Rand Paul, Better than Most

Posted at EPJ:

Ron Paul, being human, is not perfect.  However, he could be relied on to consistently vote in accordance with the strictest limited-government interpretation of the Constitution.

There are certain positions taken by Rand Paul that are admirable.  I find nothing to fault regarding the filibuster, regardless of what backroom deals may or may not have been involved (Holder’s statement that ended it is another matter).  Rand raised an issue that needed raising, and kept it as the big story for an extended time.  He helped expose many so-called liberals as the hypocrites that they are.

However, he is ultimately a pragmatic politician.  I cannot find a principled core to his statements or his voting.  This is not shocking; it is true for virtually everyone who makes it to Washington.

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

Therefore those who support him are left to trust his judgment – one more brick in the construct of a nation of men, not laws.  Even if you place faith in his judgment, rest assured if and when he achieves any real power, he will not be allowed to exercise it.  Those who believe Rand is just playing the game until he becomes president, in order to then usher in a libertarian age are beyond naïve.  He will be offered as the god-child, Reagan, speaking loudly about the waste of government, but carrying a small stick.

In the meantime, Wenzel is right to use good libertarian theory as the measuring stick.  Someone must do this.  The battle isn’t for Washington DC.  The battle is for ideas.  Ideas, not politics, offer the only hope for lasting change.

This is Ron Paul’s legacy.  It could have been Rand’s.