Sean McElwee does a nice job in Salon of explaining why a successful Rand Paul run for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination would basically decimate the GOP’s base of support. To sum up McElwee’s argument, the tenets of libertarianism are not consistent with the values of Republican voters. Business elites want low taxes and lax regulation, but they also want corporate welfare, countercyclical spending, and a strong interventionist Federal Reserve. Foreign policy hawks want an interventionist foreign policy, large defense budgets, and support mass surveillance and brutality towards terrorism suspects. Social conservatives disagree with libertarians on almost every social issue, from drug and prison policy to gay marriage to immigration policy. The elderly do not support the libertarian goal of gutting Social Security. And then there are the nativists who primarily disagree with libertarians about immigration, but may also disagree with them on issues of crime and punishment.
Of course, Rand Paul has already begun to respond to these cross-currents in the Republican Party. He voted against immigration reform despite being for open borders. He’s taken a more hawkish line of foreign policy. He is not going to run his father’s pure libertarian campaign that, save on abortion, made no concessions to the above concerns. But Rand can’t flip-flop-flip his way through these minefields indefinitely. He is going to have to take some definite positions and stick by them. And, most importantly, he is presumably running for president in order to attempt to implement his true vision, which he developed under his father’s tutelage without any concern for what Republican primary voters would think about it. As he twists and contorts himself now in an effort to be a little of everything for everyone, he’s just maneuvering.
If he were to win the nomination, many business elites would bolt the party, including those on Wall Street, in agribusiness, and the defense industry. Foreign interventionists would come back to the Democratic Party in a reverse flow of neo-conservatism. The party’s advantage with the elderly would be greatly diminished. Social conservatives would be demoralized and would stay home.
To try to offset these losses, the party could make fresh appeals to young voters by going to the left of the Democratic Party on foreign policy, surveillance, the War on Drugs, and Prison Reform. But this would rip the GOP apart.
All of this may happen to the GOP anyway, whether or not Rand Paul actually wins the nomination. If he gets enough delegates, he could turn the Republican National Convention in Cleveland into an internecine civil war.
I don’t think the two-party system is stable any more. The Dems don’t appear to be on the verge of shedding any significant part of their coalition, but the GOP is going to have to pick a direction, and when they do, things are going to fly apart.
You are assuming that Rand Paul will do what he campaigns on and that his principles today will be his principles when he starts campaigning. As you point out, he is already drifting.
It seems he’s just another pol.
The same logic that McElwee presents forms the argument of a lot of progressives as to why Obama’s two terms are tearing apart the Democratic Party because liberal-progressives are demoralized.
And the Cambodianization of the civil war in Syria will not help reverse that argument.
The history of the Obama administration is looking very much like the history of the Nixon administration. Just without impeachment for real abuse of power. (The points at which Obama is most vulnerable are his drone policy vis-a-vis American citizens, his aggressive suppression of press freedoms, and the runaway intelligence community. Republicans love all of these and will not challenge them. Thus bogus issues.)
Through too close alignment with big money in politics, both parties are slowly self-destructing. And taking the electoral system that provides legitimacy to Congress with them. That does not bode well for the future.
Our counter productive national policies including “Energy independence is for sissies!” and our endless casting about for places to deliver ordnance on people in order to free them suggests to me that the ship has already sailed.
OT FWIW:
Matt Rock, National Report: George Zimmerman Arrested While Visiting Ferguson
Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin pics at the top. Handful of salt IMO. But if true….when will this nut see the inside of a jail?
That Zimmerman article is satire.
Tells you how far through the looking-glass we’ve moved. No wonder it was written in such a calm, even-handed style.
Just a grain of salt? I invoke Poe’s Law.
Or go to The Onion for credible news.
He’s more likely to see the inside of the House of Representatives first.
As a member.
Watch.
AG
Don’t we wish that someone or something could cause a reformation within the GOP? Rand Paul isn’t the person to cause that. He is already anti-choice and his assertion of the right to deny services to anyone for any reason puts a libertarian veneer on racism. And then there’s this:
That bill, S.2265, was introduced by Rand Paul on April 29th of the current year.
Paul knows full well that the Republican base will vote for a stale cheese sandwich if it’s their nominee. He also knows that many of his libertarian supporters will convince themselves that he’s only pretending to be another generic Republican so that he can get elected and then really let his Aqua Buddha flag fly.
Reports of the incipient demise of the Republican party are always premature.
Rand Paul is exactly the leader that is needed to bring the Neo-Whigs to their new, glorious, future.
Go into the light, Rand, go into the light!
They’re not neo-Whigs.
The Whigs were in favor of federal spending on internal improvements.
