"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.
Across the country thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy. Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I.
Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term." -Rand Paul
It's a sad day for me and anyone else who was rooting for individual liberty and constitutionality in one of the two major parties. Rand certainly wasn't perfect. No candidate is. Not even Gary Johnson. But he was a bright shinny star of libertarian-leaning conservatives that invigorated young people and independents alike. However, the GOP base is an insurmountable force that cannot be reasoned with. The base demands hawkish foreign policy, intrusive protection of 'christian principles', protection of 'American' jobs, and harsh immigration laws.
There are glimmers of hope in some other GOP candidates. Ted Cruz has battled Federal Spending and occasionally encouraged caution in foreign policy. Rubio has taken on a more compassionate and reasonable immigration policy than even some Democrats. He has shown that you can take on issues one at a time without caving to 'party think' across the board. But, for the most part, without Rand Paul, the GOP race looks a lot like the same tired politics that Republicans and Democrats have been promoting for decades. More government. More protection. More safety. Less freedom. Less personal responsibility. Less individual liberty.
And, sure, we can argue that Democrats are worse. They, not only, want to start wars in other parts of the world for 'our protection' and play world negotiator, but they also want to limit economic freedom and upward mobility. But Rand Paul was a chance for all of us to believe that you didn't have to support the lesser of two evils. You could support a guy who might be wrong about some things, but overall never wavered from the position of optimal liberty for all and strict adherence to the only document that stops our government from oppressing us: The Constitution.
Now, Rand Paul supporters are faced with a difficult question. What's next? A lot of us were realistic enough to believe he was not going to win the nomination. However, we didn't expect to be in this position so early. I respect that Dr. Paul has to focus on his Senatorial Campaign. Kentucky needs him. The U.S. Senate need him. But what now?
There are people who will give up on the two parties and support a Libertarian, probably Gary Johnson. This is reasonable. The 'lesser of two evils' style voting that too many Americans have found themselves boxed into is frustrating and maddening. Many of us are utterly sick of it. Hillary Clinton is abysmal, but is she so much more abysmal than another divisive candidate like Cruz? Or worse, a tyrant demagogue like Donald Trump? Maybe, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that. Gary Johnson can clear your conscience. He's a principled Libertarian who is even more dedicated to individual liberty than Rand Paul by some standards. He's someone you can vote for, rather than defensively vote in opposition to someone else.
There are many, I presume, who will move to Ted Cruz. He and Paul, after all, have worked well together in the Senate. I caution people, though, to remember that Ted Cruz isn't the principled Libertarian he'd like you to believe. He flips. He flops. He is a political opportunist that, while being a Conservative, can be whatever he needs to be to win an election. And we mustn't forget that the base who owns his vote are many people who believe the government should be legislating morality. This is a scary thing for those of us who do not think your personal relationship with Jesus Christ has anything to do with being an effective executive. One of the most important things an executive must do is hold true to his convictions while working together with people with whom he or she might disagree. Cruz's ability to do this is highly suspect.
And maybe you are thinking of hedging toward Rubio. I can certainly understand why you wouldn't. Rubio is one of the most hawkish candidates in the mix. This issue has been a major point of contention between Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. But, if you are still in the business of 'lesser of two evils' voting, Rubio should be your guy, in my opinion. Why? For two very important reasons. 1) He is likable and reasonable. He can be changed. He can be reasoned with. He can compromise. He isn't a divisive ideologue. 2) He can win. It's time for Cruz supporters to swallow a bitter pill. Other than the people who already like Cruz, he's not likable. He's not electable. His strategy in the Senate has done a great job of making him the 'real' Conservative, but it's also made it clear that he is so married to ideology, he cannot be reasonable nor can he play well with others. If Cruz wins the nomination, you are hoping enough people hate Hillary Clinton that they will vote for him. But enough people hate Cruz that there is a good chance that strategy will not work. I certainly wouldn't risk four more years of Obama - Ooops, i mean Clinton - on such a suspect assumption.
I'm still torn. Part of me is ready to give up on the GOP and the two-party system completely. I like Gary Johnson a hell-of-a-lot. But part of my still can't help but be so worried about four more years of the status quo (and a permanency of Obamacare, in particular) that I'm willing to give this 'less of two evils' one more go. I might not decide until Nov. 8th.
No comments:
Post a Comment