News & Analysis
Rand Paul, the Next GOP Nominee for President
Rand Paul To Deliver Tea Party Response To Obama State Of The Union ... Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will give the tea party response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday, following the Republican response by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express announced Friday in a press release: "We are excited to have Senator Paul deliver the 3rd Tea Party State of the Union response next week. Americans are fed up with Washington politics that fail to address America's fiscal woes. Tea Party Express has called for reducing the size, cost, and intrusiveness of the federal government, and we have stood strongly for pro-growth policies to get the economy growing and job creation increased." – The Huffington Post
Dominant Social Theme: This man is just as good as Ron Paul but more easy to get along with. We can reason with him, especially when it comes to defending the country.
Free-Market Analysis: We believe a deal may have been struck between Rand Paul and the shadowy "leaders" of the GOP. The turning point was Rand Paul's endorsement of Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney some months before the US presidential election.
At the time, Paul explained that he felt it was incumbent upon him to endorse Romney because otherwise he would alienate GOP leaders who then would actively fight his (freedom) agenda.
We – along with others – wrote articles at the time explaining this was likely the wrong decision. Rand's father, Congressman Ron Paul, had managed to cobble together an extraordinary coalition of young and old, rich and poor simply by presenting himself as an uncompromising advocate for smaller, less intrusive government.
We wondered if Rand's pragmatism would fracture this coalition and prevent him from inheriting it. We believe this is just what has happened.
In a non-election cycle, Ron Paul's voice is not as strong as it once was. And Rand Paul – having palliated the powers-that-be – is garnering prominent speaking spots.
It looks like Rand may have made the right choice. But maybe not.
What Rand likely did is what US politicians have done throughout the 20th and now the 21st century. He somehow reached out to the real rulers of the US and much of the rest of the world.
This shadowy power elite – funded by controlling the astounding wealth of central banking – wants to create world government. It needs pragmatic individuals like Rand Paul, though no doubt Rand is not yet entirely trusted. To put it in Hollywood sitcom parlance, he is probably on "double-secret probation."
But he is gaining ground. He has seemingly enlisted for the duration, trading principle for pragmatism, and thus ensured himself of a high-profile.
He is now seen as a "spokersperson" for the Tea Party. In truth, there is no formal Tea Party movement. The original Tea Party was Paulian and inchoate. The current controlled Tea Party movement is specific and "patriotic." Economically, it is against complex taxation but has no position about the far worse problem of monopoly central banking.
Patriotic means things in modern US political parlance; most importantly, it means adopting the argument that there is a need for a powerful military-industrial complex that must project US power abroad. The reason Ron Paul never gained traction within the GOP was because he stubbornly refused to adopt this viewpoint, which is fundamental to elite control of the US two-party system.
The paradigm – artificial as it is – involves those who want government to legislate pocketbook issues on the "left" and those who want government to legislate behavior and morality on the "right." Both parties accept arguments for a monopoly central banking and also for a powerful military.
Ron Paul did not accept his party's approach to legislating moral issues: As a libertarian, he believed that such agendas as drug control and even migration were not the federal government's business. Far more importantly, he did not accept the relevance or necessity of Leviathan – the US's mighty, fiat-driven empire and its increasingly militarized business model.
Ron Paul was not defying his own party so much as he was defying the power elite that ran the US political process. Rand Paul is far less adversarial to this group, apparently – either by conviction or practicality. And as a result, it seems to us that he may have a chance to go far, perhaps as far as the President of the United States.
This is how the power elite works, by co-opting social and civil movements, organizing them, providing them with leadership and gradually paring away what is unpalatable until what is left is serviceable or at least non-threatening.
Rand Paul does not stand athwart the military-industrial complex the way his father did and does. Nor does he confront monopoly central banking with his father's zeal.
Rand Paul is a different brand, so to speak. He is a kind of "Ron Paul Lite." As such, he is becoming useful to the power elite that will need to co-opt the revolutionary realities of the free-market movement via leadership that "one can do business with."
It is probably hoped that Rand Paul will provide an appropriate level of rhetorical leadership while drawing people's attention away from the necessity for really radical change – shutting down the twin drivers of modern empire ... militarism and fiat money.
We think we understand Rand Paul's strategy, which is the strategy of an ambitious man who is carefully adjusting his sail to the prevailing winds. But the world is a different place, as well, in the 21st century. What we call the Internet Reformation is making the kinds of damage control practiced by the elites in the 20th century more problematic.