Is anyone willing to bet any money that Rand Paul is going to win the nomination? Of course not. So why even bother talking about him? Is it the same reason why supposed “liberals” are sticking up for Rick Perry re: his indictment? Meaning they’re lazy writers who already have most of their 2016 stories written and would be pissed if they had to trash them? At least Rick Perry is a more viable GOP nominee than Rand Paul.
Everyone said Romney needed to settle on a position, too, yet he danced a jig the entire campaign, flip-flopping his way to defeat. Flip-flopping might be part of the Left’s litmus test, but it is most definitely not part of the Right’s litmus test. They have proven they don’t care.
Agreed. It seems that the Right’s intense hatred of Pres. Obama made them much more tolerant of Rmoney’s wishy-washy positions.
Won’t their intense hatred of Hillary do the same?
OT A book review of an interesting book.
Water and Soil, Grain and Flesh
A review of Walter Johnson, River of Dark Dreams
Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom. Looks well worth reading to understand the South beyond the usual self-serving mythology.
I would also recommend two old books; W. J. Cash’s The Mind of the South, and Mary Boykin Chesnut’s A Diary from Dixie, for those seeking a deeper understanding of How We Got Here.
Both of those are old friends. Another helpful one for seeing how we got here looks at the very original settlements.
Gerald Sider, Living Indian Histories: Lumbee and Tuscarora People in North Carolina
In the process of recording the history of the Robeson County NC Lumbee, Sider lays out how Indian slaving, African plantation slaves, and English indentured servants formed a system of social control that protected the rice planters in Carolina and the tobacco planters in Virginia in the 1600s and 1700s. And how credit relationships were used to control the large Indian confederacies.
Those institutions of social control persisted in the agrarian South through the era of sharecropping and country store credit.
Fascinating exploration of one set of institutional origins of Southern-style US capitalism.
Thank you for the recommendation! That book moves to the top of the pile.
The Ferguson Challenge to the Libertarians
Right, but we know that 99% of Glibertarians don’t get, or care, about the contradictions of their ideology.
I had to suffer from Pete Guither’s ramblings, from the otherwise good Drug Warrant the other day.
No, Pete, YOU are as much to blame here. I don’t know if he’s full blown libertarian; he supported Gary Johnson in 2012, and Obama in 2008. Either way, drug/police are paramount to him. Many of his commenters, are libertarians though.
In essence, what you are saying is that since about 1992 the Democratic Party has essentially co-opted much of what has been traditional Republican territory for almost a century…kudos to the Obama/Clinton nexus if you like that sort of thing…then planet America is about to experience a political polar shift.
Could be.
Everything old is new again.
Sometime.
Congratulations, Booman.
You’d finally be allied with a real winner!!!
Is it worth the loss? The moral failure?
We’ll see.
Won’t we.
AG
Sigh….
So after posting the above comment I go look up Google News to get a feel for this weekend’s PermaGov/Centrist talking points on the universe.
And what’s right up there in big letters? Right next to a set of articles essentially urging Barack Obama to “stomp out” ISIS?
The following. From of all places, CBS. (CBS-The CIA Broadcasting Company. Bet on it.) :
I repeat:
“…that script could flip…”
“You’ll see a transformation like you’ve never seen.”
Them CIA guys aren’t so dumb after all.
Watch.
A polar shift indeed!!!
The worm continues to turn, and no matter which way it turns the real PermaGov plans on remaining on top of it.
Bet on that as well.
Watch.
AG
Oh, I’m betting on it, I don’t trust anyone w/ issues like this for political football.
“But Rand can’t flip-flop-flip his way through these minefields indefinitely. “
Doesn’t Hillary plan to do this?
Rand Paul is not a strong enough person to buck GOP World. There will be no difference between Paul and the rest of them in 2016.
“To sum up McElwee’s argument, the tenets of libertarianism are not consistent with the values of Republican voters.”
Well, it’s a good thing then that Rand isn’t actually anything like ‘libertarian’. He’s awfully good at pandering to the glibertarians, but is a solidly authoritarian Gooper down to his thoroughly un-pulled-upon bootstraps.
Rand Paul won’t be starting any 3rd party. Politically speaking, he’s a net asset to the Republicans.
Tailgunner Ted Cruz could swoop in and become the great conciliator? I have him pencilled in to take over Rand’s insurgent cohort when the lesser Paul’s campaign flags, as it will.
Tailgunner Ted won’t campaign during the primaries, that would diminish his self-conferred gravitas. On the other hand, I would not put it past him to gin up a deadlocked convention (Faithless electors, anyone?) and then feign surprise when he is nominated by acclimation. He’s a devious asshole, that one.
I’ve always though TGT had just enough brains to be dangerous, but not enough brains and morals to give a damn.