Trump Wrong, Paul Half (or more) Right

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump warned House Republicans Tuesday if they can't pass health care legislation after seven years of promises it could be a "bloodbath" in the 2018 midterm election, according to one member present in the meeting.

The current proposed plan will still result in a bloodbath.

Trump vowed to throw his full support behind the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act during a meeting with House GOP leadership, saying he is "proud" to support a GOP-authored plan to replace Obamacare and told members behind closed doors that he would support it "100%," according to sources in the room.

The people voted for “repeal,” they didn’t vote for “replace.”

…the Kentucky Senator said he met with Trump and didn't believe the two were "that far off" from each other on how to proceed. [Rand] Paul said they both want to repeal Obamacare, and the disagreement came over how exactly to replace it…

The people didn’t vote to replace it, they voted to repeal it.

"I did express with the President that I think separating repeal from replacement will get it done, and I think that's maybe the only vehicle for getting that done," Paul said.

Paul may be smart as a fox on this one, knowing that “repeal” will get enough votes – or force republicans who think they want to vote “no” to consider the limited length of their future in congress – but “replace" will not.

Trump is wrong; Paul is half (or more) right.

RandalCare

Just when you thought the apple couldn’t fall farther from the tree…

Guess who is leading the charge for a replacement for Obamacare?

Sen. Rand Paul is emerging as one of the most vocal GOP opponents of voting on a repeal bill before coming up with a replacement package, as he argues that the two votes must happen simultaneously.

"I will do everything in my power to have a vote on it the day we repeal Obamacare," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday, noting that Trump personally expressed his support for this approach in a phone call with the senator.

The Kentucky senator is planning to unveil replacement legislation in the coming days.

Sounds like a good presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

He Has Learned Nothing and Forgotten Nothing*

*misattributed to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

This last election offered a great lesson – in both party primaries and certainly for the Libertarian Party.

What won?  Different.  What lost?  The same.

In the Republican primaries, there is no doubt that different won.  Out of seventeen (or however many initial) candidates, only one sounded different.  He won.

On the Democratic side, different made a big dent, and there is much to suggest that he might have won had not the entire democratic establishment and press conspired against him.

For the Libertarian Party, merging some of the best and worst of the Republicans and Democrats only offered…more of the same.

What is my point?

When he first came on the stage, many thought Rand Paul would be that different candidate.  By the time he was on the first presidential debate stage, it was clear to most but the most ardent Rand supporters that this was not the case.

What does this have to do with the great line that Telleyrand did not originate?

Today the US Senate voted 99-0 — unanimously — to continue the idiotic, counterproductive, economically-disastrous, and anachronistic sanctions regime against an Iranian government that has proven willing to do business with the United States.

One senator did not vote: Bernie Sanders – different at a time when different wins.  Not voting is not really great, but at least different.

Conclusion

Rand Paul voted “Yea.”

Anticlimax

Anticlimax: an event, conclusion, statement, etc., that is far less important, powerful, or striking than expected; a descent in power, quality, dignity, etc.; a disappointing, weak, or inglorious conclusion.

The following can be placed in the “Duh” category:

(CNN)—Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded freshman senator who was once viewed as a formidable presidential contender, is suspending his White House bid on Wednesday, several sources close to Paul told CNN.

Rand Paul almost single-handedly destroyed the foundation his father built.  Today’s news is old news to anyone who understood the energy behind Ron Paul’s successes – we knew this day was coming long ago.

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House," Paul said in the statement.

There was little principle in Rand’s campaign.  This is why he is forced to drop out so soon.  This campaign was dead before it started.  I have written enough about it; I will only touch on only one thought that comes to mind from this recent news:

Indeed, as he heads into the New Hampshire primary, where his father Ron Paul won 23% of the vote in 2012, polls have found the younger Paul struggling to gain traction.

…[Rand] Paul had a hard time reestablishing his father's libertarian coalition because he had sought to broaden his appeal to more establishment-minded Republicans, hurting his credibility with some in his core base of supporters.

Where are all the pragmatic so-called libertarians who praised Rand for toning down Ron’s message, suggesting this was a sure way to broaden his appeal and breakout into the mainstream?  Pathetic human beings, the only thing they accomplished was to drown out a movement toward liberty.  They can be labeled as stupid…or successful.

Will Rand learn anything from this colossal waste of legacy?  We will see.  I am not sure it will matter.  Ron was able to build the base because his history was clean – Ron could be trusted.  Rand likely threw that goodwill away permanently – assuming he even cares…or is mentally capable to do anything about it.

Rand can do infinitely more as a senator than his father could as a congressman.  Let’s see if he can figure out what to do with this – assuming he hasn’t also thrown away his senate seat in this folly.

Rand, Trump, and Block

Walter Block has graciously replied to my earlier post regarding libertarian support (in some corners) for Rand Paul in the upcoming presidential contest and the curveball now thrown by Donald Trump (curveball for those libertarians who actually feel the desire to advocate for any one over another).

I acknowledge that Mr. Trump has been really good on foreign policy of late….But, Rand, too, has been doing pretty well on this score!

