The L.P.: Enemy of the Good

As I noted in my post about Rand Paul and abortion, the Libertarian Party, objecting to his lack of ideological purity, is thinking about running a candidate against him in November. Like the L.P., I disagree with Paul's abortion position (although it isn't necessarily unlibertarian, depending on your view of fetal rights) and his support for a federal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And like the L.P., I'd like to hear him express more skepticism about wars allegedly aimed at stopping terrorism. But a decision to oppose him, and thereby conceivably tip the election to his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson Attorney General Jack Conway, seems crazy to me. Whether or not he truly has "the Libertarian ideology," he is far and away the most libertarian candidate in memory who has had a realistic shot of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Does Paul really mean everything he says? Will he deliver on his promises? I don't know, but take a few minutes to consider his stated positions on "bailouts," "campaign finance reform," "health care," "inflation," "privacy & liberty," and "taxes and debt." He'd have my vote just for saying this:

The Founding Fathers warned of a Federal Government bent on usurping the power, rights, and privacy of its States and citizens. In the last nine years, the Federal Government has expanded the scope of its power at an alarming rate, while blatantly ignoring the Constitution.

Whether it's passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.

Rand Paul seeks to reassert the rights and privileges of the 50 states and over 300 million Americans. The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. Rand proposes that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties. Rand rejects the premise that the Federal Government must be given a blank check in the name of national security.

America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.

When was the last time a Republican or Democrat even sounded this good?