Ron Paul

Liberaltarianism Lives! Nation Writer Praises Rand Paul in The Guardian

|

There's something about an Aqua Buddhist man

Michael Tracey, an editorial intern at The Nation, takes to the pages of Britain's left-wing daily to sing the praises of Ron Paul's son. Excerpt:

The American left has often been quick to dismiss the incoming class of conservative legislators as half-baked lunatics. But lost in that unbridled contempt is any acknowledgment of the potential of a certain Republican senator-elect from Kentucky to act as a sorely-needed boon to progressive causes. You'd hardly know it from all the handwringing, but Rand Paul – much maligned as the Tea Party's crazed kingpin – has actually opposed both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act with admirable consistency, denounced corporate welfare, questioned the premise of federal drug policy, called for meaningful cuts to defense spending, chastised his own party for supporting torture, and generally advocated a platform that is structured to impede the unwarranted exertion of government power. Once upon a time, that was the kind of thing progressives stood for.

Those on the left who reflexively conflate the Paul brand of libertarianism – embodied most robustly by his father Ron – with the aims of cynical theocrats like Sarah Palin or Jim DeMint not only abdicate any pretence of intellectual responsibility; they deprive themselves of a powerful ally. There's a reason why Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican establishment were spooked by the idea of Rand Paul in a GOP senate primary. He'll be a thorn in their sides for years to come and, along the way, likely foster a few schisms within an otherwise absurdly uniform caucus. This must be a positive development.

An anti-war Republican holding his party accountable and shaking things up in an institution mostly known for its insufferable stagnation? I fail to see the problem, especially when the alternative was the loathsome Blue Dog Jack Conway, who ran an ad suggesting Paul was not qualified for office on the grounds that he failed to demonstrate a sufficiently fervent worship of Christ.

Whole thing, including links aplenty, and the statement that "Paul the elder has done far more to advance and defend what I could consider progressive causes than your average milquetoast Democrat," here. Reason on Rand Paul here.

NEXT: An Unhealthy Mandate

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Once upon a time, that was the kind of thing progressives stood for.

    Once upon a time, that was the kind of thing progressives liberals stood for.

    1. Right. Progressives have consistently supported corporate welfare, prohibition, empire building, and the unlimited reach of the hand of the king into every aspect of everyday life, for the last 100 years.

      1. Preach it!

      2. Don’t forget the genocidal campaign against the plains indians, and forcibly sterilizing people under both eugenics and population-control programs.

        -jcr

    2. this is the stuff we need to be spreading to liberals and progressives to create ties between our ships and sail united against the common threats of state sponsored fascist helldoggery

      more propaganda at manifestliberty.com

  2. That’s one of the best alt-texts yet.

    As much as Rand Paul’s stances on war, corporate welfare and drug policy align with those of the Left, they’ll never, ever give him any substantive support because he refuse to budge on the rock-bottom core of port-side dogma: economic liberty.

    1. True enough. For most progressives, the only “free” they’re interested in is “free lunch”.

      1. Your Republican talking points make me want to vomit.

        1. Your Republican talking points make me want to vomit.

          Yup all us secret republicans here get our marching orders from the guardian.

  3. Yeah, that race really exposed how partisan many left-wingers are.

    1. Every race exposes how partisan most people are. Tribalism rules the day, unfortunately.

      1. Sour grapes from someone who doesn’t have a tribe.

        1. Episiarch, being an anarchist, is a collectivist. That’s the planet’s biggest tribe. He seems to think anarchism means individualism.

          1. Look at how stupid you are.

          2. Give Epi a break. The left stole the word “Liberal” he is only stealing anarchy as an act of revenge.

  4. …opposed both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act with admirable consistency, denounced corporate welfare, questioned the premise of federal drug policy, called for meaningful cuts to defense spending, chastised his own party for supporting torture, and generally advocated a platform that is structured to impede the unwarranted exertion of government power. Once upon a time, that was the kind of thing progressives stood for.

