iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Scheer

Robert Scheer

Posted: May 19, 2010 02:53 AM

Who's Afraid of Rand Paul?

What's Your Reaction:

Tuesday's election results were pretty good for progressives. The retirement of that windbag chameleon Sen. Arlen Specter is long overdue, and pro-labor forces were able to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in Arkansas. Even the big tea party win in Kentucky has its bright side.

Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky's Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What's wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we're talking about.

Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich.

"Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our U.S. dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered."

Of course the joker in the deck is the word principled before libertarian, and, as many online commentators have noted, Rand Paul is a bit more inclined to waffle on an interventionist foreign policy than is his father. While he would have insisted on a declaration of war before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, he argues that Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attack was planned, was a legitimate target but that Iraq was not. In either case, as he insists correctly, a congressional declaration of war was constitutionally required:

"If I had been in the U.S. senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I would have voted for a declaration of war with Afghanistan but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that's the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules."

In any case, his Republican establishment opponent, Trey Grayson, attacked Paul for his opposition to an interventionist foreign policy as well as for favoring the legalization of marijuana, and on both counts it is a good sign that Kentucky voters rejected those lines of attack.

True, to wax warmly about a potential Republican libertarian senator is an act of desperation for a liberal who still hopes that the federal government might be moved by the embattled band of progressive Democrats in Congress to put the power of the federal government at the service of the needy. But when has that happened recently? With a commanding Democratic majority in Congress and a former community organizer as president, the focus of economic policy in this time of enormous economic pain has been on saving the bankers who created this mess.

With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree? Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don't embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a "distinctly criminal class" and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.

Heresy, I know, but it is only thanks to Ron Paul, the father and hopefully the mentor of the potential Kentucky senator, that we got a congressional mandate to audit the Fed's role in the banking bailout. How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 767
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chichora123
07:50 PM on 05/24/2010
Reponse to IMB4U :

"Somalia, Mexico, and Haiti come to mind."

Really ? Somehow I doubt there are adequate protections for the most basic rights of individuals namely Life, Liberty and Property in Somalia/Mexico/Haiti. So as a Libertarian, I will take a pass on those countries. Why do people have this incredible urge to use falsehoods to make their point ?
Or may be is it because people have no idea what Libertarianism means in the first place ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Don Robinson
04:03 PM on 05/24/2010
http://feeds.kcrw.com/~r/kcrw/lr/~5/XnWmAjWH154/lr_2010-05-21-171239.mp3 listen to Robert Scheer!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Wahls
inventor, landlord, farmer
10:15 AM on 05/21/2010
I don't think congress uses good judgment and Rand could be the source of good judgment.
11:47 PM on 05/20/2010
Libertarians are nothing more than herb-friendly Republicans. Their inherent lack of moral values is the same. A smaller, less intrusive government ALWAYS leads to disaster, as evidenced in the pluracy of nations around the world. The higher degree of dreaded Socialism in the 17-18 or so "1st World" countries that enjoy a higher standard of living than we do is well documented and lied about in the "liberal media" constantly. But where are the Conservative utopias? Where are the countries who hold close the Republican and Libertarian ideals of limited government and rights of ownership above all else? Somalia, Mexico, and Haiti come to mind.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
01:13 PM on 05/20/2010
Good argument, Mr. Scheer. And the apple does not fall far from the tree. The Republican establishment, such as it is, will not be able (we hope) to draw Paul into its web of no, nothings, and don't care. But I doublt that many of them will understand Rand Paul IF he is as principled as we hope. The tea baggers shouldn't take this win as some sort of endorsement by the Republicans either. I have my fingers crossed. One of the reasons I am a fan of Ron Paul is his principled stance on our phony wars and it looks like those concepts came down almost in tact from the father.
11:57 AM on 05/20/2010
Who is the next Rand Paul? Everybody check out Justin Amash, this guy is going to be huge in the next few months. According to the Detroit News: "For Michigan, Rand Paul's victory means great things on the congressional scene. Representatives sharing Rand's consistent voting records like State Rep. Justin Amash (candidate for 3rd district Congressional seat) are poised for success. Amash has consistently fought to reduce the Michigan Business Tax and this is the type of pro-freedom candidate conservatives are looking for in the primaries." He has a moneybomb today and needs our support! Check out his webpage and consider donating: www.amashforcongress.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:28 PM on 05/20/2010
This is no more than a campaign ad for another teabagger.
photo
sloppybear16
"Dare we live, without molds"
10:54 AM on 05/20/2010
Wow, great piece. Thank you for seeing the bright side even if he is not your ideal candidate. I'm amazed at the outrage from the left thus far. Everyone is freaking out about what will never come up in congress. That being a repeal of one section in the Civil Rights Act that would allow private owners operate as they wish.

Everyone keeps acting like he is a racist, even though he has harshly condemned racism. Civil rights are apply to all races. Not just minorities. I don't understand how private ownerships rights can be stripped away by civil privileges in the first place.
10:16 AM on 05/20/2010
Who's afraid of Rand Paul?

