Framing the Debate: Rand Paul, the Apologist of Terrorism.Submitted by snakepit22 on Tue, 04/23/2013 - 14:49
Do you want Rand to be viewed by the public as an apologist for terror? or a defender of the Constitition? It's all in the timing, and framing of the debate.
If we are to sway the minds of the masses, we need to understand that there are two questions which need to be asked about the Boston bombers, and the distiction between them is important.
Why do they do it?
Why do they do it to us?
These questions need to be asked in this order, and answered in this order.
They do it because they are evil.
They do it to us because our foreign policy sucks.
Our problem has been that we have been answering question number one with the answer to question number two. Too often, we claim that they do it because our foreign policy sucks. This has the affect of making us look like we are apologizing for terror.
There will be time to explain why they do it to us and to introduce the concept of blowback, however let's be clear about one thing, terrorists don't murder people because our foriegn policy sucks. They murder people because they are evil. Remember that this is an individualist movement and individuals make their own choices and are responsible for their own actions. If we don't firmly state this truth, but instead claim that they murder people because of our actions, not theirs, then we are framing the debate from the liberal standpoint of apologizing for the actions of madmen.
Many people in our movement would like Rand to publicly state that blowback is the cause of these attacks. While that converstation needs to happen, it is one that needs to happen after we admit the fact that individuals are responsible for the acts they commit.
Like it or not (and I realize many of you fall into the Not category), even the most purely libertarian topics need to be framed in such a way as to be easily digested by the masses. If not, we are just preaching to a very small choir of internet nerds (you know you are one, me too).
Rand has angered many here at the DailyPaul by framing debates in a manner acceptable to the right. However, Rand has also passed his father in mainstream accessiblilty and popularity in only a few short months, not by catering to the far right, but by framing debates in such a way as to be digestable to them.
Example: Many here are upset that Rand referred to the Tsarnaev brothers as bombers rather than "suspects" while in the process of arguing for their Constitutional rights.
So here we have a man who is able to frame the debate in such a way that he can argue for the rights of the accused terrorists to a group who already hates them and has assumed their guilt, yet many of you can't even recognize the brilliance of this move. Most libertarians in this spot would already be absorbing the backlash of the media for defending the enemy. Rand has clearly been arguing for their rights, only his word choice shows that no matter what rights they have, whomever committed these acts is guilty of evil, regardless of their motives.
Rand has a chance to continue his march to the front of the GOP, but he has to be smarter in how he frames his stance on this issue than many of his liberarian leaning predecessors. Too often, libertarians forget that the nation is still outraged by violence and sad for the victims, and they begin the "blowback" talk, and the "Bill of Rights" talk while the rest of the nation is still in mourning.
This lack of timing and tact gets these good hearted people labled as terrorism apologists. Just as I'm sure you all know that gun violence is the result of the person using the gun, not of guns themselves, terrorism is the result of the terrorist, regardless of the political circumstances precieding it. We aren't talking about rebels defending their homeland. We are talking about people targeting innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the policies the terrorists are fighting against.
Rand, being the brilliant politician that he is proving to be, has already inserted the Bill of Rights angle into this issue without ticking off the still angry far right masses. While speaking about the rights of the accused, Rand echoes the anger and longing for justice that is shared by so many in the country so soon after an event like this. He speaks about the trial by jury rights of even those who are guilty and he speaks about the ability of that system to convict and bring justice to those who have committed atrocities. He speaks like someone who realizes that evil people commit these acts because they are evil, not because the US Government caused them to.
If you've followed Rand for any time at all, you already know that is is fully aware of the failures of US foreign policy, and the role that plays in bringing madmen to our shores to commit acts of terror. That conversation however, has a time and place. Rand understands this, and if we are to support the ideas of Dr. Ron Paul, maybe we need to think a little more like Rand when deciding when and where to fight our battles. As far as attacking US foreign policy, the time for that battle to resume is soon I can assure you. In the interest of winning the minds of the masses however, lets at least wait until the blood of the victims is cleaned off the street.