Commentary Magazine


Topic: diplomatic politician

RE: Rand Paul’s Rocky Start

Jen, when you say of Rand Paul, “here’s some free advice: don’t trot out his father, Ron Paul, to defend him — it will give voters the sense that Rand is as wacky as his dad,” I am uncertain whether the advice goes far enough. Some of Ron Paul’s ideas and pronouncements are so disturbing and extremist that it may be incumbent upon Rand Paul not only to evade his father’s endorsement but also to distance himself from his unacceptable positions publicly.

Not only the Tea Party protests but also the silent rancor of the public at large seems fueled by outrage at this administration’s fiscal abandon — which tends to overshadow considerations of foreign policy or social issues. It is therefore unfortunate and possibly dangerous that some of the most ardent and sincere champions of fiscal sobriety hail from the Paulian circle and thus carry a lot of undesirable baggage. Voters must take or leave these controversial candidates as a whole — the good along with the bad and the ugly.

During the 2008 presidential race, I came across a great number of well-meaning people so taken with Ron Paul’s promises of fiscal constraint and economic laissez faire — as sorely wanting then as today — that they ignored, denied, or rationalized his noxious standpoint on social matters, his ridiculous prescriptions on foreign policy, his illiberal writings on race relations, and even his connections with anti-Semites. It is possible for the reverse of this phenomenon — that is, wholesale acceptance or rejection — to backfire now for Rand Paul: natural antipathy to his social conservatism (e.g., his advocacy for a complete ban on abortion), his isolationist foreign policy, and his controversial comments on the Civil Rights Act, might, by association, extend in the minds of undecided voters to his agenda of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

If the baby is thus thrown out with the bathwater, not only Rand Paul but also other staunch fiscal conservatives might incur political damage. Not fair, not logically sound, but nonetheless plausible. Voters often apply political sentiment with a broad brush. The spread of sympathies or antipathies by contagion or by association happens every day — in life as well as in politics. It is not in the interest of libertarians and fiscal conservatives to allow their views to be publicly championed by politicians compromised in other areas.

The question should be whether Rand Paul is a watered-down version of his father — more than that, watered down in all the right places. Or is he, rather, undistinguishable in substance from his father but a more diplomatic politician, thus able to hide or equivocate his wacky views better and longer? The burden of proof lies with Rand Paul himself, but so far the clues are very troubling.

Jen, when you say of Rand Paul, “here’s some free advice: don’t trot out his father, Ron Paul, to defend him — it will give voters the sense that Rand is as wacky as his dad,” I am uncertain whether the advice goes far enough. Some of Ron Paul’s ideas and pronouncements are so disturbing and extremist that it may be incumbent upon Rand Paul not only to evade his father’s endorsement but also to distance himself from his unacceptable positions publicly.

Not only the Tea Party protests but also the silent rancor of the public at large seems fueled by outrage at this administration’s fiscal abandon — which tends to overshadow considerations of foreign policy or social issues. It is therefore unfortunate and possibly dangerous that some of the most ardent and sincere champions of fiscal sobriety hail from the Paulian circle and thus carry a lot of undesirable baggage. Voters must take or leave these controversial candidates as a whole — the good along with the bad and the ugly.

During the 2008 presidential race, I came across a great number of well-meaning people so taken with Ron Paul’s promises of fiscal constraint and economic laissez faire — as sorely wanting then as today — that they ignored, denied, or rationalized his noxious standpoint on social matters, his ridiculous prescriptions on foreign policy, his illiberal writings on race relations, and even his connections with anti-Semites. It is possible for the reverse of this phenomenon — that is, wholesale acceptance or rejection — to backfire now for Rand Paul: natural antipathy to his social conservatism (e.g., his advocacy for a complete ban on abortion), his isolationist foreign policy, and his controversial comments on the Civil Rights Act, might, by association, extend in the minds of undecided voters to his agenda of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

If the baby is thus thrown out with the bathwater, not only Rand Paul but also other staunch fiscal conservatives might incur political damage. Not fair, not logically sound, but nonetheless plausible. Voters often apply political sentiment with a broad brush. The spread of sympathies or antipathies by contagion or by association happens every day — in life as well as in politics. It is not in the interest of libertarians and fiscal conservatives to allow their views to be publicly championed by politicians compromised in other areas.

The question should be whether Rand Paul is a watered-down version of his father — more than that, watered down in all the right places. Or is he, rather, undistinguishable in substance from his father but a more diplomatic politician, thus able to hide or equivocate his wacky views better and longer? The burden of proof lies with Rand Paul himself, but so far the clues are very troubling.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.