Rand Paul loves the Kool-Aid...

Talking with Vocativ, Rand Paul tells us the Kool-Aid tastes good and we should all drink it:

I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

You know, pols are pols—never anything more, but impossible...

to be anything less. Which is to say Paul is just a pol... Like his Dad, he has no moral compass except libertarianism, which amounts to having no moral compass at all.

Did you like that "festooned by those issues?" Uh, Senator Paul, I think you meant "fettered." Myself, I prefer "festooned." Scripture tells us godly Noah was a "preacher of righteousness."

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Rand Paul, like the vast majority of Washington Politicians, has lived the bulk of his life recently east of the Alleghenies. In this part of the U.S., the post-Christian worldview holds sway over almost every institution. It is the to the point where no other view is ever considered. This is our Pravda.

When I read your post, I thought of the Log Cabin Republicans, who are the homosexual group within the GOP. They believe in a lot of good things, but a little digging and you find they also support same sex marriage. Paul is saying that you have to give up on these social issues in order to sell their other messages. On another note, there is a lot of dissension within the GOP on how to sell their message better. It seems that the party of personal responsibility and individual liberty has a hard time against the party of transfer payments and transfer rights. Yes, I made up that last one, but it fits; it is where you take rights away from one person and give them to another (see: Wedding cake baker).

Republicans: they're also the party of old-school conservatism, southern aristocracy, east-coast cynics, never-discipline-our-electorate (the drinking-to-death wife/kid trailer-inhabiting not-for-responsibility-but-because-they-can't-stop-drinking) yet then whine about the progressives' welfarism, free-markets-unless-our-lobbyists-disagree-for-their-industry pundocracy, filled also with the racist-Democrats who "turned red" after the civil rights era.

The higher-minded can message all they want but the ranks have no discipline and they are self-serving, and people know this: the faux-libs at least pretend. (While using the media to avoid actually being dissected--see Al Gore's giant E-guzzling mansions.) But like liberalism is largely been recaptured by those opposed to the Marxists, perhaps it's time for paleo conservatives to begin recapturing "libertarian" (as much as we need to recapture "liberty" from being an amphorous thing, and instead attenuated: you're a slave to one thing and free to another, when those thing are opposed by nature, or the other way around) ; if I've read right (and I haven't read to widely or deeply on it), J. Gresham Machen was summoned by Congress on occassion as a libertarian.

Part of the appeal of libertarianism is the return to thinking in thing, e.g. Nozick pointed-out that taxation to transfer to the profligate and idle is a of seizure not simply of capital, but another's time and labors: it violates the principle of the [harmless and responsible] individual as inviolable else we become unjust. Re-inserting the requirements to love neighbor and be moral would firmly re-establish it within the nexus of traditional conservatism, wherein it is understood that liberty like everything else is relative and that the quality of those things determines whether or not it is a good, e.g. Nisbet (Prejudices) notes that democracy as an ideal is only ideal among a moral people, and tyranny is the usual outcome (citing Tocqueville).

Ron Paul simply seemed to be the hard-attack on a larger illiberalism that cared not to let normal people look-after their own affairs, and isn't given credit on this: also is more and more being attacked despite that it appears he's frail and feebleminded (his son should be trying to remove him from the public eye and get him care). He once silenced critics demanding what he would do about hospital care for the poor form experience that before government financing drove-up the costs and made debt-slaves of every poor person who ever visits a doctor in an emergency, he and other doctors always work among private institutions to ensure care could be provided and afforded for them. That's the voluntary socialism and institutional responsibility conservatives have been clamoring for a return to or at least made into an ideal--that's not so bad.

Rand is becoming a politician rather than a counter-balance, which is unfortunate. He would be better or laudable if he said, rather, "we can tolerate different views so long as those who demand we surrender other liberties' for their preferences" (and give details, e.g. "we're fine with homosexuals being Republican members--though we'll have to remind them we predominantly view that as an evident aberration and morally wrong--if they're not advocating to take working men and women's rights, or those of groups of people working together, in the name of an entitlement to being approved of). He won't do that, I bet...Paul avoided the controversy by always taking it back to the issue of liberty of harmless individuals (and perhaps is key in why people like Judge Walker keep redefining "harm").

I don't get where you guys see libertarianism as lacking moral compass when the point for many is that it is profoundly moral to consider that a homeless person has the natural right to build a shack--in the midst of mansions--if that's to his benefit, if he owns the land (or if it is called "public land"). I do get it from the standpoint of having to listen to the partisan dribble of "libertarians" here in Colorado, where the official party as it now is was founded: indeed, a long-term and prominent member left and gave a speech on its fundamental flaw being a lack of moral insight.

What they don't get, like the other parties, is that liberty is just like the equality or the economic prosperity the other parties advocate for, in that without saying "from and of what, for what", none of it matters, there will be hell to pay for not asking that [complex] question.

p.s. I always like checking this blog though in Colorado--it's one of the only pastoral or pastoral-like blogs I know of on the web, in fact. Normally I obey the rule on names, but in this instance I left it out due to the fact that everything on the web is global, the web in fact is a giant database for mining who and what, e.g. just like the Bayly's concerns for Chinese having to buy Bibles only from an official place and being registered...and I may be heading to a certain place like that soon.

Add new comment