t fall in a day, they’ll be waiting for The Big Collapse that will somehow not take them down along with the rest of society. The real lesson of Rand Paul’s fate is the strategic and tactical incompetence and immaturity of the libertarian movement: their failure to recognize that politics is all about Us versus Them, their inability to understand the key role played by emotion, their blindness when it comes to understanding the dual nature of American nationalism, and the cultural prejudices of the libertarian intelligentsia which make the foregoing errors almost inevitable. But don’t despair! There is hope: the movement created by Ron Paul and his team is alive, albeit not well at the moment. Yet recovery is not only possible, it is very likely. The intellectual heritage of the libertarian movement is solid, and intact, in spite of the errors of some of its leading practitioners. Now is the time to examine the mistakes of the past, analyze what led to them, and forge ahead: this is how people – and ideological movements – live, learn, and grow.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Rand and his chameleon act grew old the second it became obvious. I'm sure he'll go into the body shop for a new paint-job here soon. That's the problem with politicians, they're so narcissistic that their narcissism ends up getting the best of 'em and they get steam-rolled by it. At least I know I'm not going insane, all of this love of Rand recently as if he was truly a libertarian had me scratching my noggin.
Rand is still being given the benefit of being his father's son. Just maybe now that he is no longer running for president, he can do some good.
I doubt it, once you sell yourself out you have no credibility. Such is Rand.
Repentence is always possible. He would have been stymied should he have been elected president but he can still be effective as a US senator if he chooses to be. Audit the Fed, repeal the Patriot Act, justice system reform, etc.
If all of a sudden he came out in favor of all of those things I wouldn't believe for a NY second that he was serious. If he were then he'd have been guided by a sense of morality, honesty, and integrity, not by a desire to advance politically which is all that it would mean. You're smarter than that too.
Like all of us he can change for the better. What worries me more than his bad choices is his occasional displays of a childish petulant temper.
That childish petulant temper in the hands of a POTUS might very well be a cataclysmic mistake. Secondly, you're also brighter than to expect a politician to change. That's a lesson that should have been cemented decades ago.
Betwixt rapier wits Raimundo and Katniss, I believe it's all been said here and there's nothing left of the fool but his idiotic wooly top. He was a total waste of protoplasm. Let's hope he goes back to eye doctoring, where wikid has it he's 'faced two malpractice lawsuits between 1993 and 2010'. --------------------------------------------------------- NN Sequitur --------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, you're also brighter than to expect a politician to change. That's a lesson that should have been cemented decades ago. Chuck Colson changed. But only time will tell whether Rand can make a go of it.
If he hasn't already, Randi will learn soon enough that straddling the fence will only give you crotch-burn, and nothing else.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Seriously, citing that piece from a mainstream source like that? Yes, Colson changed, but only after being incarcerated for a significant amount of time after having been convicted of a felony. That often does that to a person. I don't expect that Rand will be serving time. Other than that, it would be foolish to believe anything that comes out of Rand's mouth until he's fully validated his statements and proven it. Otherwise, and in other relatred news, IMO Colson was too young in his faith to have written as many books as he did, was certainly out of bounds on the true teachings, or should I say "non-teachings" of Christ on the topic of government(s), and unless I'm mistaken was a classic dispensationalist and huge IF-er. I don't think that I am mistaken. Either way, that's enough right there to disqualify him as being politically relevant to the cause of true Christ-centered liberty if he were alive today.
He made a few mistakes. One was thinking that his father's supporters would get behind him for old times sake.
Why not? Friedesdorf is a libertarian of sorts and I don't mind listening to his opinion. Don't believe anything that comes out of Rand's mouth but watch what he does. For starters, see what he does or does not do with the Pacific Trade Treaty. I was/am willing to consider the possibility that Rand's pro Israel stance may have been honest, i.e., from conviction rather than pandering to AIPAC. In numbers Israel's largest group of supporters in the US comes from those Pat Robertson Christians. Maybe he's one of these although it makes no difference to me. There are even worse than Pat Robertson types--I have a friend who follows Jewish law and wishes me "Shabbat Shalom" if she catches me on line on Friday afternoon. My point was that Colson changed not that he was perfect. Other politicians have changed too. Failed presidential candidate Goldwater turned left while failed presidential candidate McGovern turned right.
Thanks for your insights. I'm still in the learning-mode.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
That's fine, but most politicians do not change, and most when they do change for opportunistic reasons. As for me he's shit the bed until he unequivocally proves otherwise, which is going to be difficult to do now for him. It's an uphill battle. Otherwise, the changes that you've mentioned above are all but complete 180's. Rand is firmly in the neocon camp. A complete 180, or as close to it, would be going completely liberal, eh. The only thing about Rand that's clear to me is that he'll change his tune to fit his audience to a large extent. He's done so routinely. People like that are a dime a dozen. What we need are people to stand firm, who know what they believe and why, and then act on it without fail incessantly, ... much like his father.
The first duty of a politician is to get elected. These days, unfortunately, that means pandering to money and power. "People who stand firm" tend not to be re-elected. Ron managed to get away with what he did because he represented nothing bigger than a congressional district. Even then, he was never safe. Republican money gave him several stiff primary challenges.
No argument there. After they get elected however they must continue to pander to the money or they'll end up having their career ruined. AIPAC members have even told us as much, eh. Funny thing, this applies to all candidates.
Funny thing, this applies to all candidates. Except for trips to Israel for all elected and appointed officials, I don't know that AIPAC distributes that much money. Don't think their money goes far down the pole. The AIPAC threat might be coming from another angle. But assuming AIPAC and others are effective in keeping politicians in line, what can be done to counter them. And can you blame the politicians for being no more moral than the constituents they represent?
#2. To: Katniss (#1)
At least I know I'm not going insane, all of this love of Rand recently as if he was truly a libertarian had me scratching my noggin.
#3. To: Ada (#2)
#4. To: Katniss (#3)
I doubt it, once you sell yourself out you have no credibility.
#5. To: Ada (#4)
#6. To: Katniss (#5)
You're smarter than that too.
#7. To: Ada (#6)
#8. To: Katniss (#1)
#9. To: Katniss (#7)
That childish petulant temper in the hands of a POTUS might very well be a cataclysmic mistake.
#10. To: Ada (#9)
#11. To: Ada (#9)
#12. To: Lod (#10)
If he hasn't already, Randi will learn soon enough that straddling the fence will only give you crotch-burn, and nothing else.
#13. To: Katniss (#11)
Seriously, citing that piece from a mainstream source like that?
#14. To: Ada (#13)
#15. To: Ada (#13)
#16. To: Katniss (#15)
That's fine, but most politicians do not change, and most when they do change for opportunistic reasons
#17. To: Ada (#16)
#18. To: Katniss (#17)
After they get elected however they must continue to pander to the money or they'll end up having their career ruined. AIPAC members have even told us as much, eh.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest