Friday, November 16, 2012

Rand Paul on His Father


The below article originally appeared in the Washington Times. Please leave comments, I am very interested on your views of Rand's commentary.

Some argue that Ron Paul was never relevant, that he was simply a gadfly who never accomplished anything legislatively. Others, myself included, argue that maybe, just maybe, the Ron Paul Revolution is the last best hope for saving the GOP from oblivion.

As I walk through airports, ride in taxis and meet people in large cities — people of color, working-class people, people with tattoos, people in overalls, people with piercings and even, at times, people in suits — I am amazed at the diversity of folks who come up and say how much they admire Ron Paul.

At rallies around the country, from the liberal bastion of Berkeley, Calif., where 8,000 students came to an event, to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, kids from all over the political spectrum came to listen to Ron Paul.

The naysayers will point out: “He didn’t even win a primary.” This is true, but when polled directly against President Obama, Ron Paul ran neck-and-neck with an interesting demographic. In the heat of the campaign, a Feb. 28 Rasmussen poll showed him leading Mr. Obama, winning the independent vote, taking a significant part of the Democratic vote and losing a significant part of the Republican vote. He truly attracted voters across the political divide from both parties and from independents.

His colleagues in Congress would ask with envy, “How do you raise so much money from the youth? From the Internet?” The truth was much more revealing. College students, welders, carpenters, maids, blacks, whites and Hispanics latched onto Ron Paul’s unique message of fiscal conservatism, personal privacy and liberty and a less bellicose foreign policy, one of taking care of things at home before sending our soldiers and our money abroad. It is and was the message that attracted the youth, the message that combined the fiscal conservatism and limited constitutional government of Republicans and a more restrained foreign policy sometimes exhibited by Democrats.

When the GOP examines itself to try to regain its mojo, I hope Republicans will look at the message of Ron Paul, because as it stands now, the GOP is a dinosaur that can’t compete on the West Coast, in New England or in the Great Lakes region. Before the powers that be call for abandoning our limited-government principles, maybe we should look at how Ron Paul adhered more consistently to the first principles of our founders and, in the process, found a unique and diverse coalition that actually could have competed in a world not controlled by a two-party system.

In 1984, my father wrote a farewell address when he left Congress for the first time. He went back to delivering babies for 12 years. He didn’t think he would ever return to government. At that time, he wrote:

“Thousands of men and women have come and gone here in our country’s history, and except for the few, most go unnoticed and remain nameless in the pages of history, as I am sure I will be. The few who are remembered are those who were able to grab the reins of power and, for the most part, use that power to the detriment of the nation. We must remember that achieving power is never the goal sought by a truly free society. Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty.”

While his conclusion is still true — dissipation of power is and should be the objective of those who love liberty — the idea that my father will remain nameless in the pages of history is far from accurate. You may not see highways or schools named after Ron Paul. Pundits may not refer to the Ron Paul bill (that is, unless by some miracle Sen. Harry Reid lets us vote to audit the Fed). My father’s imprint will not be in Washington but in the minds of the millions of today’s youth who found the message of liberty through a certain congressman from Texas.

For inspiring a new generation to love the ideas of liberty, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my father, the champion of liberty, Ron Paul.

81 comments:

  1. Actions speak louder than words. Well spoken, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent. I disagree with a lot of Rand's positions, and I'm not sure he will evolve into his dad, but he's definitely savvy. Great article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To bad his own son doesn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. lol you people clearly don't understand politics, i know a lot gop people that like rand paul, he's setting up for 2016.

    you would be foolish to think Rand doesn't get it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it is us who doesn't understand politics. What makes you think the PTB would allow Rand to win even if he was supported by the people? What, they'll forget how to rig an election? Will they no longer be able to assassinate him? If you think the PTB are going to sit by idly and just let people vote for freedom, then you are the one who doesn't understand politics.

      Delete
    2. You might be right, but a part of me hopes that Rand is trying to cater to the GOP and gain acceptance before ultimately steering the party in the right direction. It's like approaching women; you don't walk up to an attractive girl and tell her you want to sleep with her. Instead, you make small talk, take her to dinner, impress her, and then you'll get your way.

      Dan

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Rand may not be the "pure white virgin" his dad is, and he might have a few PTDs (Proximity Transmitted Diseases) but he knows that the majority will come to him if he works the room right and that he can land the smartest, sweetest and nicest voters if he plays his (substantial) cards right.

      Now I'm turned on. Dammit.

      Delete
    4. Here is the thing, if I'm right, and Rand wouldn't be allowed to become President by the PTB, then his strategy of cozying up to these guys and watering down the message, is the exact wrong way to go. I see a lot of comments saying that the Rand haters don't understand politics, or that Rand is just a Trojan Horse and he'll dismantle the beast when he gets on the inside. A lot of the people making these comments like to say that the doubters don't have their own plan to achieve liberty. I think all these comments are wrong.

      I believe that if Rand is really just a Trojan Horse, then he has zero chance of being president. The people in charge would go on a full scale attack if they believed he had enough support to win. They would attack him in the media, call him a racist, try to DSK him, rig votes, lie, cheat, and steal the election from him. If he somehow won the Republican Party they would run some popular republican as a third party candidate to takes votes from, rig the election, continue to assassinate his character, etc., and if he still won, then they would have some lone gun nut take him out. They would not give him the reins no matter what.

      Not only do I think they would never allow him to win, I think his strategy will not advance the cause of liberty like Ron Paul's way did. It isn't that we don't have a strategy, we do. We believe that the way of LVMI, LRC, EPJ, Ron Paul, etc. is the best way to achieve liberty. We must continue to spread the message far and wide. The groups promoting radical libertarians, and educating people about Austrian Economics are the reason the libertarian movement has such huge gains in the last 5 years. The methods of Cato and Reason failed to do this with all of their money and political gamesmanship.

      The people who think Ron Paul failed to make political changes, and Rand will do better in that regard, fail to understand the enemy we face and the way to beat them. We don't win by playing in their rigged political arena, we win by telling them to take their game and shove it, and convince our friends and family to do the same. We can only win if we convince enough people to become libertarians. Rand going around publicly saying he isn't a libertarian, calling himself a crunchy-con, watering down the foreign policy message of his dad, etc. is not bringing more people to libertarianism.

      The way paved by Ron Paul has proven to be the most successful strategy in advancing libertarianism. Rand Paul is choosing the path of Cato, and that makes zero sense to me.

      Delete
    5. We're libertarians for a reason, buddy.

      We understand politics better than you ever will.

      Delete
  5. No doubt Rand absolutely loves his father, but this piece reeks of political regret.

    Sorry, Rand. We gave you the benefit of the doubt due to your father's name. But you screwed the pooch on that one, didn't you? Don't think we'll forget.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Before the powers that be call for abandoning our limited-government principles"...wait...what?!?

    ReplyDelete
  7. While Rand's statement doesn't necessarily raise any libertarian red flags, it also shows his focus to be very GOP-centric, as opposed to liberty-centric.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ron Paul left a great legacy of fighting for liberty. Although I know this site (in general) doesn't view Rand in the same way, he is also a Champion of Liberty.

    His methods are different. He won't be the political pariah his father was. Ron was a stone thrower. And while stone throwers are fun, liberty needs bridge builders too. Rand is more of a bridge builder.

    I'm disheartened that so many passionate supporters of liberty can't step back for a minute and understand that we need both types of people. Ron Paul brought liberty back into the conversation; Rand Paul has the opportunity to take that conversation even more into the mainstream, and he will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I (unfortunately) agree. I'm a hardcore smash the state anarchist, but if Rand had been on the ticket I would have voted for him, and encouraged others to do the same.

      Delete
    2. Ditto. I trust that Rand, while not his father, would probably be like the Reagan conservatives imagine (rather than the real Reagan). It would be something akin to a miracle to have four years of relief from new laws, regulations, more spending, more taxes, etc. that we can fully expect from the election of any of the other jackasses.

      Delete
    3. * I'm a hardcore smash the state anarchist, but if Rand had been on the ticket I would have voted for him*

      lulz...sure you are.

      Delete
  9. "Ron Paul’s unique message of fiscal conservatism, personal privacy and liberty and a less bellicose foreign policy"

    See how Rand slightly waters down Ron's message to appeal to a broader range.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was that some kind of understatement humor?

      Just how much less "bellicose" would he support?

      He supported the blank check to Israel. Guarantees that we will be fighting their wars for them for years to come against the goyim.

      Delete
  10. I think Rand was speaking from the heart here. He did not state that he would champion the same positions but did take time to recognize that his father has. Excellent article and warranted tribute. This has to be read for what it is and only that.

    Well written Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Without getting into the issue of Rand, the piece is good. It will, however, fall on deaf ears.

    Imho, the Republicans are in the beginnings of a slow, ugly (but well deserved) death. We can already see it. The ink wasn't even dry on the election results, and they were already talking about amnesty (to buy the votes of Latinos, as if that is going to happen), and how they need to find a way to attract the youth vote (can we say Ron Paul?) by moving more to the...center? They came up with at least a dozen reasons why they lost, none of them even close to correct. Also watch the Republicans cave on everything they have said regarding the 'fiscal cliff'. They'll cave because, truth be told, everything they promised was election year pap. They don't care about deficits, lowering spending, debt levels, etc. Watch them agree to increase taxes on the rich and kick all of the spending issues down the road ("We'd really truly really like to cut spending, but the economy is too fragile...").

    Conspicuously absent has been any mention of Ron Paul, or his supporters. I read (haven't verified) that the vote margin in at least five battleground states, Florida and Ohio amongst them, was less than the number of individuals who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. If so, you would think that maybe it might be suggested that taking a significant voting segment (and the largest plurality of young voters supporting a Republican), and telling them to go screw themselves (I don't think I need to go into the myriad of ways in which this was done), wasn't such a good idea. But all we hear is silence.

    The Republican Party in Washington hates Ron Paul. We are under the impression that his foreign policy was the problem, but I think it was his domestic policy. The Republicans want nothing to do with actual fiscal discipline, and the thought of a politican in charge who would actually attempt to accomplish that which he had promised scared the crap out of them.

    We are going to crash and burn as a country, in any number or combination of ways, before the situation begins to right itself, and it will be in spite of Washington, not because of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the DC GOP hate Ron (and Rand, to a lesser degree) but the average GOP voter likes them, and a large majority REALLY LIKE them.

      Delete
    2. Dale,
      I would love to believe that, but if so, Ron would have won the primary. The average GOP voter votes for who the party and the pundits tell them to vote for. You don't know how many times I walked away from conversations with intelligent educated people in the Republican party (I am a local party person) shaking my head because they actually thought Ron Paul was a crazy loon. None of these people could cite anything specific, except maybe babble about the Fed or foreign policy, but they were convinced he was actually insane.

      Which brings me to the issue of foreign policy. Sadly, I think that the majority of GOP voters are just a-ok with killing foreigners as long as they have an Islamic sounding name. These people claim to have no faithin gov't until it comes to killing foreigners and declaring every person who has a beef with the US a 'terrist'.

      Too harsh??

