WaPo's Michael Gerson writes:
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign, by many recent accounts, is sputtering. The candidate, according to the Atlantic’s Molly Ball, is “flailing.” His campaign, reports National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, has been called a “disaster.”...
Once it was Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Now it is Mr. Smith uses Senate procedure to conduct a fundraising campaign on a national security issue that he distorts to serve his political interests.
The romance is gone...
Paul’s wink-and-nod primary strategy — winking toward his father’s libertarian base, nodding toward establishment foreign policy thinking — has collapsed.
Ron's base doesn't support Rand because his philosophical core is different than Ron's, contrary to those who say otherwise. Ron leans anarcho-capitalist and Rand leans toward some flavor of Constitutional Conservatism. Each core has logical consequences when it comes to political strategy. Rand's 'libertarian' Alinsky strategy has been a disaster, unsurprisingly. Most of Alinsky's ideas are incompatible with the philosophy of liberty. It is bizarre to see libertarian beltway folks promoting this man's ideas instead of Leonard Reed, Ron Paul, or Murray Rothbard's strategies. To recapture Ron's base, thus turning his campaign around, Rand would need to be philosophically born-again ancap. Whether or not his pride will let him acknowledge the flaw in his philosophy and strategy remains to be seen. I hope that he comes to his senses for all of our sakes. We really need to get the '08 '12 band back together and give the establishment a run for its money. Even if we lose the election again, it sure would be fun watching the NeoCons fume over libertarian ideas being discussed on the national stage.
ReplyDeleteSomething doesn't fit in your appraisal of Rand's campaign. He's a "constitutional conservative" but employing a "libertarian Alinsky" strategy? Alinsky wrote "Rules For Radicals." Conservatism is the antithesis of radicalism. To support liberty, free markets and oppose war and the State is, in today's political climate, radical. In my opinion, the book is not really ideological as it is tactical. To say most of the tactics are incompatible with liberty seems unfair. To be sure, Alinsky was an old labor union leftist but his power elite analysis was pretty good and I was surprised at the applicability of his rules to political action generally. He's no Ron Paul, Leonard Reed, Murray Rothbard, or Mises but it would be interesting to see a "liberty" candidate make some hay using some of those tactics.
DeleteRon is not an anarcho-capitalist. He is a Misesian liberal, a minarchist. Everyone else in politics is a variation of progressive statist.
ReplyDelete