5 votes

How to regard Rand Paul

from the great Lew Rockwell blog
I think this is a fair assessment:

How To Regard Rand Paul
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on July 6, 2012 11:57 PM

The latest on Rand (linked by Robert Wenzel) makes it clear that Senator Paul should be regarded simply as any other politician in Congress. He's better than the Chuck Schumers of the world, certainly, but there's no reason to view him as anything unusual in the D.C. machine. (This is actually an old interview, but this pandering to Hannity, and Rand's support for Guantanamo have never been repudiated by Rand.)

At the same time, I don't understand the visceral hatred for him that is held by many Ron Paul followers. They seem to have even more hatred for Rand Paul than for far worse politicians like Orrin Hatch, for example. This seems to be based on some kind of feeling of betrayal, but anyone who was paying attention would have noticed that Rand has distanced himself from libertarians since day one. I don't see any betrayal here. In fact, Rand has (alas) delivered pretty much what he said he would back during his Kentucky election campaign.

Even more outlandish is the belief, held by some Paulians, that Ron Paul should publicly denounce Rand. Good luck with that one, amigo! Ron Paul doesn't even denounce people like Ben Bernanke. Certainly he denounces the ideas behind people like Bernanke, but Ron has never been in the business of attacking people for their ideas. So now he's supposed to denounce his own son? Not going to happen.

The key difference here is that Rand pretty clearly really wants to get re-elected, or better yet, get elected to some higher office. He's also very interested in passing laws.

None of these things ever interested Ron Paul, which is why he's such an excellent libertarian. He's not interested in playing the game of politics, and has never done it very much. Amazingly, though, he's had more success with his campaign against the Fed than anyone else in 100 years.

It seems that Rand has done a few good things in the Senate and should be praised for those things, just as Barney Frank has done some good things in the House (like co-sponsoring with Ron Paul a bill to de-criminalize marijuana.) That doesn't make Frank a libertarian or Ron Paul's successor, and the same is true of Rand Paul.

Much of the disappointment may also come from the persistent belief among some Paulians that the answer to the current crisis lies in politics. It does not. The politicians are followers, not leaders in the war of ideas, and that war has yet to be won. Politics won't save us.

That's not to say I'm opposed to the success of the Paulians in re-shaping the state GOP parties. Anything that so greatly upsets the GOP leadership must be a good thing. The delegate strategy greatly vexes, annoys, and slows down the GOP's establishment agenda. That's a good thing.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nearly a year old article

and Ryan McMaken has never posted anything about Rand since.

and the constitution was written when?

and ron paul's books were written when?

McMaken's article has proved to have held up. he's fair, not a hater by any means. if he'd had a change in his thinking about this there would surely be something new.

I don't agree

McMaken's article is not holding up, and that's why I believe he has shut upped about Rand.

you can not shut up liberty thinkers

who write the truth. here is a more recent article by McMaken where once again he points out the shortcomings of the senator, yet soundly praises him on the filibuster.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133393.html

People who follow me on Twitter know that I criticize Rand Paul. I do this not because I think he should be a clone of his father, and that he's somehow "betrayed" Ron Paul's followers. On the contrary, as I've noted before, I think Rand has always been quite up front about his non-libertarian views. I don't think he's attempted to deceive anyone on this.

My primary motivation in criticizing Rand is to illustrate the reality of his positions to many of his followers who seem to think that the libertarian movement should view Rand Paul as the next Ron Paul. They should not, regardless of the last name of the Senator from Kentucky, because Rand Paul is not, in my view, enough of a consistent defender of liberty. Nor is he enough of a known commodity to warrant all of the uncritical and blind support I see coming out of the so-called, and oxymoronically named, "libertarian conservatives."

However, I have to give credit where it's due, and Rand Paul's filibuster today is good for at least two reasons.

THANK GOD!!!!

The last thing I would ever want to do is shut up liberty thinkers!

Thank you for the link.. I looked yesterday, and I will admit, I'm no fan of Lew Rockwell, and find his blog hard to navigate. None the less.. it's a good read. and nice to see how McMaken has a loyalty to his keepers at Rockwell, but really likes Rnad. LOL

Rand is not a consistant defender of Liberty? That means nothing.. how does one defend Liberty? I think that's a very vague statement. What do you make of that?

Seems by reading the article, the biggest problem McMaken has with Rand is "he caters to Neocons" (this is more of the "don't join the GOP because we need to profit off you in the LP)

The Neocons are bailing on the GOP.. McCain't and the likes are there for the facade. but we have and are taking the GOP..

voting for sanctions

as an example of not defending liberty. i don't want to debate each and every example. the people who read the DP are fully aware of them all, although some would rather ignore or rationalize them.

the neocons in both parties are no way going to give up their power. you see it everywhere: foreign policy, NSA, MSM mouthpieces, officials and politicians blatantly lying. with zero repercussions, and applauding more police state tactics etc
they would rather destroy the party and go down in flames rather than see the ideas of ron paul embraced.

rand hatred

the rand hatred can be traced to closet-anarchists who haven't admitted to themselves that they are one. many here seem to detest any positive steps in government, or any form of incrementalism. there seems to be a utopian belief that politicioning is a sin, and therefore rand is the worst kind of sinner, since it is done in part under the libertarian label.

not to say that anarchism is a bad thing. i sometimes feel I am a full-fledged anarchist.

on some days, considering our system of torture, indefinite detention, wars, fraud, and the surveillance state - how can one support government?

it's that feeling inside me, however. that belief that that the system can be fixed. ron and rand are subscribers to that idea and live their lives trying to. this is the part that can be so upsetting, as incremental improvement runs at contrast to burn-the-whole-thing-down-and-start-all-over anarchism.

the word hate

is bandied around so much these days one wonders if people stop and consider what they are saying. i certainly don't hate rand. and the author of this article does not either. you should take a look at his body of work at LRC. ron paul to my understanding is mostly about spreading the message, anyway you can, and i completely agree. once there is a tipping point, a massive waking up change will come. all my libertarian friends tell me: think long term, not short term: the prez election is a huge diversion and group think process. the presidential election is a charade and a waste of time, money and energy. the status quo with the help of the MSM and various crooks get exactly who they want, at this stage of the game.
the freedom movement and ron paul's ideas: peace, sound money and personal freedom grows and grows through education, debate, through out the world now thanks to ron paulian edward snowden. we should also work on elections that can be won, local and on the hill, in the courtrooms and each individually relentlessly spreading the message. we should settle for nothing less.

i upvoted your response

i suppose my comment was geared more toward the actual in-your-face, stop-him-in-his-tracks, bonafide "rand haters"

and i upvoted yours

for being willing to consider another perspective.

these rand haters you speak of, do they really hate rand? i doubt it, since they probably never even met him or had a conversation with him. they may hate his ideas, his votes, his behavior in certain situations or his philosophy to the point where they say: i hate him, but aren't they really ranting about the issues if they stop and think about it?

personally when people go overboard with hate i find it both curious and amusing. no, the people who will stop rand if he continues his rise will be the establishment, who hate even the whiff of anything resembling freedom.

Wenzel is the real traitor,

Wenzel is the real traitor, not Ed Snowden.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.