      Chris

      Delete
  12. No. No. No. No. I cringe and wince and my heart wrings when I see and hear apologetic comments about Rand Paul. This speech tries to please his neocon mentors while paying due tribute to his father and trying to corral his father's constituents into the fold. Problem with that is that Ron Paul made Americans smarter. Rand delivers platitudes. No teeth! His dad led unleashed a liberty movement founded on moral principles. US foreign policy is immoral! Building a totalitarian state in the name of security is immoral! Claiming that mass murder is "worth it" is immoral! Fiat dollar is immoral! Ron Paul drilled the Fed! Where's Rand Paul, "Oh, well, yeah, we probably should try in a bipartisan effort to audit the Fed...if they'll let us, if we ask them nicely, maybe send flowers and box of chocolates." What moral points does Rand inject into his speech? All he's doing is talking about a career with no message of his own about liberty. No call to bring his father's fight against the institutions of totalitarianism! When Ron Paul stood on stage in 2008 and indicted the lies held dear by the neocons standing next to him, Ron Paul defied the powers that be in their own den. Where are Rand Paul's acts of courage? Hiding behind skirts as he skitters away to the secure confines of his Senate office? And for those of you who continue with the "Oh, give him time; he just arrived in the Senate," that is the most pathetic defense of a quisling I've ever heard. Look at how Rand addresses Americans, "...people of color, working-class people, people with tattoos, people in overalls, people with piercings and even, at times, people in suits...." His efforts at inclusion reveal a credibility problem and a concern with his own career. Yes, Rand, you've blown it, and you've blown it big time. When you've dug yourself a whole, Rand, my recommendation is to stop digging. He has no teeth for liberty. He has become a pitiful platitudinous neocon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunate that morals are anathema to politics. Politics is war (aka holding a gun to your head) by other means. Rand is obviously HEAVILY influenced by his dad, but more savvy about couching his rhetoric in palatable

      Delete
  13. Yea I"m going to try to get one of the other guys filibustering the Patriot Act nominated instead of Rand, he's terrible.

    Rothbard endorsed Bush, get over it Wenzel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. Some people here need a major reality check.

      Conspicuously absent from this site is any positive coverage of Rand. Take, for example, this article from antiwar.com about how Rand is filibustering a bill b/c he wants Americans "captured" on American soil to have the right to a regular trial. Man, that guy must hate liberty!

      http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/15/sen-paul-stalls-military-spending-bill-over-summary-detention/

      Delete
    2. Nice try.

      "Supported" and for particular and specific reasons. Very different from "endorsed" which Murray did for no one.

      Delete
    3. comon, that's semantic, no difference in effect

      Delete
    4. Exactly right anonymous 4:50. Rand "endorsed" Mitt for a specific reason as well. He can't be the GOP nominee if he didn't "endourse" the last nominee. The endorsment was hollow at best.

      Delete
  14. With this letter, he scored some points with me. Rand's obviously not his father, who is the greatest politician of all time, but I'd support his campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rand: you are your father's biggest embarrasment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for the daughter that married Jesse Benton, she did it for love, we hope...?

      Delete
  16. When read while wearing contextual blinders, it is a true and fitting tribute to a great man.

    When read while wearing my normal cynicism lenses, it is a power play to the Republican party. Translated it reads: See, I GOT THE JUICE.

    (Yuk, what a F-ing dweeb who abandoned his father just when the tiime was right.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. "College students, welders, carpenters, maids, blacks, whites and Hispanics latched onto Ron Paul’s unique message of fiscal conservatism, personal privacy and liberty and a less bellicose foreign policy"

    Nice try Rand, but Ron Paul's message was for a ZERO bellicose foreign policy, not merely "less" bellicose. He wanted to bring ALL the troops home. You on the other hand want to continue to foment hatred, death and destruction through occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There has never been and never will be a politician who has caused freedom to exist. Individual liberty will never be gained thru political action because librty's gain is always to the detriment of politicians. The Pauls are just two more politicians searching for a constituentcy who hopes the Puals will push the machinery of might makes right in their favor. Freedom will not grow until a significant number of people hold the truth of individual rights in their hearts. And then no politician can stop it. But the truth cannot be poured into people's hearts by education or discussion or political action. We must wait and hope it will grow there naturally

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rand is right. Ron was the last hope for saving the GOP from oblivion. However, Rand himself falls too far from his father's tree.

    The fact is, the GOP is nothing more than a government political party that only cares about expanding its base of power. It does not care about liberty, nor property, which are both the cornerstones of the foundations of our independence from England. If it did, it wouldn't have treated Ron like a pariah, and would have identified the fact that it was Ron who had the potential to create a whole new generation of Republicans based on our founding principals.

