Comment: Politician Vs. Statesman

(See in situ)

Politician Vs. Statesman

Politics is the art of compromise, they say. When you have to get a majority in the US House, US Senate, and the Executive Branch to agree on something, you can understand why it's difficult for a politician to get everything he or she wants in a piece of legislation, particularly on controversial issues.

But compromising on policy doesn't require compromising on principles. That's the difference between a politician and a statesman. The former is interested in just "getting things done" while the latter is interested in "doing the right thing." The statesman is interested in moving policy in the right direction, even if the legislation is not everything he or she wants.

Rand Paul is compromising as a statesman, not a politician by endorsing Romney. Intuitively, he realizes that Romney is a politician and not a statesman. That is because Romney changes his positions based on what direction the political wind is blowing; because that's what "gets things done."

Regardless if someone likes it or not, the next president will be either Obama or Romney. It's already been shown that Obama will not negotiate or compromise with the Tea Party. Romney, on the other hand, will have to whether he likes it or not; because he must have most of the GOP united behind him.

With that being said, when we look at the US Senate and US House elections, the Tea Party movement is gaining momentum to pick up seats. That will change what DIRECTION the POLITICAL WIND blows, and if Romney is elected, then he will change at least some of his positions to move with that direction. Otherwise, most of the GOP will not be united behind him.

Rand Paul is not compromising his principles. He is simply engaging in smart Game Theory and strategy to promote principles that he and the Tea Party believe in. Like a true statesman!