Rand Paul is the country's new up-and-coming. The savior of the liberty movement. The amazing, awesome, splendiferous son of Ron Paul, the almighty one.
Alright, maybe not that bad. But you'd think it, with the reaction he's getting in some circles.
I know several people who are known for berating the Republicans and Democrats for lemming behavior. Then they do this: vote for a name like 'Paul', without thought to the actual beliefs of said Paul.
However, I will not support Rand. Why? The reasons are simple: I just don't agree with him. At all. He supports the war in Afghanistan. He supports measures like the PATRIOT act. He is for banning of abortion and granting person hood to unborn children. He has even said he is not a Libertarian, and doesn't want to be identified with the group.
So why in the world are Libertarians falling for him?
And many are- I know several. I think it can be traced back to the issue of his last name and his parentage. Yet do we really want a dynastic Congress? Really?
Furthermore, I think many Paulite Libertarians have fooled themselves into thinking Rand is lying for the purposes of political expediency, for which there is no proof. Could he be lying? Certainly. However, Rand has no record whatsoever. We don't know how he will vote. Hence, I must assume that what he says is what he truly believes. And frankly, what he says I don't agree with.
So I find the willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt a bit puzzling. I know that his positions don't align with some of the beliefs of my friends. So why are they following him so ardently?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
political commentary by a jaded teenager
Search
About the Author
I am an 18 year old libertarian, Texan, and constitutionalist. I spend most of my time writing novels and discussing issues with people online. Until such time as that changes and I get a life, you're probably going to be subjected to my thoughts.
Enjoyable Blogs
Followers
Labels
economy
(38)
government
(38)
terrorist
(24)
foreign policy
(21)
constitution
(19)
healthcare
(19)
War
(17)
congress
(17)
politicians
(16)
rights
(16)
humor
(15)
muslim
(15)
military
(14)
bailout
(12)
banks
(9)
christians
(9)
debt
(9)
taxes
(9)
al-qaeda
(7)
budget
(7)
communism
(7)
jobs
(7)
money
(7)
time-out
(7)
socialism
(6)
detention
(5)
bushama
(4)
loan
(4)
stimulus
(4)
united nations
(4)
book
(3)
environment
(3)
federal reserve
(3)
PATRIOT act
(2)
abortion
(2)
Posts
7 comments:
Two things:
1) The likelihood of finding candidates that agree on EVERYTHING you want is very low. It's possible that these other people have other priorities, perhaps budgetary restraint and rhetorical flourish over size of government in other areas, for which they feel Paul's position in the Senate would be beneficial and for which they are willing to sacrifice positions on civil liberties or military strength and engagements. Incidentally, so far as I can tell Rand opposes the PATRIOT act itself, but does not oppose the entire instruments of the security state apparatus that have sprang up since 9-11, military tribunals and Gitmo are still supported, along with a fairly extreme interpretation of border controls and international travel restrictions (and along with a nativist interpretation of the Constitution rather than a negative rights interpretation). I suppose you could be cynical and assume he's lying because that's Kentucky and a GOP base that he has to pander toward. But one thing I'd say about Ron is that he doesn't seem to care about pandering, and I doubt very much a candidate willing to air some very unpopular philosophical disagreements on the nature and extent of the Civil Rights Act, even if he backpedaled from them later, is engaging in pandering himself.
2) It's still more likely that most people don't have much of an opinion of him as a political figure with political opinions, some of which are radically different than those of his father (to some extent this was the case with W and his dad as well, crucially in occupying rather than attacking other countries). Calling him "Libertarian" is a really a shorthand in media speak for calling him "crazy". Once Libertarians or libertarians understand that, it's better to just look at the actual policies and weight accordingly.
I agree. Although, I think it's sad that the media has been bashing him for one of his good views (his belief that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed).
Anyway, here's Justin Raimondo on Rand Paul:
Rand came out in favor of economic sanctions on Iran, and further opined:
“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds to me like he’s in favor – given the right circumstances – of nuking Iran. This is something that not even the wildest-eyed neocon has seriously proposed.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/
And from the Mises Blog:
Let's look at some positions Rand Paul publicly supports:
Supports More Taxes for State-subsidized Military-Industrial Corporations:
"Rand supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/
Supports the Denial of Due Process for Accused Terrorists and "Detainees":
" Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil. He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/
"Foreign [alleged] terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution...These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=is_rand_paul_good_for_civil_li
Supports the U.S. Invasion and attempted Colonization of Afghanistan and its Opium Fields:
"When our national security is threatened, Dr. Paul would not hesitate to authorize swift military action to destroy the threat, and he has clearly stated he would have done so in Afghanistan."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/16970.aspx
Why not support those who defend liberty? He doesn’t support “war.” He supports the solders fighting to stop the hate being brought by the Taliban in that war torn country. To get peace, sometimes you must fight. To say you don’t support those who stand apposed to liberty, freedom, justice is to be against everything America is.
