Doug Wead: The Difference between Rand Paul and Ron Paul

[Brian4Liberty]

The Difference between Rand Paul and Ron Paul
By Doug Wead

Rand Paul is the U.S. Senator from Kentucky who is favored by many to win the 2016 Republican nomination for president. He appeals to a broad range of constituents from the Tea Party to Evangelical Christians, African Americans, Gays, Independents and Democrats concerned about Civil Liberties. He has picked up the Civil Rights torch and now leads the most active effort to reform social justice. His father, Ron Paul, was a U.S. Congressman from Texas, who ran for president three times.

Here’s how they differ.

The father, congressman, Ron Paul, is a classic Libertarian. The son, Senator, Rand Paul, is a practical Libertarian.

The father believes in the personal freedom of the individual. The son recognizes that there are times when the needs of the wider community must be considered. For example, the father would allow local communities to decide for themselves about legalizing marijuana. The son agrees but openly favors laws against marijuana – for the greater good.

In foreign policy there is a big difference. Both men believe that the nation should not go to war without congressional approval. They both believe it is a mistake for Congress to forfeit war making powers to the president alone. Both men believe that the United States should not assume the role of policeman of the world. But the difference is in degrees. And it is huge. The father, Ron Paul, would prefer that American stay out of everybody else’s business. For example, he does not see Iran as a threat to American security. In an ideal world, Senator Rand Paul would agree but in a world of terrorism and nuclear weapons he sees genuine danger.
...
The best example of a Rand Paul foreign policy would be that of former President Ronald Reagan. For Reagan, the security of the United States was the paramount concern and thus his focus was on the Soviet Union and the threat it posed. Reagan’s wars were always proxy wars against the Soviets. For example, Reagan did not go after Cambodian leader, Pol Pot, the man who killed half of his own people in a nationwide genocide. Reagan did not go after Idi Amin, who had slaughtered hundreds of thousands in Africa and had just been driven from office when Reagan arrived in the White House. Both of these despotic leaders, left untouched by Reagan, were far more evil than Saddam Hussein.

When Reagan stuck his toe in the Middle East in 1982 and it resulted in the death of 241 marines, he withdrew our forces. He decided that it was not in America’s security interest to be involved in the intractable problems of the Middle East. How wise that seems in retrospect.

Likewise, Senator Rand Paul has refused to support the endless calls for international adventures from his colleagues in the Senate. And yet, when the ISIS threat emerged Paul had razor sharp focus. He was the first public figure to call for a declaration of war. He saw ISIS as a threat to America’s national security.
...
Finally, there is style. The father was a great provocateur and a born teacher. The son is a superb politician, a natural pleaser.
...
More: http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/the-difference-between-rand-paul-and-ron-paul/

 

[BuddyRey]

The father, congressman, Ron Paul, is a classic Libertarian. The son, Senator, Rand Paul, is a practical Libertarian.

The father believes in the personal freedom of the individual. The son recognizes that there are times when the needs of the wider community must be considered. For example, the father would allow local communities to decide for themselves about legalizing marijuana. The son agrees but openly favors laws against marijuana – for the greater good.

No no no no NO!!! You CANNOT simultaneously call yourself a libertarian and advocate laws against victimless activities for the sake of an alleged "greater good." I don't care if you call yourself a practical libertarian, an idealist libertarian, or any other kind of libertarian. It simply doesn't work. Doug Wead apparently needs to pick up a dictionary and reacquaint himself with the definition of libertarianism.

"The greater good" as a concept is irreconcilable with even the most weak-tea brand of individualism or libertarianism you can point to, because it's an entirely Marxist invention. What's next...are we going to allow people who believe in gun control and progressive taxation to call themselves "libertarians" too?

 

[The Gold Standard]

I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that.

 

[RabbitMan]

What's next...are we going to allow people who believe in gun control and progressive taxation to call themselves "libertarians" too?

You mean Civil Libertarians? lol

 

[ghengisconrad]

No no no no NO!!! You CANNOT simultaneously call yourself a libertarian and advocate laws against victimless activities for the sake of an alleged "greater good."

Perhaps what Mr.Wead means, is that the law itself is not for the "greater good"; but advocating it, in order to maintain main-stream credentials and create actual political success, is.

 

[Cap]

Are we running out of coffin nails yet?

 

[William Tell]

Not really impressed with this article by Doug. Its just Reagan cliches, and playing down how pro liberty Rand is.