    Wait what? I’m sorry when did progressives actually stand for any of that?

    1. Once upon a time, very long ago, when they actually had principles and stood up for what they believed in. Now it’s just GO TEAM BLUE! But the same can be said about TEAM RED.

      1. Yeah when was that? Cause I can’t recall progressives making a stand on any of that ever.

        1. Come on Warren, they had some strong words and blog posts and a bunch of marches when they were out of power and knew nothing they did would make a dime’s worth of difference. Is any amount of political courage enough for you?

          1. Exactly. Not a dimes worth of difference from conservatives.

        2. I don’t know. I’d say almost all of my many “progressive” friends believe those things (but like Team Red will jump on their Team Blue bandwagon enthusaistically at first, then grudgingly when they see reality). Anecdotal evidence probably won’t convince you however.

  5. It’s a shame the left has turned on Paul so aggresively. I’m pretty sure it has less to do with his economic policies as it does his CRA comment.

    1. The left is about one thing, stealing money for unions and constituent groups. That is it. The Left never gave a flying fuck when Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, continued the war in Iraq, and pretty much continued and increased all of Bush’s terrorism policies. They only got pissed at him when he cut the tax deal. That is the only thing they really care about. Liberals used to be “tax and spend”. Now they are tax and steal.

      1. Now they are tax andsteal and spend.

        FIFY

    2. the CRA nonsense was just a way to slander him and try to stop his campaign. it’s the same thing they did with his old man in 2008

      the whole system works together to keep people damaging to the status quo on the outside

    3. It has nothing to do with either. It has to do with the fact that economics trumps civil liberties in the leftist worldview. The CRA comment was merely the excuse they needed to attack him. The real reason they hate him is because they hate capitalism.

  6. I’m sorry when did progressives actually stand for any of that?

    When Molotov-Ribbentrop failed and they hadn’t yet been told whether to side with Stalin or with Hitler, a single leftist had “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” stuck in his head for a few seconds.
    That was the Liberaltarian Moment?.

    1. It’s funny because it’s true.

  7. I love how liberals are now remembering that they were against the war after they go killed in the election and Obama cut the tax deal. Who here thinks they would be saying such a think had the election gone differently and Obama been able to raise taxes?

    1. Do you seriously have to post this half a dozen times in one thread? We get it, you hate the libruls. Go take a walk now, or have a couple of drinks, whatever you do to calm down.

      1. Because I listened to seven years of “fierce moral imperative” and “no blood for oil” and “end this war now”, that is why. Fuck you if you don’t like it. You and every other liberal is going to have your nose rubbed in this hypocrisy like a puppy who peed on the floor from now on. Five fucking years of unmitigated smug bullshit. And not a single one of them meant a damn word of it.

        1. I agree with this. What’s also interesting are all the dipshit Team Red members who raised hell about Ron Paul being un-American and a traitor because he opposed the war in Iraq. Mysteriously that talk seems to have died down, and there isn’t nearly as much rancor on the right about Rand Paul, who seems to have very similar foreign policy stances as his father.

          1. Rand backed off on a lot of that in the election. He doesn’t seem to be quite his father. And the Republicans haven’t gone after Obama over the war that I can see.

          2. They have become leaders in the party now. They have done everything to put these guys down, and it hasn’t worked.

        2. My sentiments exactly. I am new to politics and felt in line with the left during the Bush years. I will never make that mistake again.

      2. What John said bears repeating over and over and over again, because you progressive fucks keep changing your labels, and then get pissed off when we remind you what you are at your core.

  8. Michael Tracey, an editorial intern at The Nation, takes to the pages of Britain’s left-wing daily to sing the praises of Ron Paul’s son.

    I’m supposed to hate Rand Paul, now.

    Right?

  9. I don’t think “progressive” means what Tracey thinks it means.

    These stances by progressives are purely for tactical partisan purposes, adopted when a Republican is in the White House:

    opposed both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act
    supporting torture

    I don’t recall progressives actually advancing legislation to do any of the following:

    denounced corporate welfare,
    questioned the premise of federal drug policy,
    meaningful cuts to defense spending,
    impede the unwarranted exertion of government power.

