I have been doing some soul searching over the past few weeks pondering over which political candidate, if any, I want to get behind this upcoming election season. I previously was a Ron Paul supporter and still am in many respects. I fell in love with Ron’s message of freedom and liberty because Ron would give clarity to his views and explain the philosophical thinking behind each statement he made; something I had never seen any other politician do in my lifetime. I would spend hours on the internet watching any Ron Paul video I could. Ron even was a huge factor in my decision to major in economics at my university. Now, Rand Paul, son of Ron, is campaigning for president of the United States. The problem, his message is watered down and he panders too much to political opposition, unlike his father who remains a champion of liberty and freedom to this day.
Like Father, almost like son
Something I see with Rand that bothers me is when he waters down his message to pander to any base of voters. This leads to his views becoming tenebrous and the trust with his family supporters distant. For example, Rand has condemned Russia for the situation in Crimea and continues to push the western media narrative of Russian invasion in Ukraine even when there is a stack of mounting evidence showing the United States has funded and provided arms to the Ukrainian government, who then distributes this welfare and armory to Ultra Nationalist groups, some having ties to neo-nazism and Adolf Hitler (source here and here and here). Along with this Crimea had a vote to secede from Ukraine legally and won its right to join Russia again. Although Ron Paul has spoken out against the United States actions in Ukraine, Rand has remained somewhat silent and takes the view of condemning Russia.
As I was scrolling through Rand’s website, I noticed he devotes a few short paragraphs to his views on various topics. One of these topics includes Foreign Policy and Defense. Rand literally devotes nine sentences to this highly important issue and gives no detail on his views of Iran, Russia, and Isis (although we can gather from interviews his views on each). Rand also gives no philosophical background to his foreign policy views unlike his father who was a non interventionist and understood the dangers of blow-back and foreign entanglements. Such complex issues deserve more than nine sentences, unless your purpose is to be vague to appeal to a mass audience, causing your views to become watered down and lose meaning. Rand also does this with many of his other issue posted on his website. Rand’s website can be found here.
Rand’s First Two Books
I recently found out Rand Paul’s first two books are full of misquotes from the founding fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (article here). The final line in Rand’s book The Tea Party Goes to Washington is credited to Thomas Jefferson with a fake quote debunked by his own Monticello. Rand also may have misquoted George Washington with the false government is force quote (link here).There are numerous other misquotes the article cites that you can read for yourself.
I can understand the point of Rand needing to broaden his voter base to appeal to a larger audience. I get that and wish him the best in marketing himself. The problem is he begins to alienate himself from the old guard of Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians who believed in Ron and his philosophical message of freedom and liberty. If Rand continues down the road of watering down his message and not giving clear and concise philosophical reasoning behind his views, he will continue to lose a base of voters and supporters that would have sacrificed a great deal of effort to get him elected into office. The reason Ron Paul was so effective was because he converted people to his views and showed them a side of politics not many are exposed too. Rand on the other hand seems to be playing the establishments game from having a watered down website, fraudulent books with similar covers to that of Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter, and messages so broad that it is unclear where Rand even stands on some issues. Everything Rand is doing indicates he wants to be accepted by the establishment. Don’t get me wrong, it is admirable that he filibusters corruption and keeps those issues relevant, but you know who else talks about those issues, many other libertarians and independent candidates that want your support too. Judge Andrew Napolitano, who I respect to the utmost, has come out in favor of Rand a few months ago. This pushed me into supporting Rand but over the last few months, Rand has not addressed any of the issues I wrote about above. I have sense retracted my support. Time will tell whether Rand deserves my support again.