A really good article that gives insight into Rand's upcoming debate skills vs Cruz and others

[T.hill]

Occam's Banana;5926657]You see, this is a perfect example of the very thing I'm trying to get at ...

On the one hand, you are saying that you are not sure that Rand thought his proposal was going to fail (which can only mean that you think it's possible that Rand thought it might have succeeded) - in which case Rand either really did want to increase military spending (with offsets), or he really didn't but was daring the chance that it might pass anyway. On the other hand, Brett85 said earlier that he didn't think Rand actually wanted to increase defense spending and that his proposal was just a ploy to show up Rubio and Cruz. Meanwhile, I do not think that Rand really thought the proposal would pass - but I have no idea whether he actually wanted it to or not.

One event, with an abundance of confusion and varied interpretations. And the damnable thing about it is that any one of us could be right - or all of us could be wrong. Does he want to increase military spending - or doesn't he? Is he willing to increase it (as a bargaining chip for something else), even if he doesn't want to? Or was his proposal just a ploy all along? Who the hell knows? Rand certainly isn't giving us much help here.

You're right that it's hard to disentangle all of the different variables and factors that could have led Rand to proposing his amendment, but I've always looked for as much context as possible. What libertarian argument could be made for Rand's action, is Rand's intentions libertarian in the long-run? Sometimes Rand will sacrifice a simple gratifying no vote that means a lot on principle, but very little in practice to do something that does have some possibility to effect real legislation. Rand tends to this because he has always been more pragmatic than his father and because as a senator he has more ability to influence legislation than his father ever did. Other people have their theories for why Rand does what he does, but people can and do interpret things differently than other people and a lot of times it's the result of not having enough understanding of a situation that ends up leading them to a false conclusion.

At least with Ron, you knew where he stood on these kinds of things, whether you agreed with him or not. He opposed increasing military spending, period - and he would have offset cuts in the defense budget to do things like reduce overall spending and make Social Security more solvent until it could be put on an "opt in" basis and eventually phased out. Whatever one thought about the particulars, pro or con, at least Ron was clear and consistent about these things (allowing for changes in the finer details). With very few exceptions (such as the death penalty), you knew what he opposed & supported yesterday, you knew he still opposed & supported the same things today, and you could be pretty damn sure he was going to oppose & support the same things tomorrow ...

There are benefits of being clear and consistent in both action and rhetoric, and you pointed to one - that is decreasing the chance of being misconstrued and confusing your base. However, Rand feels that his rhetoric needs to be adjusted according to the audience to make libertarian ideas more appealing to them. Most complaints of Rand are typically focused on the rhetoric he uses, because with the exception of a handful of votes (if that) have been in line with libertarian ideals. There is a legitimate argument that Rand needs to continue educating people the same way Ron did and his rhetoric doesn't do much to serve this purpose.

In my original post, I said that Rand had proposed and supported decreasing defense spending in 2011. That did occur. I also said that "now" (actually a few months ago, with the amendment under discussion) he had "proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere." That also did occur. I did not refer to this as a "flip-flop" - I merely pointed out the inconsistency (as many others have done). As I noted just above, I have no idea whether he actually wanted his proposed military spending increases (with offsets) to pass or not - or if he was just engaging in gamesmanship (as Brett85 has suggested). But he DID, in fact, propose increases in military spending. (I don't understand what you mean by "unprovoked and without context," unless you are referring to the offsets - but I explicitly acknowledged the offsets in my very first post.)

I'm not referring to the fact that he included offsetting cuts in his amendment, but the perception that he proposed military spending increases as a preemptive action that he made in isolation. This is not true, he proposed an amendment that served as a response to Rubio's already existing amendment that unconditionally increased spending. He might have thought that the amendment he proposed had a better chance of effecting legislation than a simple no vote or an amendment that decreased military spending. You forget that Rand didn't have to vote yes on the budget bill even if his amendment passed. Rand could of have been planning to vote no regardless, and with his amendment in place even if the budget passed, which was extremely likely, then it still would have resulted in a better outcome than if he would have proposed no alternative to Rubio's amendment. This is an argument of practical alternatives.