    1. 1. The Left hates corporate welfare, but they love creating green jobs.

      2. The Left hates the Drug War, but trembles at the thought of respecting federalism lest it overturn their dream of an omnipotent Central State.

      3. Hey, those are *our* bombers now.

      4. Why would they impede their own goals?

    2. “Progressive” means whatever I say it means. This comes in handy when I argue with strangers on blogs.

  10. I love how Reason latches onto an intern from the left giving them praise. Washington Libertarians really are the fat girl in love with the good looking liberal prom king. “Oh, he wants to meet for coffee to get my notes from biology, I just know he will ask me out”!!

    1. Is it any better than the Republican quaterback that tells us he really, really loves us every election year, only to fuck us behind the gym and brag to his friends about what dumb sluts we are?

      1. SugarFree, they beat us because they love us.

      2. You forgot the part where he wipes himself off on our skirt.

      3. The difference is that Libertarians don’t believe the Republican quarterback. But they so believe the liberal, every time.

      4. And since when did Libertarians ever put out for Republicans? Libertarians, at least the Reason staff variety, put out for liberals and pray they get called the next day. Not saying Republicans wouldn’t fuck them to given the opportunity. They just don’t get the chance.

        1. There was that few hour window where Balko praised the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate.

          1. So they gave a drunken blowjob once. Ok.

        2. 1980. 1964. Only in 1964 the republicans didnt put out for republicans.

          1. If republicans had voted for Goldwater at the same rate as libertarians did, McCain never would have been a Vietnamese prisoner.

            1. True. And Hannoi would have been a parking lot. Goldwater was going to nuke the Vietnamese. He wasn’t kidding around.

              1. I dont think Goldwater would have bothered with Vietnam. China, on the other hand….

                1. the fat libertarian girl is taking it in tha as* and the mouth simultanenously – and not in a good way.
                  discuss amongst yourselves who is positioned where, or if they are trading places.

        3. And since when did Libertarians ever put out for Republicans?

          Only every time Rand Paul and Ron Paul (and soon Gary Johnson) run for an election.

      5. Getting fucked by a guy that doesn’t love you may not be emotionally fulfilling, but it still beats not getting fucked.

        1. Exactly! Now you understand my philosophy.

      6. “Drake, why did you spread those vicious lies?”

        “Because you didn’t spread those vicious thighs.”

      7. Is it any better than the Republican quaterback that tells us he really, really loves us every election year

        When does this happen? Sure, the Republicans agree with Libertarians on economic issues and hope they will vote for them based upon that. I don’t ever see any Republicans pretending to be “Libertarian” except economically.

        So in the quarterback analogy the the Republicans say “we will fuck you for the pleasure, but it doesn’t mean anything” and then the Libertarians crying afterward saying “he doesn’t love me!”.

        1. Are you seriously suggesting that Republicans don’t court the libertarian vote come elections time? It’s the only time they don’t scream about us being Godless libertines.

          The people on this board who lean GOP do all year long. How many threads de-evlove into culture war? What do you think the “cosmotarian” insult is based on? Hell, John’s very post at the top of this sub-thread is attempting to police libertarian opinion away from siding with Democrats in favor of Republicans.

          The so-cons on the board must think were are mighty stupid to not see this for what it is. It’s like a neon sign 50 feet wide.

          1. Court? You said that the Republican says he really really loves us. My point is that they never claim that. They only claim a single point of mutual agreement, economics. I don’t think John claims that Republicans are Libertarians, only closer than the Democrats. This hardly equates to the Republican quarterback that tells us he really, really loves us every election year

            Sure Republicans want Libertarian votes or Democrat or Green votes. I just don’t see any of them claiming that Republicans are libertarians, only that they are closer than Democrats. Watching the contortions on this site to prove “both sides are exactly the same” is quite amusing.