Block offers a few points in support of his claim.  Admittedly, I do not follow every word of either Rand or Trump – I based my previous post on the observations of Raimondo, whose calling is precisely to weigh such words.

In any case, there is real movement from Block:

So, which shall it be? Rand or Trump? I am really not sure. I still lean toward Rand. I used to “stand with Rand.” Now, because of the improvement in Trump’s recent views, I only lean in Rand’s direction.

I think it is sufficient that Block has moved this far, and given that he has feels compelled to advocate for someone in this race it seems to me that his considerations are reasonable.  Absent a consistent underlying philosophy for either Trump or Rand, we are left to trust judgement; I trust the judgement of neither.  (Rand’s judgement in how to run his campaign should be sufficient reason to disqualify him from any consideration in any case).

We both agree that foreign policy is the paramount issue for a libertarian to consider.  Assuming Rand is able to stay in the race much longer, there will be plenty of time to consider the two. 

WWLD?

I have gone back and forth about writing this post.  The topic is presidential politics.  The topic is libertarian involvement in presidential politics.  The topic is libertarian endorsement of particular presidential candidates.  The topic inherently cannot avoid Rand Paul.

For all these reasons, I lean against writing the post.  But the topic is also war and foreign intervention.  This reason has carried the day, as there is not a single issue that offers a more egregious and all-encompassing violation of the NAP than this. 

Jaywalking, spying on my mobile phone, immigration, drug laws, etc.  None offer a principled libertarian as much fruit for complaint and protest as does the topic of war.

It is due to the topic of war and foreign intervention that Walter Block has endorsed and encouraged others to support Rand Paul.  I assume the same underlying reason for Justin Raimondo and his on again, off again (right now off, but am not sure) support for Rand – after all, Raimondo writes at a site call Antiwar.com!

Despite Rand’s significant failing when it comes to taking a non-interventionist position – or even a position noticeably different than that of most of his competitors – I haven’t read anything from Block that suggests his advocacy for Rand has diminished.  At least Raimondo has backed off recently.

This post was prompted by a piece by Raimondo, Trump vs. Jeb: I know who I’m rooting for!  When I first saw the headline, it registered as “Trump vs. Rand.”  I even began reading the post that way.  I thought – finally, a libertarian writer was going to openly deal with this issue of Rand Paul’s failings regarding foreign interventionism (relative to other candidates) in this presidential primary season, and thereby perhaps change his support.  As Raimondo in the past supported Rand, he would now be obliged to change his support to Trump.

Well, that’s what I thought the post was about, until I read about a third of it, leading me to go back to the title…. Alas, no.

Raimondo offers several comments from Trump, highlighting his non-interventionist (not Ron Paulian, but noticeably more so than Rand) views.  Trump even questions a small portion of the orthodox 911 story, something I have not heard from any other “serious” contender.

I have not and will not suggest that anyone support any candidate for president.  I have not and will not suggest that anyone even care about who wins the nomination.  My interest on this topic is more as a view toward theater – but Lew Rockwell has already captured that angle.

But I do wonder: if Raimondo and Block felt it so important to suggest supporting Rand primarily for his antiwar views, why would they now not suggest supporting Trump?  Sure, Trump is a disaster on other issues, but this was not the criteria that Block spelled out; and Raimondo writes at Antiwar.com.

All the evils of a central state are to be found in war; there is no other state action that more completely violates the non-aggression principle.  If a libertarian felt it was important to endorse political action and there was a meaningful difference between two politicians on any issue such that one would receive an endorsement – that issue is war.

From Murray Rothbard:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

Is there anything more violent in a more widespread manner than modern war?  Is there anything more aggressive than aggression which results in death?  Does any other government intervention more completely violate the NAP on every measure?

All State wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the State's own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State.

No, no, and no.

The libertarian objective, then, should be, regardless of the specific causes of any conflict, to pressure States not to launch wars against other States and, should a war break out, to pressure them to sue for peace and negotiate a cease-fire and peace treaty as quickly as physically possible.

If there is any political objective toward which a libertarian spends his energy in the modern world, the objective is to reduce the likelihood of war.  For this reason, I was somewhat sympathetic to Block’s position – because even a difference of one degree between Rand and the others might mean a few thousand lives not lost.

Yet today we have Trump.  I won’t suggest that libertarians support him.  However, other libertarians – noticeably Block and Raimondo – have suggested supporting Rand when they believed Rand was better on war.

But Rand isn’t better on war; returning to Raimondo:

You may not like Donald Trump, for any one of a number of reasons, but anti-interventionists have to give him some credit for opening up the presidential debate to a critique of US foreign policy that hasn’t been seen or heard since the Ron Paul campaign.

For those libertarians who feel the need to advocate for a politician, it is time to change horses.  Unfortunately, Raimondo does not:

No, you don’t have to be a Trump supporter – and I am not – to see the benefits of his campaign for the noninterventionist cause.

What other more important cause is there for a libertarian to concern himself with?  Jaywalking?  Privatizing garbage collection?

I look forward to hearing from Walter.