    The reality is the GOP is a dinosaur. Since its foundation with Lincoln, it has based itself on the use of force to enslave the common people whilst enriching those who support its policies at any expense. Intervention at the expense of blowback. Keynesian Economics at the expense of business cycles, property, and wealth destruction. War, death, and destruction over diplomacy, peace, and prosperity. Force over choice. Lies, deceptions, false flags, and propaganda over truth and justice. "Destroying free markets in order to save them."

    Of course, you can say all of this about the Democrats too. They are all the parties of government and have only their corrupt interests at heart.

    Ron Paul was the last hope of salvaging a dysfunctional, bankrupt system. The reality is, regardless of it all, the system is eating itself, attacking itself, destroying itself, and collapsing on to itself. It is only a matter of time, just like the EU, when it will all fall apart.

    All we can ask for is for those that Ron has touched continue to learn about liberty. That they are prepared for the future when that foundation and what they have built upon it will be critical to the survival of liberty and all those that value it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is no way to save the GOP. The Republican party *needs* to be the conservative party. It is not. Republicans do not care about conservative values first and foremost, they care about advancing Republicans. This tactic is blowing up in their faces and will lead to the death of the GOP and the birth of a new "true" conservative party.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "As I walk through airports, ride in taxis and meet people in large cities — people of color, working-class people, people with tattoos, people in overalls, people with piercings and even, at times, people in suits — I am amazed at the diversity of folks who come up and say how much they admire Ron Paul."

    Yes, how much they admire RON PAUL.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's nice, I only wish Rand would more closely follow his father's message.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Haters can keep hating, but Rand is the loudest voice for liberty we have going in the government. It's easy to be a critic, but it's hard to offer solutions. I recently heard an interview from a while back that had Wenzel on the Peter Schiff show and they were discussing what type of tax would be the best, or least worse, type of tax...Wenzel couldn't even answer the question. He just kept saying, "as close to zero" as if that's an answer. Again, criticizing is easy, working for solutions is hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check with your doctor for a possible prescription for ADD medication. I did answer the question: A head tax. Maybe that's why you miss Rand's subtle curtsies' to the GOP establishment.

      Delete
    2. Just re-listened to the interview. You did say a per capita divide, "capitation" according to Schiff. When asked how you would implement it you admitted to know about the legal aspects.

      Not offering plans of implementation is kind of a cop out, in my opinion. Friedman called it that as well, and that's one of the reasons Rothbard loved to hate on Friedman. Realistic solutions are no good to the abolitionist. Since no potential bridging of the gap is good enough for the Rothbardians, it will always be so easy to criticize.

      Ron Paul is/was a great instrument for education, but he was ineffective as a law-maker. You guys would like to see Rand be the same ineffectual politician, rather than someone who can narrow the gap.

      Delete
    3. Type, admitted to *not* know about the legal aspects.

      Delete
    4. Your ADD continues to kick in. You should have written that I said I did NOT know about the legal aspects.

      My plan is a head tax, you may not understand this but there is a group known as lawyers that can work the technicalities. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi, Boehner and Rand work all the details on their own.

      Really man, slow down the brain and think stuff through. I am beginning to understand why you are a big Rand supporter, you are missing all the subtleties in his statements that are designed to fool people like you.

      Delete
    5. It my next post I pointed out my typo, if you didn't make comments await approval I'd have been able to point out my typo much sooner.

      I'm actually not a particularly big Rand Paul fan. However, I'm also not a fan of people who constantly criticize without offering solutions. This isn't limited just to you (most my info I have about you is just from reading EPJ, which I enjoy) but to most Rothbardians. Rothbardians are like Chomsky and his supporters, masters of criticizing but light on solutions. The unfortunate truth is that we live far, far away from the libertarian society most of us would prefer to live in. We can try to hold everyone up to the standard of pure libertarianism, or we can support those who are pushing us in that direction. Not blindly support, but support the good things. For example, right now Rand is fighting against NDAA and attempting to ensure that Americans get a trial by jury...why isn't that anywhere on EPJ?

