Sunday, September 9, 2012

Should EPJ Turn Up the Heat on Rand Paul?

An EPJ reader emails:


I'll tell you, after reading your posts today on Rand, it really disappoints me that he's getting a free pass (i.e., silence) from the liberty heavyweights. Jeff Tucker even sunk lower than silence in the 'blowing a kiss' disgrace.

I understand the loyalty to Ron Paul...and if I were close with Ron Paul, I might even understand it more.

But there's no reason to get personal. A person should be able to go hard at Rand's ideas with a clear conscience.

And based on just what you posted today, his ideas are a total embarrassment.

If he was a doctor, out of political life, living in Kentucky...then who cares? So he's not like Ron Paul...big deal.

But he's not...He has many followers who are believers in "freedom"...and I keep reading this ridiculous notion that Libertarians are taking over the Republican Party!

And everyone (with the exception of EPJ) is tight-lipped about this madness!

It's not right.

If that's the way it has to be, then perhaps EPJ should turn up the heat

27 comments:

  1. Absolutely could not agree more. How Rand turned out is so much more than just a disappointment, it's a travesty. Don't ever lose those cojones, Wenzel. We need you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Robert,

    Is there any chance in a million years Rand would agree to come on the Robert Wenzel Show?

    ReplyDelete
  3. everyone is fair game for scrutiny no exceptions

    ReplyDelete
  4. Couldn't agree more

    ReplyDelete
  5. Haha, I'm actually of the opinion that the heat is just right at the moment. You call Rand Paul out pretty often as it is. Just keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Rand is using Kirznerian "alertness" to opportunities as they pertain to "ass-kissing" politics. Yes you should tell him his nose is getting browner everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To answer your question. In a word Robert, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, it's hard to see how the heat could be turned any higher. This site has consistently criticized Rand for even the slightest departure from the infallable Murray Rothbard Scriptures.

    Yet Ron Paul was criticized for being too ideological and not crafting his message to fit better with a Republican mindset (without, of course, actually changing his positions). That is exactly what Rand is trying to do.

    I was not happy with Rand's explanation for his vote on Iran sanctions, but beyond that I do not see where he has departed significantly from his father's positions. He simply gives more pragmatic and less ideological reasons for them.

    Anyone who thinks that an ideology that is as narrow and extreme as anarcho-capitalism can possibly prevail is incredibly naive. But a movement dedicated to expanding liberty can succeed. Yet even there it will need allies who may not be willing to go the whole distance on every issue.

    I'm not prepared to claim that Rand's ambitions may not get the better of him, and he will fail to become the person needed to lead the liberty movement. But there is no reason to conclude that he has done so at this point in time. When Krugman raised the issue of defense spending, Rand stuck with his principles and did not abandon them in favor of defending Romney. Rand Paul remains the most libertarian member of the Senate by large margin over second place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who thinks an ideology as narrow and extreme as "don't use violence to get what you want, and don't support those that do" can possibly prevail is incredibly naive. Is that what you meant?

      Delete
    2. Ed Ucation,

      Reality-- pretty extreme stuff for the psychologically and/or intellectually handicapped.

      Delete
    3. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king. Who's grading on a curve?

      Delete
  9. RON PAUL needs some heat. The elder Paul claims to be a libertarian, yet drives on government roads and takes a taxpayer funded paycheck. Paul also admitted recently that he is a statist and usually votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one...

      So is your argument:

      --"from authority", ie, "Even Ron Paul does these things, so it must make it okay to do them if he does them"?
      --"false choice", ie, "No one can be perfect, so we shouldn't cry out when people choose not to be"?

      You're really cute and witty, but not enough to have a point. Do you see? Either you're arguing that anything that is against individual liberty is okay so long as His Majesty Ron Paul does it, too, or else you're arguing that a thing which is against individual liberty, actually isn't, if we accept that some people at some times for some reasons choose not to recognize it as such.

