It was rather surreal to find out that after the solid ribbing that Rep. Paul (R-TX) received in the last Presidential election from the likes of the Republican National Committee and other conservative groups that his clout with them would have dropped into the abyss of political obscurity. Somehow, logic apparently got it very, very wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/conservatives.meeting/index.html?section=cnn_latest
If someone had asked in 2008 if Paul would have been the forerunner for the Republican party’s return to power, most of us would have scoffed at the notion that a representative with such radical views (albeit somewhat appealing) on economics, spending, and general reduction in the size of the federal government would even be considered. Especially after The drumming the Republican party took in 2008, the odd duck out, who placed consistently in the top three candidates during the primaries, is now the forerunner for those tired, those mildly poor, and those with enough time on their hands to go out and protest government spending. To be fair to those Tea Party members, I concur with them on issues like a reduction in government spending, in looking at the policies that led to a surplus in the late 1990’s into the early 2000’s. I would love to see the government file legislation that is in tune with the Constitution and have serious debates about the quality rather than quantity of legislative documents that roll out of the halls of congress. On those subjects we agree, and I’d be fine with Rep. Paul in those regards.
However, Rep. Paul is a staunch isolationist, and, to be frank, in this day and age, that won’t fly. Hell, it hasn’t flown since 1945. The United States, for better or worse, is the current superpower of the world. Political Scientists accept this notion, and it is the basis for an understanding of how the gears spin in international circles. One of the definitions of a superpower is that in events that occur half way around the world, we are directly or, most of the time, indirectly impacted by those results. It is the price that comes with our prolific and immense economic and political base. Isolationism will do jack-all for us. He has called for leaving both the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to better protect state sovereignty in a day and age where state sovereignty is a paper tiger hiding monstrosities like genocide in Sudan. Do we need to give up our rights to acquiesce to an international body, no. Will either of these organizations ever ask us to give up something that we hold dear to our Republic, hell no. The United States pays for 22 percent of the UN’s annual budget, ringing in at $458.3 million in 2008. I, like many others and quite a few fans of Rep. Paul, am not a tremendous fan of the UN. The process is lumbering, slow, painfully convoluted, and rife with the potential for corruption. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought I was talking about the House or Representatives or Senate at length, but I digress. In their massive approach, and nearly universal representation, they gain a legitimacy that is, largely, unquestionable. Laws that passed by the US government are not ignored out of pure spite or conjecture, and if they are, there are penalties. The same goes for the UN. Follow their rules, or sanctions will fall.
We jest of strongly worded letters from Ban Ki-Moon to Sudan, Iran, or Myanmar, but in all due honesty, the men and women of the UN are doing what they can with what they have. Same goes for NATO. Isolationism doesn’t work because of the interconnected nature of the world today. Without some sort of standardized international community in which to address issues, the big will continuously screw over the small, the violent will oppress those who have fewer firearms, and the world would be, generally, a giant mess…moreso than it is now.
It is noted that the international issue is not the only place where Rep. Paul and I differ, however, it is painfully obvious that my Libertarian beliefs will be challenged at great lengths should he continue to gain popularity amongst the Tea Party goers.
In closing, it is particularly odd to me that the Libertarians, and by proxy the constitutionalists and median Republicans, were for the longest time shoved aside. The message is similar, there are hooks that keep us from joining the party en mass. They’re not doing any better at bringing us in. Rather, the ‘big tent’ philosophy that ‘failed’ the Republican Party in 2008 was a sham at best. You were in the big tent if you agreed with the big tent. Right now, the big tent includes populist ideas amongst those who think Obama isn’t an American citizen, those who think he is Islamic and trying to torpedo this nation, and those who vow that obstructionism and a grinding halt to any legislative progress is considered advancement, not of the people of this nation, but of a political agenda. It is not a party of ideas, of new notions, or suggestions and creativity, but of chalk-white, stark terror. Fear seems key, and for a short time, fear works. Men and women can only be afraid for so long, then, when the other contemptible shoe never falls, the fear abates, the anger boils out, and you are left with a political body that, instead of having a legislative history to stand on, has a thin layer of ideas held up by a bilious gas. Ladies and gentlemen of the right. Welcome to the first political bubble of the 21st century. I can’t wait to see this one burst.
Old Jeffersonian 