Rand Paul Polysyllabic Polyphony: "America Exceptional, But Not Inherently So."


Say what you want about his approach to curb-stomping, he's great as CBS' The Mentalist.

Kentucky Republican Senate winner Rand Paul, in his acceptance speech tonight, tried to thread the needle for effete coastal libertoids who have been spooked by the God and Country appeal of his campaign.

While his views on abortion, state recognition of marriage, and most importantly the perpetual warfare state have led many libertarians (rightly in my view) to disown him, Paul, the son of gentle Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), at least has enough sense of monarchical succession (or would this be monarchical accession, since the Senate is to the House what chicken salad is to chicken shit?) to understand his responsibilities.

To wit: The notion of "American exceptionalism" is poison to supporters of Paul's father. So in his speech he declared that "America is exceptional, but it is not inherently so." It is the choice of freedom that creates the fragile exception, not a blood/soil birthright.

I think my fellow overeducated cosmopolitan parasites get too worked up about public displays of religiosity and/or patriotism. In any event, if you're going to display either it's better to use the non-rational as a spur to improve your own behavior (in this case, by pretending to slow the growth of government), rather than wielding your beliefs as a stick to hit other people and countries with.

Paul also described the Senate as the "world's most deliberative body." I always understood that one to be "world's greatest deliberative body," but I guess either would work. Unfortunately, sometimes they stop deliberating and pass laws.

NEXT: Networks Project a Win for Divided Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Describing the US Senate as the greatest anything would be inaccurate. I think his word choice is aptly put.

    1. Jon Stewart will dub him the new Bush for that. For me though, ‘the World’s greatest debilitating body’ would work best.

      1. The white house and house are doing their best to earn that greatest there

  2. Come on, Tim. He’s a politician. Were you expecting him to quote Bastiat?

    1. It kinda pisses me off but Rue Bastiat in Paris is an impossibly short rue, hidden behind the grandeur of the Champs Elysee. No man is prophet in his own land as they say.

  3. So, when will he initiate the genocide of black people?

    1. After he’s done deporting all the progressives to Gitmo.

      1. Toss ’em out of an airplane over the Caribbean on the way there.

    2. After he’s done deporting all the progressives to Gitmo.

      1. And next, double-posters!

  4. Libertarianism requires a pro-abortion stance? When did this become consensus?
    I think Ron Paul has the same position as his son on this.

    Disdain for Rand, Vote for Obama. Come on, Timster!

    1. Murray Rothbard proved it. Look it up.

      1. parasites!

      2. He didn’t “prove” anything, even though I share his views and have read the essay you reference. But these things can’t really be “proven”

      3. you mean this?

        This is your idea of someone “proving” something? His whole argument boils down to the magical transformation of a “parasitic invader” to a child with rights and protections as soon as the baby leaves the cervix. He says it’s because the child is a “potential adult” as if this couldn’t apply to an 8 month fetus.

        Do you also believe that he “proved” that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death?

        1. pretty sure it was tongue-in-cheek

          1. You’re probably right. And here I was all geared up to debate whether opposing abortion rights could be libertarian.
            Whether the laws on the books now are right or wrong is a different matter.

  5. How about a dumb fuck with delusions of grandeur?

    1. Looks like they’re not delusions anymore.

      1. +1

      2. “Looks like they’re not delusions anymore dickwad.”

    2. Please, act now and help feed the ADD today. Millions of attention-famished children need your help now. So please give today.

    3. I’m sorry, who was talking about Obama?

  6. Call me a delusional libertarian, but I feel like Rand Paul will hew much closer to his father than he’s been giving off leading up the election.

    All hail the Aqua Buddha.

  7. I found the remark about America not being inherently exceptional be pretty refreshing, actually. I’ve never been a Rand Paul supporter, but liked hearing the sentiment that Americans are not somehow special by birthright, but have the opportunity to deliberately make the country great or not-so-great, and therefore its greatness can never be taken for granted.

    1. Absolutely. Even my commie bonehead sociology professor acknowledged that it was the freedom that allowed Americans to accomplish so much (even as he advocated repealing every last bit of that freedom).

      1. Makes sense. Since he was probably a commie plant, he wouldn’t want the evil Americans to achieve anything

      2. That’s because the standard communist position is that the move toward capitalism was a good thing for the world. Remember, in their religion, there’s an inescapable progression from feudalism to capitalism to state-run socialism to state-free communism.

