- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,477
Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will
Jack Hunter - July 29, 2015
Of the major Republican presidential candidates, each has a base.
Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the evangelical base. Donald Trump’s base is the conservative grassroots (unfortunately, embarrassingly and hopefully not much longer). That same conservative base is also Ted Cruz and Scott Walker’s. Both Cruz and Walker also share the evangelical base. Jeb Bush’s base is moderates and the Republican establishment. This would also be true for Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Rick Perry if they are successful. Rubio’s base is also hardcore hawks and neoconservatives, for whom maintaining a hyper-interventionist foreign policy is the top priority. Lindsey Graham shares this hawk base. Perry shares part of the conservative, hawk and establishment bases. So, potentially, could Walker.
Each of these candidates wants significant parts of each base that make-up the Republican coalition. This is how you become the GOP nominee–holding on to your base while reaching out to other voters. It is the primary purpose of electoral politics.
It’s how you win.
Evangelicals might like Huckabee and Santorum more or less depending on what the candidates do, but it is hard to imagine a scenario where evangelicals would completely write off these two Republicans. Huckabee and Santorum are their guys. The conservative base might not always agree with Cruz or Walker, but know these men are their guys. The neocons certainly know Rubio and Graham are their guys. The establishment is completely fine with Jeb Bush–he is definitely their guy–they just hope enough other Republicans will be comfortable enough with him.
Rand Paul’s core base is libertarians. There are probably fewer libertarians than other Republican coalition group.
Many libertarians also can’t seem to decide if Rand Paul is their guy or not on a regular basis. Much of this is Paul’s fault.
It is also libertarianism’s fault.
Rand Paul takes positions sometimes that are not purely libertarian, primarily because he wants to be a big tent Republican who can appeal to all parts of the GOP constituency. The same evangelical, grassroots conservatives and moderate Republican voters that any GOP candidate needs to attract to win, yes, Paul would like to have too.
Generally, but not always, Paul attempts to reach out to these different constituencies on issues that correlate with Paul’s libertarian beliefs. Finding common cause where evangelicals, conservatives and even moderates already agree with libertarians.
For most of Rand’s libertarian supporters he is their guy, even when they disagree with him, because he is by far the most libertarian Republican running for president.
But other libertarians dismiss Paul if he takes un-libertarian positions on too many things. Other libertarians dismiss Paul if he takes un-libertarian positions on just one or two things.
Among Republican voters, generally speaking, only libertarians do this.
The only dissension moderate and establishment types have with Jeb Bush is whether he can pull it off. Evangelicals don’t constantly question whether Huckabee or Santorum are evangelical enough. You won’t find writers at the Washington Free Beacon or Weekly Standard worried about whether Rubio and Graham are true neoconservatives.
They know these candidates are on their side.
Too many libertarians don’t even believe in having a side. When I began as editor at Rare Politics, some libertarians accused us of promoting “Rand Paul propaganda.”
Note, I said libertarians accused us of this.
Rare Politics does present news and commentary from a libertarian-conservative point of view. Considering that Rand Paul is the most prominent libertarian conservative in America at the moment, we often cover the same issues he does, and him, from the same perspective.
Like Mother Jones and The Nation do for progressives. Like National Review and Breitbart do for conservatives. Like the Washington Free Beacon and The Weekly Standard do for neoconservatives.
Do progressives complain that Mother Jones and The Nation put out liberal propaganda? Do conservatives complain that National Review and Breitbart promote conservative propaganda? Has there ever been a neoconservative in the history of that ideology that has ever accused the Free Beacon or Weekly Standard of putting out neocon propaganda?
No, these news outlets represent their side. Their audiences usually appreciate it.
Libertarianism is an individualist ideology. Taken to extremes… no one should ever have a side. We are all just individuals. The “truth” stands alone and speaks for itself. I see statements like this from libertarians on social media every day.
But that’s not how society and human beings actually work.
It’s certainly not how politics works.
People who operate within the political realm will inevitably have sides–including libertarians.
When Rand Paul does things that go against liberty principles, he should always hear about it from his libertarian base. He certainly hears about it from Rare Politics and we’ve been critical of Sen. Paul on a number of issues.
But the notion that a candidate that has an unparalleled libertarian record should be completely dismissed when he does things to reach out to (or not repel) other voters he needs to win is something that is peculiar to libertarians within Republican politics.
If Jeb Bush got the nomination there will not be establishment types worried he’s not establishment enough. Mike Huckabee’s evangelical base will not worry he’s not evangelical enough. Marco Rubio’s neoconservative supporters will certainly not worry he’s not neocon enough.
If Sen. Paul gets close to the nomination–or even the White House–there will unfortunately be too many libertarians worried he’s not libertarian enough.
That’s a disadvantage Rand Paul has with his core base. It’s a disadvantage no other Republican will have with their core bases or at least to the same problematic degree.
Libertarians can and should disagree with Sen. Paul. They should also recognize he is by far the most libertarian Republican running for president. When it comes to one day actually shrinking government, protecting civil liberties or preventing the next war, that context matters. Greatly.
Libertarians don’t always have to be on Rand Paul’s side. But he is the only person running for president on their side.
...
More: http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-has-...e-base-that-no-other-gop-candidate-ever-will/
