Rand Paul Damage Control

By Michael Suede
Libertarian News
Jun. 11, 2012

Jack Hunter claims Rand Paul “had” to endorse Romney. Mike Adams claims Rand Paul is lying in his endorsement in an attempt to insert himself into a position of power. An article on the Daily Paul also claims the same thing. Dan McCarthy of the American Conservative claims this is simply retail politics that doesn’t mean anything. Economist Robert Murphy posted a few apologist pieces, including apologist commentary from Lew Rockwell.

The Lew Rockwell interview was interesting. The interviewer (on RT, of course) asks some great questions. One of them being, “Why cater to an establishment party that shut out what your morals are this whole time?” Lew’s response was, I’m not for catering, I’m for forgetting about it.

Well, I’m not in favor of “forgetting about it”.

I have no problems forgiving, but I’m not about to support someone who climbs in bed with some of the most heinous men the world has ever known. If Rand wants my cash, he better start changing his tune. Imagine if Rand was a German politician during the rise of the Third Reich. Imagine if Rand had endorsed Hitler because he wanted more power within the Nazi party, even though he didn’t agree with the majority of what the Nazis were doing. Someone please explain to me how his endorsement of Romney is any different. As Lew points out in his interview, the establishment is for endless war, concentration camps, drones in your backyard, regulation of the internet, etc.. etc..

So if the establishment is for all of those horrible things that Lew lists off, how could he possibly support what Rand did? I fail to see any difference between endorsing Romney or endorsing any other psychopathic homicidal maniac for the presidency. I really don’t care if Rand can do some good within the party. I care about principle; Rand has just clearly demonstrated that he has none.

It is important not to get caught up in an improper attachment to a political figure. When people show approval towards politicians who engage in what they know to be bad behavior, they take on the role of an enabler. Many people make huge emotional and monetary investments in their favorite political figures; clearly, this makes it hard for them to denounce bad behavior. I think that is precisely what we are seeing here in the responses to Rand Paul’s support for the neo-Hitler Romney.

How many democrats still blindly support Obama after he failed to end the wars, stop the drug raids, end the cronyism, and halt the bailouts? How many republicans support Romney, the very guy who implemented Obamacare in his own state and has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that there isn’t a single issue he’s ever been consistent on? Why should we support people who endorse these clowns with our money, votes or time?

I don’t blame Lew or the rest of the bunch for being apologists, they are simply caught up in a psychological state that precludes them from making a rational assessment of the situation. Either that, or they subconsciously support Romney themselves.

We must always remember what all politicians are: mafia bosses. Even the great Ron Paul still gets a paycheck that is derived from the theft of the masses. I support Ron because of his incredible unwavering support of the non-aggression principle, but he is by far the exception to the rule. As much as I love Ron, I’m not going to blindly approve of actions he might take that violate what I know to be true and just. If Ron Paul did something “bad”, I would be among the first to denounce him. In this case, Rand’s endorsement of Romney is inexcusable given the fact that his father is still technically running and Gary Johnson is still in the mix.
_
Michael Suede runs LibertarianNews.org