Christine Smith's Blog

What Rand Paul Supports – Thus, Why I Reject Him

With the recent primary win of Rand Paul exciting many libertarians, I recently wrote a blog piece entitled “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul.”

Since then, I’ve found some libertarians to be ignorant of just how bad (from my libertarian perspective) Rand Paul’s political positions are. I view Rand Paul as a conservative, thus am amazed at the degree of libertarian support he receives.

Thus, I will share some of the most egregious examples of where I, as a libertarian, completely disagree with him.
Based upon his remarks/writings/website (see link at bottom of this blog),

Rand Paul:

1. Supports maintaining federal involvement (drug laws) on marijuana saying he “does not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana…”)

2. Thinks a Congressional vote for a Declaration of War with Afghanistan should have been called for (saying he “would have demanded” such a vote and would have “voted for it.”)

3. Supports a moratorium on travel visas with what he calls “terrorist” nations “from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations.”

4. Supports military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees (rather than charging them with a federal crime as the U.S. Code would have)

5. Supports the “securing” of borders including electric fence, helicopter stations, and construction of military bases to “protect” border.

6. Supports federal legislation which would end abortion and says on his website that he “will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion…” (note from C.Smith: it shouldn’t be a federal issue in my opinion)

7. Thinks “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” and refers to detainees as “thugs”

In my opinion, such positions are as detached from libertarianism as they come on very important issues. At a time when libertarian ideas are becoming discussed more in the mainstream, the last thing we need is to become identified with another right wing conservative with stances so anti-freedom. The positions above I consider to be antithetic to limited government and respect for individual liberty.

To those libertarians who like to vote for a candidate who they say at least may be better on some issues and who “hope” maybe something good will come from it, I share what I have always said: I view the voter and supporter of a candidate as culpable for whatever an elected politician does, that is if there was ample evidence of who that person was and what they stood for, before the vote was cast.

Participation in the electoral process can be a part of achieving greater liberty in this nation, and voting important. But if an office has no candidate running who truly values liberty consistently, I see no value (only harm) in casting a vote for such a person. For all offices, in which I see no candidate whom I can, in good conscience, vote for, I cast no vote. Choosing not to vote in such common situations, in itself, can require more thought and integrity, than blindly (or contemptuously and reluctantly) casting a vote for any candidate who to a significant degree does not reflect your principles and values.

When I look at the field of candidates for an office, I I view it as a litmus test to a large degree. On the issues I consider to be most important a candidate must share my positions. Sure, it would be rare (but not impossible) for a candidate for any office to be someone I agree with wholeheartedly (I say it’s possible, because I can imagine such candidates based upon the fact there are libertarian writers, whose work has been consistent for many years; if such consistent individuals exists, it is feasible that such a candidate could present themselves- though that would be rare).

But, usually, there will be disagreement between any given voter and any given candidate – that doesn’t rule out my casting a vote for them. But on key issues – it does – the more of such issues of disagreement means I wouldn’t vote for them.I don’t care whether it’s a choice between voting between the lesser of two evils or the lesser of five, I will not cast a vote for any candidate who I believe doesn’t have a core dedication to liberty.

Political ideology lies upon a continuum, of course. I support only those who are predominantly liberty-based – not just apparently getting it saying it right on a few issues (as Rand Paul does on some economic issues).

Citing a few words or platitudes a libertarian would agree with doesn’t make someone worthy of my support (and even those apparent positions and rhetoric I wouldn’t trust any candidate to follow through on if do not believe them to be grounded in a dedication to and respect of freedom).

I am a libertarian not a conservative, so I will never support someone who is just another conservative using a few of our phrases to muster support. This is why I do not support Rand Paul, and is why I view libertarians who do as either gullible fools or simply people professing libertarianism with a shallow understanding of its core principles who are willing to compromise whatever it is they otherwise claim to believe in just to be a part of the herd.

I invite you to read my blog piece “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul”.

(Visit Rand Paul’s website to learn in his own words what he stands for:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/
and from above link, access his issues page for more on his abortion stance, “illegal immigration,” and “national defense.”)