      Delete
    6. Different anon here. Wenzel, you're a perfect illustration of my point about stone throwers (see comment #8). Why do you get mad at this anon poster so quickly? Why the ADD and other condescending remarks? He's just trying to engage you on a legitimate issue. And the omission of the "NOT" was clearly a typo to anyone reading his post in context.

      My point is that you are a stone thrower -- don't get me wrong, I like me some stone throwing every now and again. But the liberty movement will be a lonely place if its only adherents are stone throwers (especially those of the in-fighting variety).

      Delete
    7. Not that I don't think Rand is a chump, but a Poll tax is a bad idea.

      Talk about making it easy to "buy" votes....(not that they aren't bought already...but just sayin')

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous November 16, 2012 4:59 PM

      I always love it when people who don't LIKE the solutions given (or don't believe in them) pretend that NO solutions are given.

      Nice try, but this particular strawman is really hackneyed.

      You don't like the solutions offered? That's your choice. But just because you are willing to sit at the table begging and wagging your tail for any scraps the establishment is willing to throw you for minimal influence, doesn't mean others have to.

      Because that is ALL any halfway libertarian politician would ever get from the oligarchy: SCRAPS that would pose no threat to any of their interests.

      As far as Rand is concerned: good luck voting for him. Nobody is stopping you. Just stop whining to those who obviously know more about politics than you do.

      How are those Tea Party candidates doing on bringing back more liberty, by the way?

      Delete
  24. Meet the Rand GOP, same as the Mitt GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "we all owe a debt of gratitude to my father, the champion of liberty, Ron Paul"

    Yes, but some owe more than others, right Rand?

    In fact, I'd say your debt is growing faster than most of the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  26. people just come up to you and tell you how much they admire ron paul? really? i've spent some time traveling too and not one person has ever come up to me and expressed admiration for ANY politician.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen it happen a lot with people wearing Ron Paul shirts, hats, yard signs, bumper stickers, etc. He is the only one I have seen it about, but young people especially love Ron Paul.

      Delete
    2. I guess you're not Ron Paul's son.

      Delete
  27. I can not believe the hate for Rand. Look at his actions not his words. So he gave a meaningless endorsement to Romney...so what. Now he is being talked about positively by establishment republicans. His voting record is the best we have in the Senate. I know we all wanted Ron as POTUS but it isn't ever happening.

    If you are truly honest with yourself you know Rand is the best option we have for Liberty (AT THE MOMENT). We need to keep infiltrating the GOP because a third party candidate will never be President. Gary Johnson's pathetic 1% of the vote should be a clue that we need to roll with Rand and hope he restores the Republic (or at least cracks open the door a bit for us to get in).

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If you are truly honest with yourself you know Rand is the best option we have for Liberty (AT THE MOMENT)."

    If you were really honest with yourself you'd acknowledge that politics/gov't isn't the solution nor gives you a remote hope for "Liberty" as you call it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I am saying is that the Liberty movement needs to have leadership. This country is full of idiots and they will not choose liberty/freedom unless they are spoon-fed it by someone like a Ron Paul. I believe Rand is the best option we have to continue the awakening of liberty and the best way he could achieve that in our current sociopolitical system is at the POTUS position. I would love to live in an anarcho capitalist world but that just is not realistic at this time.

      Delete
    2. What's not realistic is thinking that Rand Paul is going to change any paradigm substantially.

      If you wanna drink his kool aid feel free, you're just like Charlie Brown trying to kick that ole ball.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous November 16, 2012 5:41 PM

      Well, Mr. smarty pants.
      If we must look at Rand's actions and not his words, how can he be a leader to the liberty movement when his words are GOP-eriffic?

      Oh yes, all the idiots you talk about that need a leader, are supposed to assume that everything Rand says is just code for "i really am for liberty, i'm just fooling the GOP leadership".
      Right?

