...for me on Rand. I didn't even know he existed a couple years ago -- since I was relatively late tuning in to Ron Paul (but did it in time to be a delegate for him).
It was a jangling disappointment when he endorsed Mitt Romney and of course, I have seen him appear to go contrary on a couple of the issues to which our purist libertarian sensibilities are opposed.
Something intuitive tells me he may have spent a long time (a lifetime w/his Dad?) seeing what works and what doesn't work; crafting a method that is bold but also clever. He may have decided to be a pragmatist in the true sense (not the sell out sense) by assessing what battles need fighting right now and which ones can be "skinned" another day. I'm not a martial artist, but I think I recall something in one of those disciplines that uses "moving the same direction as the offensive movement" in order to dodge it and use up the foe's energy, preparing yourself with an impactful responsive move next... Apologies to any experts in that area of expertise, it's the principle I'm trying to capture.
I don't know. But I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. His Dad appeals to the purist by never compromising, and we have all witnessed the inherent limitations of that stand in the current setting. Perhaps we can give the guy a bit more time to see if his track is actually "neo con" "neo libertarian" (you heard that here first) or something else. To use the gold analogy, Ron is pure but pure gold is softer. Can Rand still be gold with a little alloy metal in there to make him stronger and more effective? Can we tolerate that alloy thing? The analogy probably breaks down somewhere or may be used for negative -- but it's just to get us all thinking together.
I sure hope he turns out to be a brilliant defender of liberty who ultimately wins on ALL of our issues and values. But this is an imperfect world filled with imperfect souls and will ever be so, I'm afraid. Meanwhile we do our best and keep vigilant.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: