Sunday, June 10, 2012

Has Rand Paul Sold Out on End the Fed?

It sure sounds like it

During a recent interview with NewsMax, Rand Paul seemed to, amazingly, attempt to blur the distinctions between Ron Paul's view of the Fed and Mitt Romney's view of the Fed. He told NewsMax:
My dad, myself and his supporters are very passionate about the Federal Reserve needing to be reined in and audited and Gov. Romney supports that.
Ron Paul has made it clear that his long-term goal is to end the Fed, although he has always conceded that this would take a number of steps and auditing the Fed was just a first step. Mitt Romney has never come close to suggesting that an audit was just a first step and that the ultimate goal is ending the Fed.

Thus, it is absurd for Rand to imply that his father and Romney are anywhere near on the same page when it comes to the Fed. It many ways, I view this Rand comment a bigger sell out than his endorsement of Romney. Some could argue that the Romney endorsement could result in Rand getting a vice-presidential nod from where he could fight for freedom, but a sell-out on ending the Fed suggests that a Rand vice-presidency would be more about the establishment turning Rand into one of them, than the other way around.

Bottom line: That Rand is willing to distort his father's view on the Fed is not a very good sign.

This is about the time Mises would storm out of the room.

38 comments:

  1. No Rand hasn't sold out. Only Lew Rockcwellians think he has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only turds like yourself who care more about your political party (GOP), or about your false idol (Rand) think he hasn't sold out.

      He has endorsed a pro warfare, pro welfare, pro fed, pro bailout, pro Obamacare, pro police-state, anti constitution and anti gun candidate (Romney) and has begun to slowly align himself closer with the GOP elite than with his father and his father's principled views.

      Rand = coward.

      Delete
    2. Being a "Rockwellian" has no bearing on whether or not Rand Paul is for liberty or not. It's becoming extremely obvious to anyone willing to simply look with open eyes.

      Delete
    3. Give the guy a break. He is a republican. He has to support the nominee. Do you think Rand will get the republican nomination if he doesn't support the nominee.

      Delete
    4. It's not about getting the republican nomination. It's about changing the hearts and minds of the people. Ron Paul has been able to inspire millions of people to study libertarianism and Austrian economics. One of the biggest reasons for this success is because he would never compromise his beliefs to "play ball" and support tyrants like Romney. Yes, he supported Reagan for a time but that was when Reagan was parroting a lot of libertarian ideas and when He went against those ideas Ron Paul ripped into him and left the party. Romney is running on a platform of death and destruction. There is nothing in his platform that even remotely sounds libertarian. It is just plain ignorant to abandon the road map Ron Paul has laid out when it has clearly been more successful than anything Rand has done. How many people say that I was a neocon or liberal before I looked into this Rand Paul guy. It is always his father and instead of following in his footsteps Rand thinks playing ball with the GOP is a better way to go? At least I don't have to waste anymore time following a politician. Ron Paul set an amazing example and now we can all move on expanding the movement without wasting our time on a political campaign. I don't want to infiltrate DC, I want to abolish it.

      Delete
  2. If Rand hasn't sold out it is only because he NEVER WAS IN!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is the big takeaway. Rand was never really a Ron Paulian, but more of a conservative Republican.

      As a libertarian, I suspect every politician of treachery, the only way they can get in my good graces is to show ideological consistency, which Rand, to this point, has completely failed to do.

      Delete
  3. If only Ron Paul had written a book about his feelings on the Fed. That might have clarified his position, so that Rand would know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only...

      Very good! :)

      Delete
  4. before the romney endorsement, i simply ignored him, like i would any senator. but now i wonder whether rand has gone sleeper-agent on the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rand Paul has disavowed the liberty movement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This whole Rand Paul thing is no big deal. End of the day, if Rand were elected dictator-in-chief, we'd be seeing much more liberty in the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RRC - my gut feeling is the same as yours but I have to admit that when I hear a voice like Bob Wenzel criticizing Rand like that, it makes me wonder if I'm giving Rand too much credit. Reigning in the Fed is still a policy for long-term (if not short-term!) failure because ultimately, the Fed will figure out a way around any "reigning in" ("the camel's nose under the tent" to use an expression said by Peter Schiff a lot).

      -Kevin K

      Delete
  7. Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing about Rand. I have never once heard him say that he wants to end the Fed. He has talked well about auditing it, but I have even seen Paul speeches where Rand Paul has time to talk. When he talked about auditing the Fed, the crowd started chanting "End the Fed," but Rand did not say anything.

    If someone can show me any evidence of Rand Paul ever saying that he wanted to end the Federal Reserve, please do so.

    And Dr. Wenzel, if you can ever get an interview of Rand Paul, I would appreciate that as well. I'm still very iffy on whether political action is any sort of way to get libertarian ideas across, but as a minimum I do restrict myself to only voting for those who are extremely principled. I take Stefan Molyneux's advice extremely seriously when it comes to politics: we don't want to elect someone who will get the blame. Someone like Gary Johnson as president would shift the culpability of the crisis to free-market economic policy, even though he knows nothing of Austrian economics. Meanwhile, I believe someone like Ron Paul would do enough to get through the tough times quickly. I'm wondering how principled Rand Paul really would be as a possible president in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not surprised or disappointed. He had met the low threshold I set for him some time ago. When you are born on a mountain of arrogance, the apple rolls a hell of a long way from the tree. Stick a fork in Rand, he's been done since he changed course after his primary victory. Olsonized I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liker some other commenters on this site, I believe a cultural change for liberty is far more impactful (and difficult) than a political one. Having said that, keep in mind Ron is retiring and Rand, ostensibly, has a political career to establish. Maybe papa taught Rand to game the system for the sake of liberty. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Maybe papa taught Rand to game the system for the sake of liberty."

      I seriously doubt that.

      Delete
    2. "Maybe papa taught Rand to game the system for the sake of liberty"....
      I do NOT doubt that.
      His quote was that my Dad, myself, and his supporters are "very passionate"...... and I know Gov. Romney supports that.
      HA! Lets see Mitt come out and DENY that!
      Now THAT'S cagey...

      Delete
    3. Hey Anon, playing word games isn't cagey, it's a waste of time. Besides why would Romney even want to deny that? He wants Ron Paul's supporters to be dumb enough to vote for him and with Rand's help he might get some of the more guillable in the movement to do just that. I don't want to win stupid word games, I want to change people's minds. Rand should spend his time educating voters on the evils of the Fed and not watering down our message to make it more palatable.

      Delete
  10. To quote Joseph Heller, "Something Happened".
    Ever since RP had the "lunch" with Bernanke, things haven't been the same.
    Is the ol' fix in? Is RP fading out - "Health Reasons", maybe?

    If you look at Real Clear Politics Electoral Map, "President Occupant" has fluctuated a bit - look at Michigan, f'rinstance - but Romney has not moved off of 170 E-Votes for weeks. Romney appears quiet, even if he's on the stump everyday.

    Rand is being "placed" somewhere, I have no doubt. But you can be placed without changing the language that represents your World View. This should indicate that Rand - and by implication RP - has already agreed to something B - I - G.

    I have no doubts that Romney is having...ummm..."conversations" with everyone asking them to please, pretty please, get on board and not screw things up for trivial things like Principles or Core Beliefs.

    You can have principles later.

    Romney: "Here, you full mooners out there. I'll throw you a bone...Rand Paul for... Rand for...uhhh... Rand Paul for <*choke*...*GAAACKK*>... Vice President...(If he doesn't screw up before August.)".

    CW

    PS: If anyone finds out what the lunch with Satan's Banker was RILLY about, let us know, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Liberty advances on principle and retreats on compromise. That's why the Republic was lost long ago. Whatever Rand thinks he's doing it's at best tantamount to throwing sandbags at a broken damn.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack Hunter's views -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERI52UndhE4

    I am a big fan of Mises and his integrity and also of Ron Paul. But even they have had to compromise sometimes. Ron Paul always endorsed republicans from texas because that was in the rules of the republican party. Rothbard has a quote by Mises himself in essential von Mises,Pg 78 (Quote from Mises' Memoirs) "Occasionally I was reproached because I made my point too bluntly and intransigently, and I was told that I could have achieved more if I had shown more willingness to compromise…. I felt the criticism was unjustified; I could be effective only if I presented the situation truthfully as I saw it. As I look back today at my activity with the Chamber I regret only my willingness to compromise, not my intransigence. I was always ready to yield in unimportant matters if I could save other more important issues. Occasionally I even made intellectual compromises by signing reports which included statements that did
    not represent my position. This was the only possible way to gain acceptance by the General Assembly of the Chamber or approval by the public of matters I considered important."

    What the above quote shows is that he might have compromised only on less important issues but he did compromise and later (from the above comment) regretted it. When could it be judged that the compromising on an aggregate is on important issues or not - to some extent when the decision was being made but mostly years after when he was writing his memoirs and when we are reading it. That is when we(or some of us) decide that Mises is our hero.

    We have our heroes but their merit is only judged in a sum not by single events. Rand obviously is not as straight forward as Ron Paul but it is too early to judge his contributions.One has to remember the reason libertarians dont vote is because of this craziness in politics. If we decide to get involved in politics beyond general criticisms we cannot judge a politician by the same criteria that we apply to a scholar.Both have their different roles to play, different methods of service and different ends.

    Rand has not actually done anything legislation wise to harm those he swore an oath to serve.Unless his support for Romney is making libertarians change their views and go vote for Romney, he has not done any actual harm in endorsing Romney either except if we look at it from some collectivist views on how it harms the image of libertarians!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guess people like you will vainly hold out hope no matter what.

      I frankly don't regret is unwillingness to "compromise". Either you live it or you don't. No such thing as being "a little pregnant".

      Delete
    2. You obviously missed my point above. I am not hoping for anything, I am just accepting that his intentions have not been revealed and the effect this will have is unknown. There is not enough information for me to pass a judgement that he is a sell out. I dont believe anyone has that information but if people choose to be disappointed or form their beliefs that is up to them. I reckon if Mises was working for Chambers of Commerce in Vienna today there would be enough people on FB critiquing his one decision or another. Calling him a sell-out and such for taking govt money and diverting resources into research.

      Delete
    3. "There is not enough information for me to pass a judgement that he is a sell out."

      See, I didn't miss your point.

      Delete
    4. Yes you did miss the point:D There are at least 2 ways to look at new information. One you judge it by 'a' per-conceived parameter and then say that is the right way. In this example, 'assuming' integrity for a politician is what Ron paul has shown rand paul is a sell out. Or maybe assuming integrity for a man means he will never bribe anyone even if he has to do business in Africa or India(where you may have to bribe to get work done), if he does he is a sell out.

      The second way is to first question what does integrity mean,is it objective or subjective. If subjective then subjective to what(perhaps your particular duty, your conditions, and the integrity of people around you). If I think of it as objective then what are the elements of my assumption that influence this objectivity (perhaps the definition of sell-out or integrity I have assumed). Now given this definition of integrity do I have enough information to judge an action. What happens if the definition changes.

      You are interested in the first mechanism to look at the information and I am talking about the second. For you reaching a conclusion sell-out or not at this very moment is essential and that is the end of discussion. For me it is not.

      Btw I must point out that by some 'particular' definition of integrity each one of us can be called a 'sell-out' at some point in our lives. Hypocrisy is not as non-pervasive as we like to assume especially in our own cases.

      Delete
  13. I look at it from this perspective:

    1).Rand's endorsement really doesn't "mean" anything in practical terms. Romney is already the nominee. Now, in principle terms yes it is an embarrassment I think him and Romney both know Ron Paulites will not vote or donate to Mitt Romney's campaign. I really believe Rand thinks he is doing the right thing but he doesn't comprehend why he isn't right.

    If Mitt wins and starts war with Iran or some other country...and he may. What will Rand do then? Retract his endorsement? Who cares at that point what's done would be done.

    2). We know Rand won't be President or VP. As much as he is trying to differentiate himself from his father the establishment would never let him win or become a VP. Also, as much as I like where he stands on some issues the guy has no personality. He says some nice things but to be a President or VP you need charisma...Ron Paul has that charisma. When he talks about the constitution or the Fed you can see the excitement in his face and hear it in his voice. Rand is so plain and mono-tone. He makes good arguments but without personality people do not gravitate to you.

    3). Everyone says this movement is about ideas...and I agree it is. But it also is very much about Ron Paul. People have fallen in love with the man because of what he has done for us. He has helped open our minds and set us free. How can anyone say it is not about Ron Paul?

    4). Jack Hunter thinks Rand's endorsement will "help" the movement in the future. His idea is that this is all part of a grand strategy for Rand to take over the GOP and become president in 2016 (assuming B.O wins). What kind of strategy is this to come out in the open and admit this is the only reason why Rand endorsed Romney? Does he think that future opponents won't bring this up in an election vs Rand? How easy of a target would Rand be for trying to play the party this way?