Which perceptions? The perception that he had previously proposed decreased military spending, but was now proposing increased military spending? Becasue that particular perception was not at all mistaken. Rand actually did both of those things. (Whether he "really meant it" or not in the latter case seems to be anybody's guess - one person says he did, and was using it as a "compromise" for overall spending cuts - another person says he didn't, and it was just a ploy to expose irresponsible spendthrifts - and so on ...)

Again he proposed an alternative amendment to Rubio's, and in either case he didn't necessarily have to vote for the final budget with or without his amendment.

 

[jurgs01]

I like his father better, simple as that. The further away Rand moves from him, the further he moves away from me. At best, I think Rand's strategy of pandering and essentially lying to get elected won't work and at worst I question whether or not we should even trust him. If he wasn't his father's son would you guys still be as enthusiastic? Rand needs to be bold and excite the base or he will lose it, he can't play both sides of spectrum with just a wink and nod to us.

It's okay to like his father better. It's okay even to not like or criticize Rand and not support him. I just question the amount of effort people who call themselves libertarians put into criticizing him.

Gut check: If you put more time into criticizing Rand than McCain, Graham, and Clinton combined then you are not helping the liberty cause in any way. I am as Libertarian as they come, and support people who run in the Libertarian Party, but the people who dedicate their lives to constantly beating the drums in the march against Rand are tools.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand does more than wink and nod to the libertarian base. Almost every position he has laid out is consistent with libertarian principles, but to libertarians they only look at the few areas of differences and because of that, the whole package is unacceptable. Libertarians are getting more than a wink and nod but they aren't happy because Rand isn't giving them the same red meat that Ron offered. The "all or nothing " approach is what has been and what will continue to confine libertarians to relative obscurity when it comes to influence in politics.

Ron took hardcore libertarian stances on a great deal of issues in both 2008 and 2012, far moreso than either of the LP's presidential candidates in those cycles.

Ron helped ignite a libertarian revival/awakening, and the LP playing political gamesmanship did not (and has not, for several decades now).

I'd hardly say that libertarians being too hardcore is what is hurting libertarianism or otherwise holding it back.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron took hardcore libertarian stances on a great deal of issues in both 2008 and 2012, far moreso than either of the LP's presidential candidates in those cycles.

Ron helped ignite a libertarian revival/awakening, and the LP playing political gamesmanship did not (and has not, for several decades now).

I'd hardly say that libertarians being too hardcore is what is hurting libertarianism or otherwise holding it back.

To expand upon my own post, Rand's entire strategy is predicated on the fact that his father did what he did - playing within the margins can be an effective method of bringing about change if those margins are sufficiently wide as to allow debate and political action. However, and this has been my concern for 5 or so years now (you can check my post history if you want to verify this), this strategy requires purists to hold the line and keep those goalposts separated. Otherwise, Rand will need to adopt less radical positions and policy statements if he is to continue his course of action, and eventually will reach the point at which he is effectively no different than a conservative Republican.

This scenario has already played out before. See the Goldwater movement, and how it was assimilated into the GOP and ended up being the failure that is the Reagan 'revolution'.

Far from pushing purists away from the campaign or liberty movement, you want those purists on that wall. Nay, you need those purists on that wall.

 

[Crashland]

Ron took hardcore libertarian stances on a great deal of issues in both 2008 and 2012, far moreso than either of the LP's presidential candidates in those cycles.

Ron helped ignite a libertarian revival/awakening, and the LP playing political gamesmanship did not (and has not, for several decades now).

I'd hardly say that libertarians being too hardcore is what is hurting libertarianism or otherwise holding it back.

It's not libertarians being too hardcore, it's libertarians failing to embrace diversity within their own movement and shooting their own.

 

[TheTyke]

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

"If Ron Paul didn't want a war with Iraq, then dangit, he shouldn't have introduced a declaration of war!" Which of course, he did. I for one support strategic legislation tactics, and Rand carrying on the tradition.