Rand Paul Damage Control

Jack Hunter claims Rand Paul “had” to endorse Romney.  Mike Adams claims Rand Paul is lying in his endorsement in an attempt to insert himself into a position of power.  An article on the Daily Paul also claims the same thing.  Dan McCarthy of the American Conservative claims this is simply retail politics that doesn’t mean anything.  Economist Robert Murphy posted a few apologist pieces, including apologist commentary from Lew Rockwell.

The Lew Rockwell interview was interesting.  The interviewer (on RT, of course) asks some great questions.  One of them being, “Why cater to an establishment party that shut out what your morals are this whole time?”  Lew’s response was, I’m not for catering, I’m for forgetting about it.

Well, I’m not in favor of “forgetting about it”.

I have no problems forgiving, but I’m not about to support someone who climbs in bed with some of the most heinous men the world has ever known.  If Rand wants my cash, he better start changing his tune. Imagine if Rand was a German politician during the rise of the Third Reich.  Imagine if Rand had endorsed Hitler because he wanted more power within the Nazi party, even though he didn’t agree with the majority of what the Nazis were doing.  Someone please explain to me how his endorsement of Romney is any different.  As Lew points out in his interview, the establishment is for endless war, concentration camps, drones in your backyard, regulation of the internet, etc.. etc..

So if the establishment is for all of those horrible things that Lew lists off, how could he possibly support what Rand did?  I fail to see any difference between endorsing Romney or endorsing any other psychopathic homicidal maniac for the presidency.  I really don’t care if Rand can do some good within the party.  I care about principle; Rand has just clearly demonstrated that he has none.

It is important not to get caught up in an improper attachment to a political figure.  When people show approval towards politicians who engage in what they know to be bad behavior, they take on the role of an enabler.  Many people make huge emotional and monetary investments in their favorite political figures; clearly, this makes it hard for them to denounce bad behavior.  I think that is precisely what we are seeing here in the responses to Rand Paul’s support for the neo-Hitler Romney.

How many democrats still blindly support Obama after he failed to end the wars, stop the drug raids, end the cronyism, and halt the bailouts?  How many republicans support Romney, the very guy who implemented Obamacare in his own state and has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that there isn’t a single issue he’s ever been consistent on?  Why should we support people who endorse these clowns with our money, votes or time?

I don’t blame Lew or the rest of the bunch for being apologists, they are simply caught up in a psychological state that precludes them from making a rational assessment of the situation.  Either that, or they subconsciously support Romney themselves.

We must always remember what all politicians are: mafia bosses.  Even the great Ron Paul still gets a paycheck that is derived from the theft of the masses.  I support Ron because of his incredible unwavering support of the non-aggression principle, but he is by far the exception to the rule.  As much as I love Ron, I’m not going to blindly approve of actions he might take that violate what I know to be true and just.  If Ron Paul did something “bad”, I would be among the first to denounce him.  In this case, Rand’s endorsement of Romney is inexcusable given the fact that his father is still technically running and Gary Johnson is still in the mix.

 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-P-Slevin/690162319 John P Slevin

    Very thoughtful piece.  A necessary rejoinder to those who are in fact apologists for what cannot be excused.  You’re right to note the possibility of forgiveness and the stress the need not to excuse the bad behavior, nor to let it go unremarked.

  • Tyler Groce

    Michael, this very charged (deservingly so) article really hit home for me.

    I like many when I first heard of the news immediately started trying to rationalize it, of which is not wrong if in fact the action was rational and maybe Rands move was “rational” or dreamed necessary by his inner circle. But as you point out, it was not principled. The part where you compared Rands move to that of a Nazi politician, took me back a second for what some would think was an extreme comparison but I felt it was spot on.

    We truly are on The Road to Serfdom…

  • LT Bobby Ross

    Will Ron Paul or will Ron Paul not run as a 3rd Party Candidate?  That’s the ultimate question.  With his son throwing his bag of marbles into the Mitt Camp, it indicates to me that Ron Paul will not launch a 3rd Party Campaign after the Republican Convention.  With that said, then Newt and Ron Paul are consummate politicians, both making a run this time in the Primaries to bring up issues and strengthen the Grand Ole Party.

  • Pingback: Romney Endorsement Controversy Continues to Fester | WinLiberty Blog

  • Akagaga

     Rand Paul has never been as principled as his father, and this is the proof.  As for the apologists?  Perhaps they prefer justifying throwing good money after bad, but undernearth I think it’s a pride issue:  they just can’t admit they made a mistake in judgment.

  • http://naturallaw.info/ Steve

    Exactly, inexcusable.  Even if he did do it for political reason and to get in power it is still wrong.  You can’t be different and better if you do the same things. Lying and or being dishonest to get in office is exactly what most of the other politicians do. If he is really for Romney, that says it all. If he isn’t then he just showed me he isn’t different than the rest. Funny thing is about three years ago some of his positions on things made me think he didn’t really get it. 

  • Jay

    I would like to hear from Ron Paul–and I don’t mean a glass-half-full email. What happened? Why did he stop campaigning and give up when momentum was still building strongly for his candidacy?

    Why quit? And why now? Please explain yourself in a video message.

  • Ju W.

    Wow, this is the first I’ve heard of this and I have to say I’m shocked and dumbfounded. I guess the only good thing about this is at least he’s showing his true colors now so we can get him out of the way for future hopes.

  • Tony

    What you have to understand is that a lot of people connected to the Mises institute, maybe most, maybe all, but certainly the likes of Rockwell and especially Walter Block, are extremely invested in Ron Paul to the point of it being a love affair, and even acting as if they are protectors of the Paul family. Well, you do, actually. But they are damaging their own credibility by being apologists at the expense of truth and principles. I’ve already lost all respect for Walter Block.