Interesting Article on Rand Paul Endorsement:

[Patriot123]

I'll just leave this here... do feel free to circulate this, it's meant to help the movement, not--in any way, hurt it or Rand Paul. It's only meant to ensure we see a third point of view in this debate, and consider the importance of ethics in politics. Ron and Rand are my heroes no matter what--this article isn't meant to bash him or the movement in any way, it's only meant to help it intellectually. That way, like the article points out, we don't become 'soulless' like our political enemies. I won't say who wrote it, I'll only say I'm posting it.

------

The Liberty Movement has been abuzz over Rand Paul’s recent endorsement of Mitt Romney. One side contends that the endorsement was necessary in order to achieve political ends, while the other side contends the endorsement is a sell-out to the establishment. This disagreement ultimately comes down to the question: “Do the ends justify the means?” Well, let’s analyze this.

Before we continue we must ensure we have a full comprehension of the phrase, “the ends justify the means.” This Machiavellian idea refers to the idea that so long as an individual has some goal—a “greater good,” it doesn’t matter what means he or she uses, so long as that goal is reached. So what makes an ethical statesman and how does this question relate?

Well, Ron Paul and Justin Amash are remarkable examples of ethical statesmen. Ron Paul’s ethics have delineated him from all 434 other Congressmen. No other Congressman gave back a part of their salary to the Treasury each year, or made media appearances simply to talk about issues with no concern for political gain. Ron Paul’s entire life has been about advancing the idea of liberty, and he’s done it through ethical means. Justin Amash has mimicked him, posting his explanations for each and every vote on social media websites. He genuinely talks to his constituents about the issues that matter—not what will further his political career. Further, both men have stayed consistent in their message and actions.

Now, let’s define an unethical statesman. I will use the example of Shakespeare's play “Macbeth”. While the example may be extreme, I think it’s fair to say that many elected officials adopt a similar form of thinking. “Macbeth” is based around a man who murders his king in order to become king. To maintain power, Macbeth is forced to commit further murders. Some might argue that Macbeth’s means of becoming king were necessary, so necessary that becoming king would benefit the entire kingdom beyond comprehension. Macbeth believed that in order to become king, he needed to use any means necessary, including murder.

Now let’s examine the outcomes of both the ethical and the unethical statesman. More specifically, what happens to the people who buy into the idea that the ends justify the means.

Ron Paul has always cared more about his ethics than his political career and has always cared just as much about his means as his ends. While this may have cost him legislation he wanted to pass or elections he wanted to win, it has spawned what we now refer to as the Liberty Movement. While some might say “if only Ron could have been a little less stubbornly ethical, we may have won”, I emphasize that it is precisely that high standard of ethics and integrity that allowed Ron Paul to accomplish everything he did outside of Congress: bringing Libertarian values into the mainstream, bringing younger voters to the Republican Party and redefining the term ‘Republican.’ While some may argue that Ron’s failure to pass legislation has hurt the movement, this has been more than made up for by his accomplishments as a spokesman for our movement and values.

So what becomes of Macbeth and other unethical statesmen like him? By the end of the play, Macbeth has completely lost himself. Not only did his initial act turn into a snowball effect, but it ultimately resulted in his downfall. By accepting the notion that the ends justify the means, a noble man lost who he was, resulting in his demise. Macbeth’s tragic fall results from his over-ambition, guilt, corruption, disruption of the “natural order,” but most importantly the idea that the “ends justify the means.” Macbeth believed that in order to achieve the ends of becoming king, he needed to use any means necessary, even if that meant committing murder.

The idea that the ends justify the means has been used throughout history by to justify lying, theft, corruption, war and even murder. Further, it is this same idea that has led to our policy towards Communism and terrorism. “Surely, if only we passed enough legislation, arrest enough suspected Communists, we’d be safe,” some politicians may have contended during the Cold War, and similarly today. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? The PATRIOT Act? The Iraq War, the National Defense Authorization Act? Afghanistan? SOPA/PIPA? CISPA? Maybe Iran?

So what becomes of Rand Paul? Surely, Rand isn’t about to commit murder like Macbeth—that much is a given. However, Rand may be in danger of losing himself by accepting this notion we discussed. I know many would suggest that Rand is somehow a “sellout.” Allow me to absolutely, without question agree with Jack Hunter’s point of view in regarding such an idea as sheer absurdity. I agree that Rand has the best of intentions for the Liberty Movement, and his endorsement of Mitt Romney is only meant to benefit its future politically. What is concerning, however, is that Rand seems to be taking up the notion that “the ends justify the means,” and this is a fact that very few in the Liberty Movement are analyzing. This may seem like a big fuss over nothing, but consider the implications of this endorsement. Rand is now playing the ‘game of politics,’ like every other politician does. Rand will now have to campaign for Mitt Romney, justify his previous statements that may contradict his endorsement, make and return political favors, purposely deceive his constituents, and so on and so forth. He will become victim of a cycle he cannot control. True, the endorsement is only a political move meant to put him in good standing with his party. But does that make it right? In an article by Adam G. House, he raises a pertinent point: “What Rand? Doesn’t an endorsement of Mitt Romney and going on the campaign trail for him mean that you want people to vote for him? If not, I think the Romney campaign would find that interesting” (House). House makes the case that with the endorsement, it is difficult

One may argue that in politics, an action is only ethical if a) what you’re doing is in line with your own ethics, b) it must be in line with your logic and not what’s good for your political career or movement, and c) you must be consistent. One may argue that this endorsement is none of these. If he truly just meant it as an approval of Romney over Obama, isn’t that lying? He is either lying to Liberty Movement voters by suggesting that Romney’s views are in line with theirs, or he is lying to Romney supporters in suggesting that he truly believes Romney would make a good president.