Well, anyone who believes in public education, social security, medicare, civil rights, voting rights ect

Rand scares me much more than his father For someone to have a father in politics and to adopt the exact same philosophy is freaky. Did he not rebel at all? Its just not normal
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laserstain
11:52 AM on 05/20/2010
Anyone who thinks rights come from the state and not from natural law of a creator. That is who is afraid of Rand Paul.
09:23 PM on 05/20/2010
Didn't Nancy Pelosi follow in her fathers footsteps? I like this Rand Paul, it's time for some honest blood in Congress.
09:57 AM on 05/20/2010
You are a lefty liberal who approves of a man who thinks businesses have a right to put "No Jews Allowed" or "No blacks Allowed" in their windows? That's not heresy. That's stupidity.
09:28 AM on 05/20/2010
The real liberals in the true classical sense are the libertarians like Rand Paul. They/I believe in life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for all as human beings. To liberate is to set the human free. Are you really free? Maybe you think you are free, but are you really? I feel a monkey on my back and that's big government. Time to restore the constitution and give more power back to states. If you want to live in liberal land or conservative land you move states instead of fleeing the country.
photo
othel
I believe I don't believe
09:53 AM on 05/20/2010
After watching his interview with Rachel, I've come to the conclusion that Dr Paul just isn't as smart as he would like us to believe. Despite his racist tendencies, the guy's argument regarding a private business owner being allowed to discriminate is just plain stupid. And his analogy that someone being discriminated against because of a birth trait is akin to someone packing a 6-shooter is so bizarre that one can see how only the Tea Bagger crowd would go along with it.
12:15 PM on 05/20/2010
cally1972: Apparently you are quite ignorant of what libertarianism is so let me make it simple for you. The fundamental guiding ideology of libertarians like Paul is their overridding support of PROPERTY rights over HUMAN rights AND the freedom of the dollar not the individual. Yes, a libertarian gov't and courts under their way of thinking would protect the rights of people's property and money, i.e., the wealthy class over those who have no property/money, i.e., the poorer class. So it is a CLASS based ideology which says I got mine, screw you. This is as far from being a liberal as you can get. Please don't fall for their trap that they are for liberty and freedom of human b/c that is taken out of context from their real beliefs in the rights of property and money.
photo
othel
I believe I don't believe
03:44 PM on 05/20/2010
Excellent post Willie.
02:17 PM on 05/24/2010
WellTickleMeWillie: Apparently you are quite ignorant of what libertarianism is so let make it simple for you. The fundamental guiding principles for libertarians like Dr. Paul is the over-riding support of INDIVIDUAL rights over prohibitions and mandates from COLLECTIVES like governments, no matter how well-intended. So a libertarian government and courts would protect the rights of people to earn and keep property and money, i.e., the productive class over those who would leverage government's legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., the entitlement class. So it is a MORALITY based set of principles that would keep government from plundering which says "let's all earn our own way". This is as close to being a liberal in the classic sense as you can get, Please don't believe the liberal left's trap that they are for the poor and the working class because that is taken out of context from their real ideology of empowering government at the expense of the individual. Read Bastiat's The Law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PeterGSW
09:02 AM on 05/20/2010
You must watch the Rachel Maddow segment, Robert. No way Kentucky elects this fella.
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
11:16 AM on 05/20/2010
White Kentuckians will reject him over his view that business owners should be free to reject service based on race? That would surprise me.
09:29 PM on 05/20/2010
Of course Rachel has decided what you all should believe. I give Paul a lot of credit for going on her show. And I also agree with the author of this article.
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
01:24 AM on 05/21/2010
She asked him a simple yes or no question, something to the effect: "Do you believe a private business like Woolworth's should be able to deny people service based on race?" He refused to answer yes or no. For that, I don't give him much credit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lstl4
08:55 AM on 05/20/2010
He believes in segregation for private businesses. He will not be voted in. Dems win!!!yea...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RickO
Musician, Atheist
08:41 AM on 05/20/2010
I don't think it's heresy to hope that a new freshman republican senator would actually side with the democrats on certain issues and I know that resolve will be tested should he win. My expectation is that for all the libertarian blather, he'll fall right into lockstep with his party the moment he's sworn in. They all do.
09:32 PM on 05/20/2010
Well I have to agree with you about that, they all fall into lock step except the Blue dogs, how did that happen? Hopefully this guy will bring in some fresh honest blood and do whats right instead of whats good for the party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PerryLogan
We don't want your guns; we just want your women.
08:30 AM on 05/20/2010
Meet the new Paul, same as the old Paul.
09:29 AM on 05/20/2010
That's the BIG PROBLEM-some of the ELECTORATES,see the pig with LIPSTICK ON
and believes he's an ALL AMERICAM MODEL,failing to hear his URNKS! I,too,have no
problem with the budget being balanced,BILL CLINTON did it,but it was not at the EXSPENSE
of the HAVE-NOTS.The HAVES,spend like there's no tomorrow and a drunken sailor,but
as soon as they are forced to give up THEIR POOCHS GOLD NECKLACE and SILVER
WATER BOWLS,they CRY-FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DEFICIT CONTROL.We,work
hard and are always sacrificing,WHAT HAS THE HAVES DONE,BUT TAKE,TAKE AND TAKE!
09:39 AM on 05/20/2010
And that's a GOOD thing! Ron Paul Rocks! He's one of the few true statesmen in Congress. Anyone who thinks otherwise has succumbed to the 'divide and conquer' paradigm otherwise known as Democrats and Republicans. Both parties serve money and power instead of the people who voted for them. Congress is a nest of weasels. The Paul's are what we need!
09:34 PM on 05/20/2010
I could not agree with you more,
07:32 AM on 05/20/2010
There isn't any serious talk about reducing the size of the Federal Government unless the talk is primarily directed at military spending. That is where the big money goes and it is the real source of deficit spending.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
vippy
Carpe Diem!
08:55 AM on 05/20/2010
Exactly! Makes no sense to have such a huge defense budget (should be called offense budget), more than the rest of the world combined. People do say they don't want to be the world's police but we are and only if there is something to be had. Otherwise we won't get involved, no matter if it is genocide
or some other class warfare like in Thailand at this moment. Human lives don't count, their minerals
do though! And that will never change because of the ones behind the Fed, the Bilderbergs, the shadow government.
12:06 PM on 05/20/2010
Check your math! Yes, military spending is a big chunk, and we can fix it with the scalpel. However, the scary numbers are in the debt, % on the debt, and medicare shortages--too much kevlar there.