            1. John|12.16.10 @ 9:47AM|#
              I love how Reason latches onto an intern from the left giving them praise. Washington Libertarians really are the fat girl in love with the good looking liberal prom king. “Oh, he wants to meet for coffee to get my notes from biology, I just know he will ask me out”!!

              I guess when John employs hyperbole it’s OK because he’s on your team.

              1. I guess when John employs hyperbole it’s OK because he’s on your team

                What does this have to do with Republicans loving libertarians, as opposed to only being willing to use them?

                My only point here is that Republicans simply claim to agree with Libertarians on economic issues. I am not even claiming that they actually follow through. They don’t claim agreement on many, or even most, issues. Appeals from me, and I suspect John, are never “Vote for Republicans because they really support your values” they are “Vote for Republicans because they are closer to your values than Democrats.”

                1. If that point is fair, then it would be equally fair for a Leftist to say they share our belief in social freedom, government transparency and foreign policy. The fact is Republicans aren’t even very libertarian on economic policy unless they are out of power. Same goes for the Dems on social and foreign policy.

                  When both are out of power, they claim to love libertarians because we make up 12% of the population, are largely independent and will help them get back into power if they can talk us into going home with them.

              2. I guess when John employs hyperbole it’s OK because he’s on your team.

                WTF?!?!

                Ok you have gone over the line…i like agruments and all that but to disparage the use of hyperbole and to even imply that it is a pejorative is fucking over the line!!!!

                You and Moynihan are worse then Auschwitz!!!

            2. You said that the Republican says he really really loves us. My point is that they never claim that.

              REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

              1. This addresses the term cosmotarian. Reagan, like Beck today, might use the term libertarian, but it means different things to different people.

                You didn’t see Reagan supporting the kinds of “libertarianism” that is supported on this site. There is a quite broad range of libertarian and the cosmos are just the most Left.

                1. Cosmotarians = libertarians who share the aesthetic and cultural tastes of many leftists.

                  Palolibertarians = libertarians who share the aesthetic and cultural tastes of many conservatives.

                  Ronald Reagan = statist jerk who grew government, increased debt, devalued currency, violated many peoples’ rights, etc. In other words, not a libertarian.

                  1. Ronald Reagan = statist jerk who grew government, increased debt, devalued currency, violated many peoples’ rights, etc. In other words, not a libertarian.

                    I thought we were talking about republicans who say they love libertarians….

                    You said that the Republican says he really really loves us. My point is that they never claim that.

                    Yup we sure were…in fact i quoted the text in my post.

                    Oh wait I forgot you are the unfunny non sequitur guy. Never mind.

          2. What do you think the “cosmotarian” insult is based on?

            I always thought it had something to do with Virginia Postrel writing that international bankers was code for Jews.

            1. Because we’re the sort of cosmopolitan, literate, culturally liberal snobs Sarah Palin loves to hate on who don’t relate to the interests of “real Americans” out in flyover country.

              1. Hobo,

                Are you talking to yourself? cuz in at least two posts they are nothing but non sequiturs.

                I don’t mind non sequiturs all that much but at the very least make them funny.

    2. It’s painful desperation. Can they not see how unseemly it looks? Introspection needed!

    3. I love how Reason latches onto an intern from the left giving them praise. Washington Libertarians really are the fat girl in love with the good looking liberal prom king.

      Dude, they just linked to his article. That doesn’t constitute latching on or putting out or whatever.

      Seriously, go back and count the articles Reason has had that blow smoke up war, torture, Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, NCLB, and TARP supporter Paul Ryan’s ass. If they’re putting out for this Nation intern, they’re going no-holes-barred for the GOP these days.

    4. John, you ignorant slut, Reason is “latching onto” an intern from the left giving a Republican politician praise.

  11. Why, he’s practically Bernie Sanders!

  12. GET OFF MY HEAD

  13. Can we please cut to the chase and have this thread devolve into a Kulturkampf Amerikanisch clusterfuck?

    I’m bored and in need for some entertainment.

