Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continues
simultaneously
climbing up the GOP totem pole and assaulting the traditional
(and traditionally unsatisfactory) left-right spectrum on issues
ranging from
civil liberties to
foreign policy to
immigration to
criminal justice to
industrial hemp. This is both a reflection of libertarianism's
genre-defying principles, and of Paul's own canny sense of
political possibilities. As he told Fox News this
Sunday,
[T]his left-right spectrum doesn't always work for people, but I
think because of some of that confusion, it shows that someone like
myself, I think, could appeal to young people, independents and
moderates, because many of them do think it's a mistake to put
people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key. So, I
think there are people who would like a less aggressive foreign
policy. There are all kinds of issues that don't neatly fit in the
left-right paradigm that I think would help, because we're not
doing very well in a lot of these states, these purple and blue
states. So, we do need a candidate that would appeal across the
left-right paradigm.
All of this has put left-of-center commentators in a pickle: Do
you 1) applaud Paul for fighting some good fights, 2) dismiss him
as a kook, or 3) both? Door #3 appears to be an increasingly
popular–and occasionally delicious–choice. Some examples:
* Ian Millhiser, Think Progress, "Rand
Paul Is Right On Marijuana, And That Should Scare Democrats Into
Action":
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of America's most radical
ideologues. He endorsed a discredited, century-old Supreme Court
decision that would give employers ;nearly
limitless power to exploit their workers. He ;opposes
bans on employment discrimination ;and on whites-only lunch
counters. He backs nationwide anti-union legislation that
would ;reduce
both union and non-union wages by $1,500 a year. And he backs
a ;dangerous
constitutional amendment ;that would have ;doubled
unemployment and caused the economy to shrink by 17 percent.
Few, if any, politicians would do more harm to more people if given
the opportunity to turn their preferences into law.
Which is why Democrats need to take his effort to outflank them
on drug policy very, very seriously. [...]
[I]f Democrats cede this issue to the likes of Rand Paul, they
will give up a powerful opportunity to engage with young voters —
and potentially empower one of America’s most dangerous politicians
in the process.
* Kelli Goff, The Root, "Tea
Partier Shows Up Obama on Drug Policy":
To the extent that he is known to minority
audiences at all, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is likely
best known for his ;controversial
criticism of the Civil Rights Act. But he may soon emerge with
a much higher profile among black Americans, and a much more
positive one, thanks in large part to his equally controversial
comments on another issue: drug policy. [...]
The question now becomes whether or not President Obama has the
courage to become a voice for those young men in his second term or
if he is going to continue to allow a Tea Partier who questions the
Civil Rights Act to become a more credible voice for young men of
color than the first black president.
* John Cole, Balloon Juice, "This
is Just Plain Common Sense":
I know that by writing this I am going to be accused of being a
fan bois and told I am being duped by an insane crazy person, but
you know what? ;Rand
Paul is right [...]
I'd love a better spokesman, but at least some people were
exposed to this opinion who might not otherwise agree with it.
Much less grudgingly complimentary is Frank Bruni in The New
York Times, "Rand
Paul's Loopy Ascent"
[H]e has managed, with
remarkable speed, to migrate to the foreground of Republican
politics. You could almost lose sight of what an albatross he
really is. [...]
Paul's greatest hits include a denunciation of Medicare as
socialism, a recommendation of stopping foreign aid to a few key
allies, and the insistent introduction of Patriot Act amendments so
loopy that one of them netted all of 10 votes from the 95 senators
present while another garnered a whopping total of 4. [...]
He'd be a skunk in a presidential primary and a quixotic, doomed
nominee.
He has railed erroneously about the Clean Water
Act's ;effect on his toilets, indelicately quibbled with
aspects of the Civil Rights and Americans With Disabilities Acts,
and carped about the "nanny state" ;in
relation to ;seat-belt laws. Yes, seat-belt laws. [...]
It's a crazy salad he's serving, no matter how it's currently
dressed.
Conor Friedersdorf dispatches with Bruni's looneyisms
here. Reason has pointed out Bruni's freedom-harshin'
bonafides in the past.
In fact, isn't Rand Paul a valuable litmus test? I'm not saying
that disagreeing with any given politician proves one thing or
another about a person, but if you look at the bipartisan list of
people who have been screaming themselves purple about the junior
senator from Kentucky–Bruni,
John McCain,
Lawrence O'Donnell,
William Kristol,
Garrett Epps,
Michael Gerson,
John Yoo–you quickly detect one important trait in common: They
are all reliable apologists for the government exercise of power.
While the particular power being championed may vary, and the tenor
of the argument will change depending on which political party is
exercising it this season, the truism remains that Rand Paul poses
a direct challenge to people who get irritated when there's any
obstruction between their goals and government's ability to pursue
them.
For that and other reasons, Paul is not only
the most interesting man in the Senate, but I think the most
interesting player in American politics today. … Read More
↧