23

Rand Paul: Frontrunner

After winning two CPAC polls and a spat with Ted Cruz in recent days, it is arguable that Rand Paul is the current GOP front-runner for the 2016 presidential election. Of course it is absurdly early to really make the call, but many of us have been expecting this trajectory since Paul was elected to the Senate in 2010. Some of us, myself included, have welcomed it.

On the non-negotiable issues for Catholics who even bother to vote in accordance with the natural moral law, Rand Paul is solid. He is 100% pro-life, supports the 10th amendment right of states to determine their own marriage laws, and has declared school choice “the civil rights issue of our day.” (Remember, the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is a non-negotiable.)

On economics, he has proposed the establishment of free-enterprise zones for cities such as Detroit that have been devastated by decades of bureaucratic mismanagement, union thuggery and bloated government. The “social justice” crowd will never accept human freedom as a means by which the common good can be served, but the rest of us are under no obligation to ignore empirical reality. It is the creation of wealth that lifts masses of people out of poverty, and it is the unleashing of creative human potential from the pretensions of would-be social engineers and demagogues that allows the most wealth to be created and shared.

My only problem with Rand Paul is foreign policy. I imagine that some of my respected co-bloggers also have this problem, though for a much different reason than myself; they may see him as too much like his father, while I am disappointed that he is not overtly enough like him. Yes, I am a Ron Paul non-interventionist (I can’t stop you from calling me an “isolationist” in spite of my preference for free trade, the free flow of information and cultural exchange, but you should know that I’ll think you a moron if you do).

I was proud of Paul, and for the first time, much of the GOP, when it rejected Obama’s ambition to attack the Syrian government and send aid to Al-Qaeda (to switch our enemy from Eastasia to Eurasia). Since the Ukrainan crisis, Paul has been doing his best to straddle the fence and appease the interventionist hardliners as well as the loyal support base his father built up and which he needs to win his campaign for him. I am encouraged, however, that in spite of the obligatory denunciations of Putin that all US  politicians must offer, Paul has spoken of the dire need to protect the world’s persecuted Christians. As Putin has also often spoken of this need, perhaps this could form the basis of peace and cooperation between our nations. Nothing in my view is more dangerous, tragic, stupid and unnecessary than the antagonism currently brewing between the West and Russia over Ukraine – a situation that was deliberately inflamed by Western support and encouragement for the Ukrainian opposition.  Rand Paul will only have my support if he can prove himself to be above this irrational nonsense.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Bonchamps

23 Comments

  1. The younger Dr. Paul will have by 2017 one term as a legislator under his belt after twenty-odd years as a small practice professional. That is not adequate preparation for an executive position as demanding as the Presidency. Same problem with Sen. Cruz, the latest belle of the ball. Goes double for Sen. Rubio, whose not as sharp as Cruz or Paul and lies brazenly.

  2. Bonchamps,

    Blaming the West for the Ukrainian opposition to Yanukovich is ridiculous. Yanukovich was a criminal and a crook and Putin’s semi-puppet.

    I know something about this part of the world and Russia is not a nation to be trusted. Lest you think that I advocate sending the US Army into Ukraine to drive out Russia, I don’t. The nearly senile McCain can keep that view to himself.

    Russia has been a bully to its neighbors to the West – the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine and Poland, to name a few – for centuries. Putin has taken the measure of Obumbler and like Brezhnev found Carter, Putin has found a weakling and an idiot who will do nothing to stop Putin’s plans for empire.

    Oh, sure, it has nothing to do with us in the US. Right. Soviet assistance propped up Castro and he is still in power. Wait until Putin threatens Western Ukraine and tries to merge Belarus into Russia proper. Then the Bear sits at the doorstep of Poland once again. Poland has been a good ally to the US, but to isolationists, it’s the same old story. F’em, right? Not our problem, right?

    Ron Paul, from what I read of him, often blamed the Middle East problems on Israel. Israel isn’t blameless, but I blame Muslims for Middle East problems.

  3. Speaking of Rand Paul….this nation elected an imbecile who can’t speak without a teleprompter. It’s all about packaging. The fire hydrant across the street from my house would be an improvement as President over the current occupant of the White House.

  4. PF,
    .
    A few points.
    .
    1. I did not blame the West for the existence of an opposition in Ukraine. I blamed it for supporting that opposition in order to deliberately antagonize Russia.
    .
    2. I do not care if “Russia has been a bully.” All large nations, including our own, have spheres of influence. America has the Monroe Doctrine; only the worst, most despicable sort of hypocrite could defend that while denouncing Russia’s interaction with her neighbors. It isn’t our problem.
    .
    3. The USSR aided Castro because both were communist, and because the US had missiles pointed at it in Turkey. Again, disgusting, obscene hypocrisy to say its ok for us to have missile bases a few miles away from Russia but the end of the world if they want to have some near us. These days, as a traditional Catholic and natural law moralist, Putin and I have far, far more in common than John McCain and I, or the godless tyrants who embrace homosexualism and radical feminism in our government and in the EU. The ideological board has changed. Putin is publicly proclaiming and defending traditional natural law morality and speaking up on behalf of persecuted Christians – our leaders in the West are destroying traditional morality, ignoring the persecution of Christians by communists and Muslims, and actually engaging in low-level persecution themselves. Solidarity with persecuted Christians and defense of natural law morality is a thousand times more important to me than defending a bunch of jacked-up neo-fascists on Russia’s border.

