Rand Paul as the "Textbook" Libertarian and Why That Won't Work for the GOP

 Pic credit: toothpaste for dinner

Once again, we're back to reminding the rest of the world that not all libertarians are Republicans. Sure, we believe in many of the same things that Republicans claim to - small government and fiscal responsibility, obviously - but saying libertarians are Republican is like saying all Asians are Chinese or all rodents are hamsters, it just doesn't make sense.

Rand Paul is learning a lesson in the perils of taking the libertarian mentality to the mainstream via the GOP.

NYT:

When Rand Paul, the victor in the Republican Senate primary last week in Kentucky, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964, singling out the injustice of non-discriminatory practices it imposed on private businesses, the resulting furor delighted Democrats and unsettled Republicans.

Mr. Paul hastened to state his abhorrence of racism and assert that had he served in the Senate in 1964, he would have voted for the measure.

On the surface Mr. Paul’s contradictory statements might seem another instance of the trouble candidates get into when ideological consistency meets the demands of practical politics. This was the point Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, made when he said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”

Let me tell you a story. Quick, I promise.

On the day this little Rand Paul faux pas blew up, I received a call from a certain editor of mine who shall remain nameless. This editor happens to be of the liberal bent and we've gotten into ideological arguments more than once, many of which end with me tossing off expletives and tired of defending my views (views, I remind dear reader, that are not necessarily the property of the Republican party). This time, I had to remind dear editor that not once had I endorsed Rand Paul nor had I said anything at all about elections lately, too busy following the situation in Europe to care. Did I automatically support Rand Paul because he was on my team? Please, that's what got us stuck with Bushy Jr for 8 years, the blind faith non-politicos have at the polls whereupon they vote for their guy just because they don't like the other team, not because that guy stands for anything they do. Wrong, wrong, wrong, that's not how you vote, idiots, and it's certainly not how I do.

Anyway, I honestly don't know enough about Rand Paul to say whether or not I support him. And that's the honest truth. I of course support his father but let's look again at Bushy Jr in comparison to his equally-diabolical but much more intelligent father, how many people voted for Bushy Jr simply because of whose splooge created his ass? Please.

The reality is that the GOP is too fragile, disjointed and frightened to handle a true libertarian at the moment. Of course, if the GOP were prepared, they would have countered the attack against Paul with talking heads of their own, thereby proving that the party possesses the strength to deflect any sort of criticisms that come along. Fuck, it's an election year, where are our best soldiers?

The Rand Paul situation is sad. The GOP allowed him to be crucified (hey, it's not really a loss for the party if the man wasn't technically a Republican, right?) and it shows how little continuity the party has at this point. Doomed. All of them.

I will be happy to go on record as saying affirmative action backfired. I'm no racist but thankfully I have no plans on a political career either.

America is not ready for libertarianism. It's too easy to cuddle up in how things have always been because that's what we're used to and God forbid the neighbors think we're racists or sexists or assholes.

Like Sam Antar says, political correctness does not help you, it helps the criminals. So go on being ultra-PC, America, it's worked out so well for you to date.

Jr Deputy Accountant

Some say he’s half man half fish, others say he’s more of a seventy/thirty split. Either way he’s a fishy bastard.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

enjoyed!

W.C. Varones said...

America is not ready for libertarianism.

Because the alternative is working out so well!

Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes that the government should allow individuals who own businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of race is a sick, twisted and immoral person and a racist. I don't care what the rationale for that sick point of view might be. Growing up in the segregated south and later living for a short time in South Africa I heard the "negative/positive right" rationale from every racist I've ever known. those who claim to be 'libertarian" or "objectivist" should admit their racism and be honest with themselves.

I grew up with racists. I know their rationales, then and now. You can't fool anyone but a fool.

Anon,

Isn't it discriminating if a business is not allowed to hire x person because it has reached its limit of x persons but does not have enough y persons?

There are "diversity initiatives" going on right now in public accounting that are not actually helping the industry by promoting the right talent but forcing mediocre people through the ranks in the name of this "diversity" crap.

Your political correctness "having experienced racism" yourself (whatever that means) doesn't serve to help us change the mindset, instead we have to receive arbitrary orders from the government as to how "racist" not to be. Don't you see how that is flawed?

Instead, we could try working towards a level of enlightenment that eliminates the entire concept of racism from our collective experience. Trust me, that will never come to us as a mandate from the government.

That's all. I'm not validating what he said nor do I claim to know his feelings on the subject. Racism runs rampant in this country.

And we're not arguing racism, it's about the mentality.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't it discriminating if a business is not allowed to hire x person because it has reached its limit of x persons but does not have enough y persons?"

Wow, That's exactly what we're NOT talking about. Way to change the subject. What the world wants to know is if the republicans will support a candidate who thinks it is okay for private businesses to post a "No blacks allowed" sign at the door of their people even if the candidate himself isn't racist. (As far as we know.)

profalbrecht said...

Being a Libertarian is so trendy, so PC for my friends. I remain a Republican just to drive them crazy.

drB said...

Is it OK if the companies and government give scholarships only to people of certain race/gender now? And if it is not then why are liberal people who have "experienced" racism not protesting? How is that different from making people sit in the back of the bus?

DaveP said...

IMHO the whole problem can be summed up like this:

We are either ALL EQUAL before the law or we are not.

If not, we get the Animal Farm "Some animals are more equal than others"...and that's the problem.

Note that this is about the equality of opportunity, not the equality of results so often confused liberals strive for.

The only thing the gov't should be concerned with is the *law* and not people's private *opinions or actions* - which no law can really change anyway.