You don’t believe a child in a mother’s womb is life? You don’t believe that life has a choice. You would take that choice away but allow someone to make the choice for that child and to never allow the child a chance to live? You don’t believe abortion is wrong? Tell you what: Go watch an abortion performed and then tell me it’s a good thing, a just thing.
No one is making Paul a Messiah. You have him confused with our president. And in all honesty, you’re very confused about what life and the defense of America really are and what would happen to you and your ilk if you lost what freedoms you take advantage of every moment of every day.
Eman,
I know that Liberty does not believe that abortion is okay, or even right. But she also does not believe that the government should be making moral decisions for its citizens.
There are dangers to having a fetus declared a life and given liberties and protections that apply to those that are already born.
For instance, did you know there have been several cases here in the US where women have been court ordered to undergo a major surgery that endangers both the woman's life and that of her child unnecessarily due to some physician's misguided ideology about what is best for the baby? Women have been forced to have ceserean sections because their baby was breech or because the woman had had a previous section. Neither are a valid reason for major abdominal surgery that does carry a great amount of risk. By putting the fetus' life above that of the will of the woman carrying it you are treading dangerous ground.
On my blog you argued against Bush and pretty much berated him for supposedly not doing every little itty bitty thing (That were not in his powers to do) possible to stop abortions. You said you were pro-life and now you say this:
"However, I will not support Rand. Why? The reasons are simple: I just don't agree with him. At all. He supports the war in Afghanistan. He supports measures like the PATRIOT act. He is for banning of abortion and granting person hood to unborn children. He has even said he is not a Libertarian, and doesn't want to be identified with the group."
There is no way you can be pro-life and not support a ban on abortions- unless you didn't make yourself clear that you would need a qualifier like exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother to support a ban on abortions. Otherwise, this seems hypocritical of you.
I support Rand Paul. Did you know that Ron Paul voted YES to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan?
There is no hypocrisy in being pro-life morally and at the same time not wanting to support a ban.
Here's why. By granting personhood to the unborn would infringe on the mother's right to autonomy. There have been many cases where women have been court-ordered to have a cesarean section, using the argument that it is for the fetus' safety. Usually it is because the woman wants to have a VBAC and many hospitals will not let them. The science shows that VBAC is safer than a repeat c/s. Every time a woman has a c/s (which is major abdominal surgery and carries risks for the mother and her baby) her risk and the risk to future children increases exponentially.
A woman ought to be able to birth where and how she chooses. She will most likely make the best decision for herself and her baby.
Now I can see the difference between birth choice and the choice to violently end the life of an unborn child, but legally it is the same issue. A woman's right to control what is done to her body and that of the fetus she carries.
I HATE abortion. It is heinous. It is deplorable. It is sad. But what is sadder perhaps is what drives women to do such a thing! I know women who have had abortions. One who I know very well had nightmares for years! I know the effects it can have on a woman's psyche and also on her body.
What we need is not a law to prohibit it, but rather education about what the risks really are and how they are performed and more importantly evangelization, bringing people to the knowledge of the saving power of Jesus Christ so they can find 'help in time of need'.
I don't think pro-lifers really understand what an all out ban would accomplish. It would mean that most all methods of birth control would also be illegal since ALL hormonal birth control and even the copper IUD will allow fertilization but prevent implantation. According to the standard pro-life view life begins at conception and therefore birth control is abortion. That is the real hypocrisy.
I don't use birth control, obviously since I'm expecting my 8th baby any day now! I don't because I am really pro-life. I have a strong conviction about it. Those who claim to be pro-life and yet use hormonal birth control are the hypocrites, if they believe life really begins at conception. (Think I caught and killed that rabbit! LOL)
Back to my original point. Granting rights to the unborn is a very slippery slope. It would lead to more deaths of babies and mothers because of overzealous and, frankly, unscientific practices that hospitals and OBs use.
I blogged about this issue just the other day.
http://livinginjoyfulchaos.blogspot.com/2010/06/at-war-with-myself.html
It is not a hypocritical position anymore than my position that drug use should not be illegal and neither should gay marriage, those are not things the state should decide, and yet I believe morally that those things are wrong. I believe that they are wrong because of my religious views which I cannot force upon the rest of the population through legislation.
Post a Comment