  5. That he has a considered opinion on foreign policy at all puts him shoulders above the present inhabitant of the White House.

  6. only the worst, most despicable sort of hypocrite could defend that while denouncing Russia’s interaction with her neighbors. It isn’t our problem

    Thanks for sharing.

  7. I do not care if “Russia has been a bully.” All large nations, including our own, have spheres of influence. America has the Monroe Doctrine; only the worst, most despicable sort of hypocrite could defend that while denouncing Russia’s interaction with her neighbors. It isn’t our problem.

    So our problem doesn’t start at either the Donitz or the Dniester. Where then does it start? At the Vistula? The Oder? the Elbe? the Rhine?

  8. Nice moral equivalency, by the way.

    The USSR aided Castro because both were communist, and because the US had missiles pointed at it in Turkey. Again, disgusting, obscene hypocrisy to say its ok for us to have missile bases a few miles away from Russia but the end of the world if they want to have some near us.

    As if the missles in Turkey and the missles in Cuba represented the same thing.

  9. “It is the creation of wealth that lifts masses of people out of poverty, and it is the unleashing of creative human potential from the pretensions of would-be social engineers and demagogues that allows the most wealth to be created and shared.” Well said.

  10. A reasonable foreign policy would prioritize our national interests and seek to secure those in a just manner. Unfortunately, we have become a nation having a split-personality, one part sane and one part insane. The current President and his party do not appear to prioritize our best interests. They seem to fancy themselves internationalists, rather than patriots. Putin and Russia, at the least seem to have Russia’s interests in mind, whether they seek the same justly is another matter and remains to be seen. Now finally to Rand Paul. I would vote for him in a primary held today.

  11. As if the missles in Turkey and the missles in Cuba represented the same thing.

    They did. For cryin’ out loud, grow up. The American and NATO strategic planning was built around nuclear annihilation, and the suggestion to commit genocide without provocation came up on multiple occasions. Thanks be to God that never happened, but it was planned for, it was prepared for, it was seriously considered, and note that the US has always refused to rule out a first strike option.

    Don’t bother telling me I’m “unpatriotic” for saying this, either — all that would prove is that you have no idea what the word “patriotic” means.

  12. They did. For cryin’ out loud, grow up.

    For crying out loud, stop being an obtuse and condescending ass.

    American policy-makers did not, in a world of nuclear weapons, get to choose the matrix in which they lived and worked.

  13. Howard: “and note that the US has always refused to rule out a first strike option”. If I carry a pistol for self-defense, I do not put a notice on the holster saying, “Don’t worry, I’ll never shoot first”. Patriotism is the love that leads one to defend, love, and support one’s country. A self-declared “citizen of the world”, such as Obama, would not appear to be so inclined. Someone said, it is impossible to be simultaneously an internationalist and a patriot, and that is what I have in mind. Let us remain cordial. This is a venue, primarily of the household of the faith. “Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith”.

  14. For myself, I would argue that our nuclear missles, and even our refusal to rule out nuclear first-strike, were inteneded to thwart Soviet expansion, hence defensive in nature. Their missles were intended to enable it, hence offensive in nature. To my mind, not the same thing at all.

    On the subject of Rand Paul, Senator’s make lousy candidates, and worse Presidents.

    There’s a reason why we only elect one about every other generation.

  15. To suggest that the fact that US and USSR were both prepared to use nuclear weapons somehow made them the same is like arguing that since both sides in World War II bombed cities, they were morally the same.

    The USSR was using its nuclear weapons to protect the existence of its totalitarian police state and the satellite nations it kept in line only via their own police states and the constant threat of military invasion if they didn’t toe the party line.

    Anyone who thinks the US was a totalitarian police state is, quite bluntly, an idiot. And not even a useful one.

  16. I liked Ron Paul’s views on things economic and hated them on foreign policy.
    Putin is attempting to resurrect the tsarist Russian Empire in some form and knows that Obumbler is as weak as Carter and much more disinterested.

    Putin claims to want to defend Christians. Well, certain Russian Orthodox consider themselves and themsevles alone to be Christians and others are heretics. Don’t believe me…ask a Ukrainian Catholic who knows what happened in 1946. The NKVD – predecessor to the KGB – arrested Ukrainian Catholic clergy and sent them off to rot in the gulags. The NKVD took their churches and gave them to the ROC – or destroyed them. The official Soviet position was that the UGCC never existed.

    On a Catholic view alone…anyone who supports turning a blind eye to Putin is nuts.

Comments are closed.