  8. Funny that Aqua Buddha would say something so buddhist. For there is nothing that has an inherent quality.

  9. Why tie Paul the Younger to Paul the Elder? Aren’t they separate humans?

    1. When Paul the Elder delivered Paul the Younger, the latter’s umbellical cord…

  10. many libertarians (rightly in my view) to disown him

    Well in your view voting for Obama was a good thing.

    1. + 1 billion. Ouch!

    2. That’s gonna leave a bruise.

  11. Rand Paul could have been the most libertarian senate candidate not elected to the senate.

    To bad he choose to be the most libertarian candidate elected to the senate.

    It is a sad sad sad fucking day for us all.

    1. The face that launched a thousand pointless debates about libertarian minutiae?

    2. It is possible to to hate the fact that Rand Paul is a foreign policy neo-con, while still preferring him to Jack Conway.

      Maybe you think everybody should shut up about him being a neo-con then, huh? Then the whole Libertarian movement can be co-opted by neo-cons? That’ll be great!

      The whole reason we’ve made such strong inroads into the Republican philosophy this election cycle is because we’re the only part of the coalition that came out clean on the Iraq war.

      Sorry, but in the long run it’s better to be right than win.

      1. Yes, the way to make inroads is by losing so you can feel really good about yourself. Got it.

        1. While the far left, most of whom think that the approaching entitlement train wreck is a Republican fabrication, and the public-sector union members, most of whom think they are on par with Audie Murphy for serving society so selflessly, flush this country right down the shithole.

      2. It’s one thing to call him on that, and another to prefer a leftist who is right on wars but wrong in most everything else. Of course he deserves to be called on this, but on balance, he also deserves to be elected – or at least deserves it more than many others who were returned yesterday with him.

  12. While his views on abortion, state recognition of marriage, and most importantly the perpetual warfare state have led many libertarians (rightly in my view) to disown him,

    Have they disowned his father, if the first is disqualifying?

  13. I went there to share Warty’s misery.


    Where do they get this shit? Credit rating better off by taking on more debt? Like it is a personal credit card where not using it makes you less valuable to the holder. Oh, my God, that is exactly what they are thinking.

    Even in your fucked up scenario, fiends, it is far better to be the issuer than the one issued to. Yes, additional charges accrue to us the riskier the nation is as a prospect. Excuse me, I got to go on a rampage.

    When the limit to the debt comes up, he could crash our credit rating. I hope Mitch McDonnell has a one way talk with him.

  14. Translation:

    This is the greatest fucking country in the world.

    But not so fucking great that it can ignore the laws of economics, ignore the failures of past nations, or trust in unicorns and “great” men.

    1. aye, and a good message at that.

  15. I want to dispute this notion being passed around that Rand Paul supports the “perpetual warfare state” and is a “foreign policy neo-con;” this is a view which is ATTRIBUTED to him, not one that he has actually taken. He has never backed off his position that the Iraq war was immoral (he has said it as recently as one of his last debates with Conway, that I know of), has said that we should only go to war reluctantly and defensively, has promised to force a vote on a Constitutional declaration of war should the president try to invade another country, and has repeatedly stated that military spending is on the table for cuts to balance the budget.

    Now, I admit he does not publicly espouse the kind of full-fledged non-interventionism that his father does or that many here (including myself) would, but keeping the preceding information in mind, it is extremely unfair to call him a “neo-con” who is a supporter of the “perpetual warfare state.”

    Rand’s abortion position is perfectly consistent with minarchist libertarianism, and regarding “state recognition of marriage,” all I have heard from him on the subject is that he personally “opposes gay marriage,” but believes it to be a states’ rights issue. Now, if this means that he believes the states SHOULD recognize and define marriage, then yes, he is un-libertarian here, although it is irrelevant to his federal office; however, this statement is ambiguous.

    It is entirely possible to “oppose gay marriage,” believe gay marriage to be a “states’ rights issue,” and still think that the actual solution those states ought to employ should be to simply not legally recognize or define marriage. In fact, this is precisely Ron Paul’s position on the matter- he has said that he opposes gay marriage (in the sense of not believing that homosexual relationships can constitute “marriages” in his understanding), believes the matter should be decided at the state level, and believes that the best solution those states could take would be to simply not define marriage. Rand leaves out the third part, but this does not automatically constitute an endorsement of state-defined marriage; it may well simply be a means of accurately-but-incompletely phrasing his position in a way which will neither confuse nor alienate crucial voters. Regardless, as stated before, since he does not support any FEDERAL action regarding marriage, this is irrelevant.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.