Further, Americans are looking for political leaders to trust. If they can’t feel like they trust Rand’s words now, that’s detrimental to his future as a politician. True, Rand said he’d make such an endorsement before winning his seat in 2010. Rand may be consistent in his voting record in and of itself, but if that same consistency doesn’t match up with his words, what does that say for what kind of political leader he is, regardless of his father’s legacy? Will he be able to win a presidential election or any election for that matter after losing the trust of so many supporters? And even if he does, at what cost will it be?

Does this mean that Ron Paul sold his soul, too, by endorsing Lamar Smith in 2010? Maybe, but probably not. I would like to think that there are different degrees of this. Rand’s instance is exceptionally worrying since it has repercussions that are far clearer. Ron’s endorsement does not have the same level of repercussions. This doesn’t make it right, especially considering both Ron and his Congressional staff were able to maintain a policy of “non-entangling alliances” in professional practice for quite some time prior to 2010. Simply put, Ron isn’t perfect, despite our vision of him as being god-like. In an interview with Penny Freeman, a former Paul staffer, she discusses Rand’s endorsement. She states:
“For years and years we had a policy in that office of non-entangling alliances, and do no harm. You don’t go in and make endorsements because it sounds good. You might do harm to people who have donated to your campaign and have been carrying your message if you make these endorsements in a primary, because you can’t know the heart and message of each one of those [people]. Okay, so that was our consistent policy, just like Ron’s consistent foreign policy.” (Freeman)
Ron went a very long time before making political endorsements. And surely, Ron’s consistency and high ethics, as explained above, allowed for his message to carry so far. We can argue for days on why Ron suddenly changed that policy, but that’s not the point. “Men are fallible,” as Freeman states. Rand’s endorsement is more worrying than Ron’s, solely because it signals his willingness to be a “party player.”

During both the Cold War and the War on Terrorism today, our political leaders have given into this idea that we must become our enemy—what we most hate, in order to defeat our enemy. This is terribly misguided. This is the same idea that we in the Liberty Movement have been railing against for years. Not only Rand, but all of us are now giving into the idea that to defeat the establishment, we have to become exactly like them—that we must use the means of our political opponents to reach our ends. Rand may not be able to maintain his strong ethics following this endorsement, especially if he values his ambition and political career. Our fear should be that in his ambition and pursuit of our political ends, Rand will lose himself, and all that we stand for ethically speaking. If Rand truly wants to pave the way for his candidacy for president in 2016, what more will he have to do that’s contrary to his ethics to get there? How much is he willing to sacrifice? He may become president in 2016, but at what cost? Who’s to say that he would still be the sort of candidate the Liberty Movement wants in office? If he becomes the Republican nominee in 2016 (and becomes what we most hate in pursuit of our political ends) will we be hypocrites in voting for him, and just resign by saying, “Rand’s the lesser of two evils?” Isn’t this what we’re all refusing to do between Romney and Obama?

True, it isn’t absolute that Rand will lose himself, but it begs the question: “All other politicians are doing it, anyway, so why can’t we?” Well, no. This brings up the classic quote that your mother probably told you as a child. It goes something like, “just because others are doing it doesn’t make it right.” And while some may counter by saying that this is just how politics work, let’s really evaluate that. Let’s use the example of Rand not endorsing Mitt Romney in 2012, running in 2016 and having all of his political opponents use this to attack him. “Senator Paul did not support us in 2012, why should we support him now?” they may deride, as Jack Hunter correctly points out. And this is most definitely a valid point; it can and most definitely would happen. Though, what if Rand were to retort with something better? Say, something along the lines of, “I didn’t endorse Mitt Romney because I genuinely did not believe he would make a good president. I will not sacrifice my ethics to advance a political agenda, and I will not lie to voters to make party politicians happy.” In short, just because sacrificing ethics may get us to where we want to be, and just because some may resign to accept that this is how politics has always worked, it doesn’t make it right. While it’s a far cry from Rand waking up tomorrow as Macbeth, it is worth examining the potential for Rand to lose himself in this entire process, essentially becoming what we hate most: a politician like Mitt Romney, who will do or say anything to be elected. And once our movement crosses that line, we’ll have lost far more than our souls, even if our principles somehow remain intact through the entire process. Our current politicians may be soulless, but that doesn’t mean we have to be to beat them. A noble man can always find a way to overcome an obstacle that would otherwise seem impossible without breaking his code of ethics. This should bring to mind images of Batman, or any other noble and just superhero. This should most definitely bring to mind the contrast between the Joker and Batman in the Joker’s representation of everything evil, and Batman representing everything that is just.

Let me be straight, I’m not bringing this point up to hurt our movement. In the words of Penny Freeman, I want our movement to be a “cohesive family” just as much as everyone else. Further, I’m not arguing that Rand should change his strategy. I am arguing that whatever that strategy is, it needs to be in line with his ethics and ours as a movement, and it cannot allow us to become what we most hate, even if it means getting more votes. Just because endorsing the nominee may be a prerequisite to be a state party chairman, for example, or just because it’s seen as the norm if you’re running for president, it doesn’t make it right—there are other ways to achieve our ends. And while the ethics of Rand’s endorsement doesn’t automatically make him unethical, our movement needs to have an adult discussion about what is and is not as we move forward. While few will remember Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney in 2012, they will certainly see what sort of man Rand has become in 2016, and what we all have allowed ourselves to become in pursuit of a goal. Will he be seen as a man of ethics and integrity, or a man who gave up on that? I hope for the former. I can honestly say I’m proud to be a part of this movement, and only hope for the best moving forward. Both Ron and Rand will always be my heroes, and have been central to my decision to dedicate my life to the Liberty Movement. And God-willing, no matter what happens to this movement I’ll always work throughout my entire life to advance the idea of liberty.