What I learned from my conversation with Ron Paul - Part II, On Palin's Endorsement of Rand

Ron Paul told me another story on the phone the other day, about his 1996 race to get back into the House. He had to go up against the GOP Establishment and their hand-picked candidate, much like Rand is doing now. They fought hard to keep Ron out, but he won. After his victory, the Establishment was coming to him for advice and support! The moral of the story is that after you win a race, the power dynamic changes completely. The winner has to be respected. Mitch McConnell and the GOP Establishment may be backing Trey Grayson now, but if Rand wins, the whole game changes completely.

Dr. Paul and I did not talk about Palin's endorsement of Rand. I didn't even know it was official until later that day. But like some here, I initially felt a little uncomfortable about the idea of Palin endorsing Rand. Again, this was due to my being a political newbie. I've since changed my mind, after Dr. Paul encouraged me to look at the big picture, to look at the goals we're focused on and how to achieve them.

What follows are my own opinions, based on my reflections after speaking with Dr. Paul.

- - - - -

We are fighting an ideological battle, for Liberty. In order for our ideas to win, first they must be exposed to as many people as possible. This is what Ron Paul's entire political career has been about - exposing and educating people on the concept of Liberty. Few have worked harder than Dr. Paul toward this end.

Just take a look at this Flickr archive of pictures of Ron Paul, taken by people all over the country.

There are over 30,500 images in the archive. Click on any random page and you'll see Dr. Paul in at outdoor rallies, in crowded rooms, on television, and with individual supporters signing autographs. He has been working hard to expose people across this country to ideas that have been long forgotten.

Think about how you were first exposed to the Message, and how your beliefs have since changed as a result. You may have been a neocon, a Democrat, or just apathetic. You may have been a Libertarian, but not even known it. Your transformation began after you were exposed to the ideas and they started to take root. Like being infected with a virus, it is a mysterious process that begins with exposure!

Sarah Palin's endorsement of Rand Paul is a huge boost for the Liberty movement because in one fell swoop, millions of Sarah Palin fans are exposed to our Message.

Furthermore, our Message is given instant credibility among them by her implicit support. Regardless of what you think of Palin or her fans, this exposure is like randomly spreading a few million new seeds of Liberty across the country. Some of them are going to catch and start to grow - just as they grew in you and I. We saw how contagious that growth can be during Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, and for a simple reason: Freedom is popular. It seems that most people just don't understand it quite yet. It is not something they teach in the government controlled schools.

Some people seem to think that Rand somehow "sold out" by aligning with Palin. But if so, what did he sell? Politics is an interesting game, and to show you just how interesting, lets look at this from Sarah's point of view:

At the moment, there is no question that Palin is a media darling. But we all know how fickle the media is and her current massive popularity has some faddish qualities to it. Does her star have staying power, or is she just a shooting star? She has a best selling book, but it won't stay at the top of the list forever, and she no longer holds public office. She could easily be here today, gone tomorrow. She knows this, and knows she needs to stay relevant.

Enter the Kentucky Senate Race. Even without Palin, this is one of the most exciting races in the country. And, knock on wood, at this point, it looks like Rand is going to win. With the work ethic he's inherited from his father, Rand is already making Trey Grayson look like Kentucky's version of Martha Coakley.

In my opinion, Palin's endorsement of Rand means that she already thinks he's going to win and she doesn't want to be left behind. She's probably kicking herself for not having endorsed Scott Brown. Palin wouldn't take the political risk of endorsing a loser, and a Rand victory gives her the ability to appear to the Establishment GOP, and the media, that she's got vision, that she has her finger on the pulse of the grassroots, that she's a "risk taker" for endorsing an outsider, that she can "pick winners," even that she's a 'kingmaker' (if she can get away with it).

What I'm trying to point out is that this is an even trade - a free market transaction in which both parties benefit. As such, Rand won't end up "owing" her in the sense that some people here fear. In truth, he's on track to win the primary with or without her endorsement. After all, he's already 19 points ahead!

At the same time, both candidates have to walk a fine line with their constituencies, as their official statements reveal. Political statements such as these are crafted to convey subtle but meaningful messages to their constituents. In the case of Palin's and Rand's, pubished in POLITICO both are short, which make them very easy to analyze:

Palin: “I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul,” Palin said in a statement to POLITICO. “While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”

Very straightforward and positive. "While there are issues we disagree on..." gives both of them an out. If either one does something embarassing to the other's constituency, they can always go back and say, "we never said we agree on everything."

Rand's statement is equally straightforward:

Paul: “Gov. Palin is providing tremendous leadership as the Tea Party movement and constitutional conservatives strive to take our country back,” Paul said. “I am proud to receive her support.”

There's no arguing that Palin is showing leadership. She's all over the press. But importantly, look how Rand links the Constitutional Conservatives with the Tea Parties, putting them squarely on equal footing. He is also quick to point out in interviews that he was at one of the first Tea Parties, in 2007 at Faneuil Hall in Boston, on the day the grassroots community raised over $6million for his father's presidential campaign.

Listen to what David Brooks had to say about the Tea Party movement in a January Op-Ed in the New York Times.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

There is no doubt in my mind that this country is in the midst of a revolution - a real one. The storms have been brewing on the horizon for my entire life, and things are coming to a head. Revolutions start with groups of angry people, but many times they're unsure about why exactly they're angry. They know something is wrong, but often are not able to diagnose it properly. In order for a revolution to succeed, it needs intellectual leadership, not only for the diagnosis, but also for the solutions.

Brooks is pointing out that the Tea Party movement lacks any guiding intellectual framework. At this point, it is an angry mob, and as Juan Enriquez has pointed out, Sometimes tea parties have unintended consequences. Rand is smart to align himself with the Tea Partiers, as he, and we, can help provide that intellectual leadership.

At this late point in history, our primary goal - the big picture - is taking back our country, and in order to do that, we need an educated populace, and we need people. We need to start moving beyond petty political squabbles and unite as Americans. Did you not see Ron Paul's State of the Republic address? The hour is truly getting late.

The Tea Parties are fertile ground. People are angry and are looking for answers and explanations as to what went wrong. Many of them have not yet realized the true extent of the problems and how deep they go. Dr. Paul has said that those of us who are awake to this reality bear a greater responsibility - not to turn away, but to help educate our fellow citizens. As much as the media tries to categorize and divide us, we are all Americans.

At this point, no one is really in control of the Tea Parties, and as the elder Dr. Paul has said, no one really knows what they mean. Yet. The future is yet unwritten. As Brooks continues:

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.

In other words, leadership for this nascent group is still up for grabs, and the right - or wrong - leadership could have drastic consequences for the country.

Never forget that there is a larger story to what is going on. The future remains unwritten. We are on the cutting edge and living through historic times. Remember to stay focused and be flexible as we maneuver our way though.

- - - - -

Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and pliant; dead, they are brittle and dry. Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.

TAO TE CHING 76