      IQ of the comments section here falling precipitously as of late. Winter is coming...

      Delete
  10. Since there hasn't been enough channeling of French republican totalitarian revolutionary ideology here tonight, and since no one else saw fit to reference the belligerent, political and criminal (extra-)judicial inquiries of medieval papist regimes, I guess I'll have to go ahead and bait everyone with this myself:

    "If some among them are innocent, it is expedient that they should be assayed like gold in the furnace and purged by proper judicial examination."
    ~Royal letter opening the enquiry into the Templar Knights

    In other words, let him, his father and anyone else who would profane right reason and true liberty, have it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. The heat should always be on, but I think Rand is a Paul, not a politician.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trouble with the liberty or libertarian movement is that it bogs itself down on who is more pure. It does this since libertarianism itself cannot fit into standard, pragmatic politics. And since government is ruled by politicians, libertarianism will never gain a true foothold in government. Can't you see even how ridiculous that sounds?

    So, stop bashing Rand Paul because he isn't pure enough. He's not even a libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The time for business as usual has passed. Pragmatism only works if you have time. We have very little fiscal rope left.

      Delete
    2. Tell Rand to stop talking about libertarianism then. He goes on these interviews passing himself off as a libertarian, saying things like the future of the GOP is libertarian. As long as he is going to keep selling himself as a libertarian or even quasi-libertarian then he needs to be roasted everytime he says something non-libertarian. Too many people listen to politicians like Gary Johnson and Rand Paul for us to let them sell a bastardized version of our philosophy. So as soon as men like these two stop trying to hitch their star to the libertarian philosophy then the sooner we can stop pointing out their near constant deviations. Or they can go back to the private sector and do something productive with their lives. I'm sure the heat would die down at that point.

      Delete
  13. Bob,

    While others may pay lip service to Rand you should not. The fact that he is Ron Paul's son should not get in the way of logical thinking with regards to our movement. You have to remember that there will always be a demand for radical thinking. If it is not found on EPJ then who else will do it?

    I believe that the plan is to groom this man for a potential 2016/2020 run so the media can pass him off as a libertarian type. If by some reason Rand got into the White House then it would tarnish the liberty movement for the rest of all our lives. If you turn up the heat, then hopefully more people will see him for what he is: a neocon who understands economics more so than most neocons (but still is a neocon).

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would rather see more on economics and less on politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with your statement is that it ignores the fact that today's economy is more a product of politics than any other single factor ( welcome to central planning ).Hence, discussions of a political nature have significant bearing on the economy and your place in it. As such, if you ignore the political machinations that are involved, you risk misunderstanding / grasping the underlying effects on our country economically.

      Delete
    2. There is a difference between stating "the failures in our economic system have been caused by such and such policies of the state" vs "this politician is bad because he said A, which was really a lie because he did B, and he did it with bad peoples X, Y, and Z" etc. This is the difference between reporting on economics and reporting on politics.

      Delete
  15. I originally started coming to EPJ for economic insight. Lately I feel disappointed when I come here. There are a bagillion sites for politics, Daily Paul members hourly bash Rand, but accurate and insightful economics blogs are rare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand this complaint. There are a ton of stories focused just on economics. Why do you read the political posts if you don't like them? Complaints like these just seem silly to me.

      Delete
  16. C'mon, how many more shots do you want to take at the guy? The anti-Rand posts have been pretty much a regular feature of the site since Rand's endorsement of Romney. I would point out that with all that has been said about Rand, with the exception of his father, he probably is the most libertarian member of Congress. I think he should be cut some slack unless he really screws over the libertarian movement policy-wise--which he hasn't so far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. It's the fact that he is the most "libertarian" of congress that makes it necessary to point out his flaws. A lot of people look at Rand as a leader of the libertarian movement, and since he muddies the idea of what it means to be libertarian so much, it is necessary to point out he doesn't represent our philosophy well at all. The last thing I want is for people to associate libertarianism with a crunchy-con.

      Delete