      Delete
  29. I think Wenzel thinks Rand Paul is a charlatan and wants to see if libertarians are taking the bait. When push comes to shove, maybe he is a statist, but I don't think it's a good strategy to bash people who are with us on a lot of issues. My state has some of the worst politicians in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ron is great. Rand is even better. Rand is a much better salesman. Rand actually closes the gap of being able to implement ideas and reduce government.

    People here seem to think the government is going to change magically by wishing it to change. The typical thought process goes:

    1. Have a Rothbardian ideal
    2. ??????
    3. Ideal doesn't get implemented
    4. Write blog in cloistered anarchist community about how Rand Paul and Gary Johnson suck and say the only way to change the world is by not voting and blogging in your underwear.
    5. Blog about Rothbard and repeat.

    I'd like to see the world change for better. Rand Paul is a step in the right direction. He can actually win elections. If people are serious about the world changing, supporting people who will get 0.1% of the vote will not only not get people elected, but people won't hear their message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Politics is the only way to improve the world" fallacy alert!

      Delete
    2. If half of the "libertarians" could understand this we would make a huge leap forward. Unfortunately most of these "free thinkers" believe they can click their ruby slippers & everything will magically get better. I like to think in realistic terms but that seems to be a lost art.

      Delete
    3. All hail Ronald Reagon, the poltician who actually won with small government and libertarian lingo, and brought with him a bigger state.

      Yeah, politics is the answer. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

      Delete
    4. Actually blogging in our underwear or clicking our ruby slippers together is all that is needed for change.

      It is just a matter of time before the state smashes itself via its own incompetence.(consumption of its hosts)

      Carry on though, if you think you can create unicorn fantasy land(or begin to construct it) by voting for Rand feel free. It certainly will not hurt or help either way and the timeline for our current state is running short in its current form anyway...personally I think you would be better off focusing on educating people for the post US govt phase...but whatever floats your boat.

      Delete
  31. Its unfair to compare ANYONE to Ron Paul. Even his son.

    Rand has to be looked at independently. He is so much better than the rest of those RINO's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah sure, that's a great way to get an honest picture of him. Don't compare him to the best. That's unfair.
      But by all means DO compare him to the worst. That's fair.

      Delete
    2. Welp, Rand is setting himself up for that comparison, no?

      He is trying to win the voters of his father over yet doesnt subscribe to his fathers philosophy fully. Good luck with that.

      Rand deserves any bashing he gets just like any other pol trying to get Ron Paul supporters to vote for them without the philosophical chops.

      Let us not all pretend this is anything but a claim to the liberty oriented electorate in a Kennedy/Camelot/genealogical manner (without the all the philosophical baggage).

      If you want to support the guy you think is going to represent the movement the best you are better off with Justin Amash, not Rand Paul. Not that it really matters either way...you are never going to get the paradigm change you are looking for before the empire collapses anyway.

      Delete
  32. I nailed it before as Anonymous #17 (only kidding about the #17, but there are so many of us who can keep track?).

    In any cult there are both esoteric and exoteric messages. The exoteric are for the unwashed masses, while the esoteric are understood by the true initiates.

    In this case, Rands message can (and should!) be read on these 2 levels. On the surface this reads as a kiss blown to his father and all he stands for. This certainly appeals to the Ron Paul supporters, and who can speak against the positive message. This is the message for the unwashed masses, those of us who do not understand -- it makes us happy, and even think good thoughts about Ron's faithful son. This is the exoteric message.

    The esoteric message is meant to be heard and understood by the true initiates, in this case the Republican party, who is busy tearing itself apart trying to figure out how to win in 2016. The esoteric message is easily heard when using those Republican ears.

    The message is, to rebuild the Republican party and have ANY chance of victory, they must include the Ron Paul faction. (At least that much is true.)

    Remember when Dick Cheney was in charge of W Bush's VP selection committee? And he cheekily came back with a nomination of himself? That is what Rand is doing here.

    He is saying, HEY Republican party! You can win again, but only if you grab the Ron Paul supporters... I happen to be Ron Paul's son... Think about it.. I have already shown my loyalty in so many ways, including endorsing Mitt Romney. I've met with the Bill Crystals and other NeoCons and promised my fealty.