    I really think Rand has a plan but unfortunately this plan will not succeed. Rand doesn't appreciate or understand Ron Pauls followers as much as Ron himself does. If he thinks for one second we will vote for Romney because of his endorsement he is crazy.

    I hope and pray Rand doesn't provide Mitt with Ron's donors list. If he does that will destroy this movement.


    And as far as that Peggy Freeman interview is concerned...anyone who truly believe Ron did this all for the money is helpless. She claims she loves Ron and still talks to him but that she thinks he may have done this to profit off of the movement...sigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My only question is...what else will Rand compromise on?

      If he does run in 2016...will he take money from the big banks? Matching funds? Will he tone down his disgust for the TSA and allow them to exist?


      I think it's fair we know now what we are getting ourselves into if he truly is the new "leader" of the freedom movement.

      Delete
  14. The only thing that would redeem this abomination Rand is perpetrating now is that he struck a deal with Romney to appoint Paul Sr as a Fed chairman or something of that kind. If not, he is a complete sell out.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rand grew up in Texas and now lives in southern Kentucky, but he forgot something that most of us southerners learned at an early age:

    Don't take a shit in your well.

    He completely forgot the people who put him where he is today. Normal conventional wisdom says that people have short memories, so it doesn't matter. I believe -- or at least hope -- that is not true of the liberty movement.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Frankly, I think that's an entirely illogical conclusion to draw from Rand's remarks. He simply stated where he and his father agree with Romney and said nothing about where they disagreed. I don't know where Rand will ultimately line up on this issue. I don't think I've ever heard him discuss it, but I don't see where you can infer, from this statement, that he does not ultimately favor abolishing the Fed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The internet has made a donkey out of this fool. This would have worked for him ten years ago, not now. He is exposed as a fraud, useless to the warmonger Romney, and to daddy Ron. I wonder what the family cookout will look like at the Paul's this July weekend. I would love to be a fly on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not saying its the way the world should work but there is a reason Mises and Rothbard are relatively obscure and Milton Friedman is not. People who don't compromise and form coalitions may be better but the world will not recognize them as better. Being a good salesman for your ideas and being able to work with others is more important than being perfect.

    I believe Mises and Rothbard to be closer to the truth than pretty much any other economists, but when you alienate people that is going to reduce the range of your message. That is their fault for not selling themselves better. We don't live in a world where everyone thinks rationally and accept things based purely on merit and logic.

    I see Rand Paul being the freedom movement's Milton Friedman. And him playing that role is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, yes, and see how much liberty Milton Friedman was able to bring through compromise. No wait, he didn't accomplish shit. He gets quoted by Paul Krugman to help bolster an argument for more government intervention. Milton Friedman's biggest accomplishment is being the "even Friedman supported X government boondoggle" guy for statists like Krugman.

      What did Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises do? They inspired people like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Tom Dilorenzo, Walter Block, Robert Wenzel, Doug French, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, and millions of others to take up the banners for freedom.

      Compromising might get you a line in the next Paul Krugman book but it doesn't inspire someone to become the next Lew Rockwell.

      Delete
    2. Dan I probably agree with you politically and economically, but its important to view the world as it is. Reality is not what you wish it to be.

      Delete
    3. I am viewing the world as it is. In reality, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises led the cause that has resulted in millions of people today that are studying Austrian economics and libertarianism. Milton Friedman is the guy big government enthusiasts use to say "even he supported us on this government intervention". In reality, I can't see how Milton Friedman can be mentioned in the same breath as Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises when it comes to advancing the cause of liberty. What good is it to be recognized if it doesn't advance freedom?

      Still, even if we want to play the who is more well known game, as if that in itself means anything, Ron Paul is much more well known than Milton Friedman. Ron Paul is out there spreading the ideas espoused by Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. So, while people might not recognize their names, they have heard many of their ideas. I bet most people could give a better summarization of the ideas that Ron Paul believes (MR and LVM's ideas) than they could for Milton Friedman.

      Delete
  19. I support Governor Romney because he has a loving family of five kids. My dad had five kids.

    See there are great reasons for supporting him.

    Sincerely
    Senator Rand Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not support Governor Romney because unlike Ron Paul, Romney is not a Christian who believes Jesus Christ is the beloved Son of God, Lord, and Savior.

      Delete