The Principles of Rand Paul (NY Times - Op-Ed)

[pampango]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

"...when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “As a principled critic of federal power,” he could have said, “I oppose efforts to impose Washington’s will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act.” But Paul just couldn’t help himself. He had to play Hamlet, to hem and haw about the distinction between public and private discrimination, to insist on his sympathy for the civil rights movement while conspicuously avoiding saying that he would have voted for the bill that outlawed segregation. By the weekend (and under duress), he finally said it. But the tap-dancing route he took to get there was offensive, tone deaf and politically crazy."

"Paul is a libertarian, certainly, but more importantly he’s a particular kind of a libertarian. He’s culturally conservative (opposing both abortion and illegal immigration), radically noninterventionist (he’s against the Iraq war and the United Nations), and so stringently constitutionalist that he views nearly everything today’s federal government does as a violation of the founding fathers’ vision. This worldview goes by many names, including “paleoconservatism,” “the old right” and “paleolibertarianism.” But its adherents — Paul and his father, Ron, included — view themselves as America’s only true conservatives, arguing that the modern conservative movement has sold out to both big government and the military-industrial complex.

Instead of celebrating the usual Republican pantheon, paleoconservatives identify with the “beautiful losers” of American history, to borrow a phrase from the paleocon journalist Sam Francis — the anti-imperialists who opposed the Spanish-American War, the libertarians who stood athwart the New Deal yelling “stop,” the Midwestern Republicans who objected to the growth of the national security state after World War II. And they offer an ideological synthesis that’s well outside either political party’s mainstream — antiwar and antiabortion, against the Patriot Act but in favor of a border fence, and skeptical of the drug war and the welfare state alike.

Like many groups that find themselves in intellectually uncharted territory, they have trouble distinguishing between ideas that deserve a wider hearing and ideas that are crankish or worse. (Hence Ron Paul’s obsession with the gold standard and his son’s weakness for conspiracy theories.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among Paul's favorite conspiracy theories: the North American Union, the NAFTA superhighway, and the Amero. (at the link above)

"Campaigning for his father in Montana back in 2008, Rand Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Long a bugaboo on some segments of the Right, the NAFTA Superhighway does not actually exist."

"Ron Paul: The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."

"Rand Paul echoed his father's views, referring to the "Amero" (the Euro-style currency of the future North American Union), and saying "I guarantee you it's one of their long term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent."

[saltpoint]

1. On one hand we hear from Rand Paul that conservatism has betrayed its

principles to "big government" and the military industrial complex but his proposed vision -- to have "one...borderless, mass continent" -- would suggest a monolithic society. Which would be far easier to control. I'm not for a monolithic society. I value the disparity of cultures-within-cultures. A "place" is more of a person than a "corporation," by far.

The Libertarians are not interesting beyond their initial (and false) claim to independence. The last person to pull off independence to any degree at all was Robinson Crusoe, and he was a fictional character.

On the other hand, would a mass / monolithic society not require a hyper-authoritarian mechanism to govern? Let's dig up Mussolini and get his opinion.

In Kentucky Rand Paul may be electable, although I'm certainly going to send Jack Conway a buck or two to help his campaign.

[pampango]

3. Rand doesn't support a North American Union. He views it as a conspiracy concocted by the left

to destroy our sovereignty.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand_paul_beware_the_nafta_superhighway_video.php

"Campaigning for his father in Montana back in 2008, Rand Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Long a bugaboo on some segments of the Right, the NAFTA Superhighway does not actually exist."

"As was amply documented by The Nation a few years back, "There's no such thing as a proposed NAFTA Superhighway." It represents, Newsweek put it, "a strange stew of fact and fiction, fired by paranoia" that was popularized by Jerome Corsi, the man who spearheaded the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.

The NAFTA Superhighway has been a pet issue of Paul's father, Ron Paul. In a 2006 column, Ron Paul wrote: "Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside. ... The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."

"In the Montana appearance, Rand Paul echoed his father's views, referring to the "Amero" (the Euro-style currency of the future North American Union), and saying "I guarantee you it's one of their long term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent.""

[saltpoint]

4. "...one sort of borderless, mass continent" sounds aspirational. But no.

He believes what -- that progressives are trying to establish this? Good god. Who has the time?

And throwing in an admonishment of the unified coins of its monetary system, no less, as an indicator of deep the plot really is. Maybe flat-tax Steve Forbes would be interested. He's always up for some wild notions.

I misread the context of Rand's Montana comment, thinking that 'ultimately' meant something to aspire to in his world. He's saying no, which I'll walk back from my comments originally.

Now, if the voters in Kentucky will just say 'no' to Rand Paul this November, I'd be a happy camper.

[depakid]

5. Robinson Crusoe = Alexander Selkirk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Selkirk

The major rift in Paul's claim to big "L" Libertarianism is his staunch and complete opposition to a woman's right to choose. No exceptions.

Bottom line is that Rand Paul is just another hypocritical Texas crank like his father. Dime a dozen from that region.

[saltpoint]

6. Hi, Depakid. I missed the downbeat on Rand's Montana comments,

first believing them aspirational. Happy to be proved wrong on that one.

I agree with you on Rand and Ron both, not just because they are making it easy but also because they really are 'cranks.' They also attract a decidedly racist component in their constituencies.

I'm crossing my fingers that Kentucky voters will send Jack and not Rand to the U.S. Senate.

[depakid]

7. But just think of the unending opportunities for ridicule is he's elected!

:evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

9. LOL. Yes. But as tasty and numerous as those would certainly be,

I'd be more than willing to do without them to keep the sonofabitch out of the Senate!

[depakid]

8. dupe

[kirby]

2. Summary: A true Party of No guy n/t