 

[Brett85]

No no no no NO!!! You CANNOT simultaneously call yourself a libertarian and advocate laws against victimless activities for the sake of an alleged "greater good." I don't care if you call yourself a practical libertarian, an idealist libertarian, or any other kind of libertarian. It simply doesn't work. Doug Wead apparently needs to pick up a dictionary and reacquaint himself with the definition of libertarianism.

"The greater good" as a concept is irreconcilable with even the most weak-tea brand of individualism or libertarianism you can point to, because it's an entirely Marxist invention. What's next...are we going to allow people who believe in gun control and progressive taxation to call themselves "libertarians" too?

This is just B.S by Doug Wead. Rand was on record before he ever ran for political office as supporting the full legalization of all drugs. He just has to down play and water down his position on those issues to not upset all of these older voters within the Republican Party. That doesn't mean that he supports marijuana prohibition if you actually knew what he really believed.

 

[Lucille]

 

[Todd]

No no no no NO!!! You CANNOT simultaneously call yourself a libertarian and advocate laws against victimless activities for the sake of an alleged "greater good." I don't care if you call yourself a practical libertarian, an idealist libertarian, or any other kind of libertarian. It simply doesn't work. Doug Wead apparently needs to pick up a dictionary and reacquaint himself with the definition of libertarianism.

"The greater good" as a concept is irreconcilable with even the most weak-tea brand of individualism or libertarianism you can point to, because it's an entirely Marxist invention. What's next...are we going to allow people who believe in gun control and progressive taxation to call themselves "libertarians" too?

You realize the Doug is talking to the Republican vote?

None of us here would vote for Reagan, so it's clearly not for US. Do you really think hes trying to convince Liberatrians?

 

[AuH20]

I really question why more people are using illegal drugs and prescription drugs as well. It's not just the imprisonment issue. The people are damaged and the corrupt authorities are making billions upon billions off this frailty.

 

[tommyrp12]

The father, congressman, Ron Paul, is a classic Libertarian. The son, Senator, Rand Paul, is a practical Libertarian.

The father believes in the personal freedom of the individual. The son recognizes that there are times when the needs of the wider community must be considered. For example, the father would allow local communities to decide for themselves about legalizing marijuana. The son agrees but openly favors laws against marijuana – for the greater good.

The son agrees, then openly takes a opposing stance? This must all be a part of "The Plan". Yeah, this is going to win him allot of votes considering the amount of states voting the opposite way. Not that the states should even have a role in making personal decisions about ingesting whatever it is the individual is considering ingesting,Cannabis or otherwise. I hope this is just some PR bullshit to make boobus feel secure that they wont have Cannabis oil mainlined into their veins by force if we repeal prohibition on all drugs. Until he starts making some statements for personal liberty and non-intervention and drops the whole Reagan comparison as if it means anything to todays youth. I think ill withhold my vote if he is serious about taking up such a stance.

This needs posting.

 

[orenbus]

 

[erowe1]

No no no no NO!!! You CANNOT simultaneously call yourself a libertarian and ...

He doesn't call himself a libertarian. Where have you been?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Guys guys, chill.

How did you expect him to explain Rand's deviations?

"O, well, he's really a hardcore libertarian like his Dad, he's just lying to fool boobus."

That's obviously the truth of it, but one cannot say that in public.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is just B.S by Doug Wead. Rand was on record before he ever ran for political office as supporting the full legalization of all drugs. He just has to down play and water down his position on those issues to not upset all of these older voters within the Republican Party. That doesn't mean that he supports marijuana prohibition if you actually knew what he really believed.

No one has asked yet for a Rand quote where he favors Federal drug prohibition. I wonder if there is such a quote?

 

[William Tell]

No one has asked yet for a Rand quote where he favors Federal drug prohibition. I wonder if there is such a quote?

Read it again, Doug did not say Rand supports federal drug laws, he suggested he supports local drug laws.

 

[sam1952]

You realize the Doug is talking to the Republican vote?

None of us here would vote for Reagan, so it's clearly not for US. Do you really think hes trying to convince Liberatrians?

^^ this ^^

 

[Matt Collins]

Not really impressed with this article by Doug. Its just Reagan cliches, and playing down how pro liberty Rand is.

Doug is talking to mainstream Republicans who hold Reagan in high regard.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Read it again, Doug did not say Rand supports federal drug laws, he suggested he supports local drug laws.

Ah, you are probably right. In the context of "greater good", I misinterpreted that as being at the Federal level.

That is a very fine line. Once you are talking about local level, it's a matter of specific issues. Should there be a local law against selling heroin to children? Ron and Rand both might say "yes". Should there be a law against children selling lemonade? Both might say "no". Should people be able to grow their own pot and smoke it? Both might say "yes".