Sunday, June 10, 2012

Two Takes on Rand Paul's Compromise

Jack Hunter gives a perceptive political analysis of Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney (h/t Mike Marnell and The Daily Paul).  His analysis is based on realpolitik.  It is a question whether realpolitik will work because the people with whom Paul is compromising are as likely to change him as vice versa.   Paul is compromising with entrenched GOP financial interests.    

Hunter's argument is coherent, but is it realistic to think that the bulk of Republicans will ever side with an opponent of the Fed and Wall Street? In other words, the majority of GOP voters parrot network television; network television will never oppose Wall Street or GOP corruption because it is enmeshed in both. Paul's strategy may be futile.  The claim that Paul will be a winnable presidential candidate in 2016 is far fetched.

Libertarian strategy should be oriented toward the endgame:  As the nation's economy collapses because of Democratic and GOP policies,  libertarians need to be an independent force.

Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute says that Rand Paul is not a libertarian; rather, he is a neoconservative.  Rockwell says that you can't change the current regime from the inside any more than you can change the Mafia from the inside. The Republican Party is run by an oligarchy.  Rockwell says that the primary is over, and Ron Paul lost, so it's not surprising that Rand Paul is supporting Romney.  He aims to be a career politician, and he does not necessarily aim to be a libertarian.

Rockwell is right that Ron Paul represents liberty, not a cult of personality.  The announcer asks: "Why cater to an establishment that has shut out Ron Paul?" Rockwell calls the Establishment, the Fox network and the GOP, disgusting.  He also points out that Rand Paul cannot be seen as the same as Ron Paul.  Partisan politics is corrupt, and Rand Paul participates in it.

Rockwell's analysis is right.  Rand Paul must prove himself to be a supporter of liberty; we cannot assume that he is so.  If his support for Mitt Romney excludes libertarians from supporting him in the future, it may just mean that we should not. Better candidates may well appear.  So far, the jury is out on Rand Paul.

No comments: