And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning.
I do not "trust" ANY politician
qua politician - not even Ron Paul. I enthusiastically supported Ron
as a politician because of what he actually & demonstrably DID (or tried to do) in the way of returning America to sanity.
Politicians should NEVER be trusted. Period. They should certainly
never be trusted on the basis of their rhetoric - no matter how consistently agreeable that rhetoric may be.
To do so would be akin to trusting a wife-beater on the basis of the regretful apologies he offers after each beating.
At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs;
Actually, I think Rand's record (his votes & legislative actions in the Senate) is what reveals his beliefs - or at least, his record is the closest we can ever hope to come in sussing out "what he *really* thinks" without being mind readers.
The same goes for ANY politician - including Ron Paul. Ron could've talked the way he did throughout his career, but if his
record had not back-stopped his words, his rhetoric would have meant absolutely
nothing - it would have been no more than nice-sounding (but ultimately empty) words from yet another gasbag politician.
This is why we don't take so many other politicians who "say the right things" seriously. Consider Paul Ryan, for example. Ryan talks a great game when is comes to fiscal conservatism/responsibility, but when you look at what he actually does (voting for Medicare Part D, TARP & bailouts, or proposing a budget whose "cuts" are nothing more than reductions in spending increases, etc.), it becomes obvious that Ryan is a fake and a fraud. It is his record -
not his rhetoric - that exposes him as such. Going by his rhetoric, Ryan should be pretty fantastic ...
Rand confronts us with the diametric opposite of what we are used to. Whereas pols like Ryan employ the desired rhetoric (but betray that rhetoric with their actions), Rand moderates on rhetoric (but his actions are - for the most part - superb).
Though I would much, much prefer a Ron to all of them, I will take a Rand over a Ryan any day - and without hesitation - if those are my only choices.
and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting.
I judge Rand to be a minimal interventionist - but I base this judgement on his record (on the Iran sanctions issue, most notably), NOT because of his rhetoric.
His record indicates that Rand is a minimal interventionist who is earnestly trying to move the country sharply away from the rampant interventionism that is so pervasive today.
That is a good thing. That is why I support him, in spite of the fact that he is not a strict non-interventionist. To the degree to which he succeeds, non-interventionism will be afforded greater currency and more & better opportunities for advancement. Although that is not as much as I would like, it is also not worth nothing. In fact, as I see it, this kind of thing is just about the
only reason for supporting "legislative" style politicians like Rand at all - as opposed to "educative" style politicans like Ron. (IOW: educative approach >> legislative approach > 0.)
But I think
it is 100% fine for people to refuse to support Rand at all because of his minimally interventionist record. (My own enthusiasm for Rand is much lessened because of it.) My chief quibble with a lot of Rand criticism is that it condemns him for not doing something (such as employing strict non-interventionist rhetoric) that he is manifestly NOT trying to do. In this, it is very much akin to the criticisms of Lew Rockwell (for example) that condemn him for not doing something (such as courting likely GOP primary voters) that he is manifestly NOT trying to do. Now, I think Lew's approach (and that of other primarily or solely "educational" efforts) is ultimately the most important, effective and critical for the long-term. But that does NOT mean that there is
nothing at all of value to be gained from primarily or solely "legislative" (rather than "educative") approaches - such as that that being taken by Rand. In fact, to the extent that Rand, Amash, Massie, etc. succeed, they will make the jobs of Rockwell, Woods, etc. that much easier.
I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.
I agree. This is why I think the "Rand is a strict non-interventionist who is trying to stealthily maneuver his way into a position of power and influence" is a lot of silly nonsense. Either it isn't true, or (if it is true) the strategy is going to blow up in his face when it becomes obvious (from his actions, not his rhetoric) that he isn't what his interventionist supporters thought he was. Whatever one thinks of Rand, he is NOT stupid.