  14. This dude is likely to stay an intern.

    Didn’t he get the memo: Paul is a fascist. Olbermann said so. End of story.

    1. Standing Rule #27, institued 1968: All capitalists are facists.

      Get with the program.

  15. But John, when the liberal quarterback does call me, and invites me to the prom, but then dumps pigs blood on my head. THEN we’ll get even. Oh boy, will we get even!

    1. But the quarterback is The Greatest American Hero! Really!

      1. Paul Drake’s son in fiction; Della Street’s son in real life.

    2. They’re all gonna laugh at you!!!!

      1. Hey Mom, you’re toast too!

      2. Don’t fuck with me.I’m going to the prom.

    3. That movie was on AMC a few months ago. Wow is it comically bad. I can remember when it came out and was a big deal. What the hell were people thinking?

      1. Uh, John, you really don’t like Brian DePalma’s Carrie? Really?!? Wow.

        1. I think it is funny it is so bad. It is like a movie from MST 3000. I suppose it is well executed for what it is. I guess I think the source material is so ridiculous, no good movie short of a comedy could have been made from it. And I don’t have it out for horror movies. I like a lot of them. I just think that one is really bad.

          1. OK. What other excellent horror movies do you think are terrible? Because Carrie has awesome performances from Piper Laurie, Sissy Spacek, and was directed by Brian DePalma and written by Stephen King. It’s all-around win, especially the massacre at the end.

            I suppose there’s no accounting for taste.

            1. i saw the “human centipede: first segment” last night.
              Seemed like a lot of lesbian as* eating porn I’ve seen, but not as explicit.

          2. Watch Maximum Overdrive or Christine for some real MST material.

            I couldn’t even get through the novel It, so I never bothered to watch the mini-series. I’m sure it sucked.

            1. It sucked, but at least it was squicky like the end of the book. That’s when King came off my must-read list.

              1. *wasn’t* for fuck’s sake

                1. Yeah, after It, I pretty much stopped reading anything he came out with.

                  1. Read your gmail, BP. READ YOUR GMAIL!

              2. What, you don’t like prepubescent gang-bangs?

          3. Careful, John. If you allow yourself to comment on esthetics this way, you will put a crack in the persona you’ve been creating.

            You know. Obsessed with hatred for anyone with the gall to expect you to kick in a little on the expense of maintaining the commons.

        2. I think the effects look completely cheesy when compared with more modern films. Spacek’s performance, OTOH, was just amazing.

          Having read the book first, I think the original Carrie from the 70s did a commendable job of translating it to the big screen.

          1. jacob, I can see your dirty pillows.

          2. I’m telling you right now, and quote me on this – most all CGI-enhanced modern films (yes, Avatar, I’m looking at you) are going to look cheesy as hell in 20-30 years.

            1. I totally agree. I saw a bit of Stargate last night, was surprised how stupid it looked. I didn’t think that when I saw it in college around 1995.

  16. Once upon a time, that was the kind of thing progressives stood for.

    the first week of July 1967 was a good week.

  17. Progressives are fine with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and they lionize guerilla movements like FARC and the Chiapas, so claiming they are anti-war or anti-torture, or pro civil liberties on principle is clearly incorrect.

    They might *think* they stand for those things, but the second the perpetrator is a socialist they’re eager to rationalize it.

    Not so with economic issues. When have you ever met a progressive who said “It’s too bad he’s pro-capitalism, but he’s SO GOOD on civil liberties!” ?
    That shit never happens. You’ll always find them making excuses for socialists whop are bad on civil liberties though. Usually they go in the direction of hard-core bullshit about imperialist exploitation justifying resistence to global capitalism.

  18. this is the stuff we need to be spreading to liberals and progressives to create ties between our ships and sail united against the common threats of state sponsored fascist helldoggery

    more propaganda at manifestliberty.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.