The Real Reason Rand is WrongSubmitted by Mr. Spock on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 00:01
I may have posted this at some point in the past, but it's worth posting in light of Rand Paul's recent betrayal of the liberty movement, and more importantly, the personal betrayal of his father.
There are really two issues here – one is Rand's endorsement of Romney, and the other is the timing and manner in which he did it. The latter I addressed here http://www.dailypaul.com/239135/jack-hunter-why-rand-was-rig...
The former I address here:
As part of his analysis of Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 911, Ed Griffin referred to what he called:
"…the Quigley Formula, based on the strategy advocated by Professor Carroll Quigley, President Clinton’s mentor when he was a student at Georgetown University. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley explained the value of allowing people to believe that, by choosing between the Democrat and Republican parties, they are determining their own political destiny. To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics:
"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]"
This is why Rand is wrong to endorse Romney (no matter when or how.) Again, it's no surprise because he told us in advance he was going to do it, but that doesn't make it right no matter how Jack Hunter tries to justify it – there is no right way to do a wrong thing.