    With me at the helm (as the "legitimate" heir to Ron Paul), you just might have a chance.

    And by the way, you have NO other chance. So I nominate myself.

    I HAVE THE JUICE to rebuild the Repub party, as does no one else.

    That is my analysis. It seems pretty straightforward.

    gpond

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the election I have had several disappointed Republicans ask me if Rand will run in 2016. They know that I was a BIG supporter of his father, and wonder if his son will run. They are equally contrite (for not supporting Ron) and convinced that Rand can change the GOP. And I talk to a lot of hardcore GOPers.

      Rand has a thin, fragile line to walk. He can "suck up" to the GOP a little, but any major faux pas and he is working without a net. So far he is doing the right things. Even the "no foreign aid" and "no executions without trial" positions are playing well with the base.

      Delete
    2. "Even the "no foreign aid" and "no executions without trial" positions are playing well with the base."

      Of course they do. They are opposite to OBAMA's positions on these matters. It's easy for these things to play well.
      It's like being an anti-war liberal under a Bush presidency.

      Delete
  33. Ron Paul would describe our military interventionism as "empire." The is a very clear, moral judgement. To anyone with a shred of decency, it implies the need to withdraw from the world. This type of radical honesty, the complete departure from PR "spin," is what drew me to Ron Paul.

    Rand uses the much more politically correct term "bellicose foreign policy." This might be more appealing to the AIPAC/Military-Industrial-Complex lobbyists, but I think the people who approach Rand at the airport to tell him how great Ron is, prefer honest, politically incorrect language.

    I certainly do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The creator of RonPaulFlix resently said on facebook that he had some sort of insider knowledge abour Rand being very on bord with everything Ron stands for - but that he is "playing the game" preparing for 2016.

    I might be true. Even a clever man like Wenzel cant _know_ what Rands actual intentions are.

    ReplyDelete
  35. We run the risk of Rand doing to the liberty movement exactly what Obama did to the progressive, anti-war Left. Will he talk a great game, and then do little to nothing he promised while in office?

    How long into a President Rand Paul administration until whole swaths of the liberty movement become silent about great evils, because Rand is on "our team"?

    I don't expect perfection from any mortal, let alone any politician; but Rand has compromised far too often for me to trust. He is not the worst, but he is really not much more than a "go along, get along," run-of-the-mill Republican on most issues.

    Rand captures a lot of headlines, but there are a handful of folks in Congress who are more promising, though 2016 may be too early. Justin Amash comes to mind as just one.

    Still, I think the liberty movement would be wise to look for success outside elective politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Our problems are too far gone to be fixed. However Rand will (hopefully) push the country towards a more libertarian direction.

      If the 2016 election was Rand vs Hilary, who would you vote for?

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't vote. I have already walked away.

      Delete
  36. What I like about Rand is his insatiable desire to defend liberty. While Ron Paul would just give a speech, get outvoted 434-1, and go home, Rand Paul will filibuster the Patriot Act for three days.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't think he would be in the conversation at all as a defender of liberty if it weren't for his father's namesake. His statements and actions would be another voice in the irrelevance of the GOP if his last name was "Smith".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. I think we are holding him to a standard set by his father. If his last name was "Smith" he would be lauded.

      Delete
    2. excellent point...however, I think he would be lauded as a great republican, not a great defender in the cause of liberty.

      Delete
  38. Beyond the 'minority' of those of both parties who are politically idealogical, and the mass 'idiot' vote, I feel Ron Paul's influence is highly underrated. I have also always felt strongly that Rand is closely taking cues and the experience from his father and playing a emotionally restrained 'middle-roader' in order to gain political exposure that I feel will serve the libertarian movement well in 2014 and 2016. From this standpoint, Romney's defeat is very positive for the RP movement going forward despite the expected BS rhetoric to the contrary from the left....and right.

    When more economic shit starts hitting the fan, Rand will have to choose and I think he WILL make the right choices....as I feel he always intended.

    ReplyDelete