Rand Paul’s Risks - ...reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.

Lucille

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,019
Rand Paul’s Risks - ...reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.

Rand Paul’s Risks
From drugs to drones to immigration, reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-republican-hopes-libertarian-fears/

Indeed, reforming the GOP is as much the task Paul has set for himself as seeking its presidential nomination in 2016. He is unusually popular with young activists for a member of his party. He has spoken at venues like historically black Howard University, where he is less likely to encounter Republican voters than in Cedar Rapids.

Sometimes his efforts to broaden the party’s appeal have sat uneasily alongside his quest to be the most reliable Tea Party conservative. This has led him to thread some important needles—and also occasionally sound too equivocal. Issues like marriage, abortion, immigration, and even drugs may prove difficult to straddle.

Gillespie worries that if “Paul continues to send significantly different messages to different audiences, he will end up alienating all his possible supporters.”

That’s a real risk. But if one could win the Republican presidential nomination by sounding like Gary Johnson, Johnson would have stayed in the GOP primaries rather than running as the Libertarian Party nominee.
[Ron's '12 run discussed here]
Rand Paul’s problems are the Republican Party’s. The GOP must find a way to speak to new people and grow, without repelling its current base. It must determine how best to adapt old principles to changing political circumstances, building a fresh case for what conservatives consider permanent things.

That’s no easy task, so it’s unsurprising Paul has stumbled at times. But more Republicans need to be trying. Most other outreach-oriented Republicans tend to disrespect the base and its values, in style if not substance—think Jon Huntsman, for example. Many conservatives simply repeat campaign slogans of the Reagan era.

A more robust federalism might help both pro-lifers and drug-legalizers realize more of their short-term policy goals than rhetoric about ending either Roe v. Wade or the war on drugs ever could. Libertarians might learn to shrink government the way statists have often expanded it—through incremental steps—with politically achievable things like more lenient sentences for drug offenders, freeing more people than by talking about heroin.

But to succeed within any political party, one must first make common cause with the rank and file. Those of like mind with Paul might want to consider this verse when next in Cedar Rapids: “Be therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”
 
Yep, the thesis here is exactly what some around here don't understand or refuse to accept, thus the "not libertarian speaking enough" witch hunt.
 
i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be prying
 
Last edited:
i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be prying
I would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.
 
incrementalism is the key

That's how the hijacked government got it's power. We don't have time to slowly teach the people that they have power to change this if they want.
 
Last edited:
I would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.

Rhetoric is rhetoric...

If someone speaks like Rand AND more importantly votes like a libertarian... they have my support.
 
The GOP is still very conservative and resistant to change. They will not like a radical. They like hearing that they need to reach out to blacks and all that kind of thing because they look at each othe and nod in agreement and it makes them feel good. But that's as much as they can take.
 
i really want to know the psychological profile/age/job of rand skeptics.. for a never ending study in people read. needless to say those interested eventually will develop some people-read skills, so it's not even for something negative. but i would be prying

Quit worrying about the skeptics. They are a huge waste of our time and only comprise about 10% of the most hardcore libertarian base. They will never be convinced and really aren't worth our time. I know it's frustrating, but just ignore them when they get away from discussion of actual policy and start with the ad hominem.
 
Quit worrying about the skeptics. They are a huge waste of our time and only comprise about 10% of the most hardcore libertarian base. They will never be convinced and really aren't worth our time. I know it's frustrating, but just ignore them when they get away from discussion of actual policy and start with the ad hominem.

from an evolutionary point of view if these people were really that useless, their gene traits would have gone extinct long ago

so i really want to know what purpose they serve in any societal circle.. especially considering this coalition is exceptionally high-IQ compared to cookie cutter neo-cons and neo-libs, one can only assume we don't need much supervision here,

especially on someone like rand paul who probably has an IQ of 180+ and knows what he is doing, but these people seem to insist they know better on that supervisory role. hence i really want to know more about them. after all their gene traits have survived through thousands of years since civilization began, really makes me wonder. and in the world of IQ180+ as is the case probably with both ron paul and rand paul, you really have to wonder whether there is more than one way that works--ron's way worked to an extent, could rand's do as well in a different perspective?-- even if you were a skeptic, so, ya, i'm curious with these people
 
Last edited:
Yep, the thesis here is exactly what some around here don't understand or refuse to accept, thus the "not libertarian speaking enough" witch hunt.

It's hard to blame them. The Evangelicals get all the pandering, while libertarians are being asked to read between the lines...
 
I would love to know the psychological profile of those who excuse his every action.....when we know damned well we would never stand for some of the same rhetoric coming from any other political figure other than Saint Rand.
The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D
 
The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D

Very few of Rand's supporters in Afghanistan are religious.
 
The Ron Paul coalition was made up of very different people. Libertarians were only a part of it. The people you see defending Rand (aside from the loyal activists and members of his team) are mostly SoCons who simply don't prioritize our issues. Yet, they got all worked up when Rand started talking about "thousands of exceptions" on abortion. :D

Yup...some of his supporters are libertarians, and others are paleocons, or socons. I notice it's just different groups of posters prioritizing different issues. There's a group that is very critical every time foreign policy comes up, and another that's critical on immigration...and it's not the same people.

My key/hot button issue hasn't really come up much lately, so.
 
I get tired of this idea that being pro choice on abortion is the clear cut libertarian position.

That wasn't my point. All I'm trying to say is that libertarians have reasons to feel abandoned by Rand. Which is kind of counterintuitive, because the future of the Republican party, if it is to have a future, will be more libertarian and less Evangelical. Lets face it: we're not going to pass a nationwide ban on abortion, and we're not going to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The sooner socons get this, the faster the party can move forward.
 
That wasn't my point. All I'm trying to say is that libertarians have reasons to feel abandoned by Rand. Which is kind of counterintuitive, because the future of the Republican party, if it is to have a future, will be more libertarian and less Evangelical. Lets face it: we're not going to pass a nationwide ban on abortion, and we're not going to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The sooner socons get this, the faster the party can move forward.
In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.
 
Back
Top