This is because elite damage control – and reinforcement of dominant social themes – was predicated on episodic challenges. Once the challenge was isolated and reconfigured, it could be controlled and nullified.
But the Internet is a process not an episode. Times have changed. Does Rand understand? Do the hard men he is doing business with accept the reality of the Internet Reformation? They don't seem to be coping too well so far, as they seem to be increasingly turning to violence and economic terrorism in an effort to maintain control.
Conclusion: We shall see if Rand's bet pays off. It is a significant gamble, more so in the 21st century than the 20th.
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 02/11/13 02:50 PM
This sort of disdain for incrementalism is what lets the Progressives destory liberty.
Posted by mava on 02/11/13 02:46 AM
I agree with the essence of TDB analysis, that Ron Paul sold off his followers, in order to help his son to become a big, big tax revenue beneficiary. I believe I've said this much some time ago, as well.
Question is, why do we care? What, does anyone think that the turn to the better will come from the election process? Rand Paul will set us free? I think that if the father run for a while but at the end sold off not to just waste the acquired popularity, then the son will actively call us all into a trap.
Oh no. I must be cynical. Rand really believes the words he is saying into the mike.
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 02/10/13 10:08 PM
"Funny, I haven't noticed ANY appreciable change in anything that counts."
That's because too many people are trying to work through a system skewed toward what most people would consider failure, though it might be the actual objective of those who designed the corrupt system.
As I've said before (comments section)...
Click to view link
... for a person who's best plan is to form a team, you have really poor team-building skills...
Posted by WD on 02/10/13 07:40 PM
@ AnarchoLibertine & Ol' Grey Ghost
Funny, I haven't noticed ANY appreciable change in anything that counts. In fact, the state is getting even more tyrannical. Educating the public to dream of utopia is only helping the state control any potential change in their agenda. Ditto religion. Opiates, both.
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 02/10/13 11:50 AM
The Reagan Myth won't get much traction around here, bud, sorry...
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 02/10/13 11:06 AM
"You seem to be looking for someone who will run on the platform of... "
"We are suggesting that perhaps real change is made outside of the seat of power... rather than from INSIDE it."
What WD seems to miss is that many of us here that post and run our own blogs or websites have the goal of changing "We the People" through education and persuasion rather than to change the central government by finding someone we might be convinced to trust to run our lives. We want the people to run their own lives and everything else will eventually fall into place...
Posted by Tazio2013 on 02/10/13 08:53 AM
Thanks to Abu Aardvark for five links re RP's recent conversion to the cult of warmongering islamophobic neocon christian zionism. This should guarantee that he will never become POTUS. Ron Paul must be ashamed and disappointed in his son's departure from libertarianism.
Posted by bob on 02/10/13 12:19 AM
Repost. Sorry for typing errors.
Prior to the last presidential election, we already had this conversation. Specifically, it was suggested that Ron Paul should work the system: go to the GOP convention, speak, and rally his supporters.
I indicated that Ron Paul would not be allowed to speak. Ron Paul did not speak. He was marginalized to nothing. Ron Paul either did not have bravery to fight or he was protecting his son future career.
The present America is owned by the Banking Mafia from the City of London and Tel Aviv. The outsiders are not welcome. The end of the story!
Posted by WD on 02/09/13 08:14 PM
Right! And Ronald Reagan was of no earthly good because, even if he freed eastern Europe without firing a shot, he did not do away with international central banking. Puleeze!
I'd take Rand Paul over Billary ANY DAY. It's not total victory, but not getting Ron Paul is certainly a great if not total defeat.
You seem to be looking for someone who will run on the platform of ending the fed. Nobody would be so stupid. Their campaign, and life, would end tragically in an 'unexplainable' aircraft accident.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We are suggesting that perhaps real change is made outside of the seat of power - as Ron Paul proved via his efforts at educational outreach - rather than from INSIDE it.
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 02/09/13 06:39 PM
I guess it depends on how much power the potus ACTUALLY has... there are some who believe politicians (including potus) are--in the big scheme of things--little more than mid-level type managers.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/09/13 06:28 PM
"It is likely Rand Paul is an apple that didn't fall far from the tree, but he is very likely to be an apple that after hitting ground, then rolled down the hill"
Click to view link
"Is Rand Paul A 'Christian Zionist'? Or does he just play one in the drama we call American politics?"
Click to view link
"Breaking: A Rand Paul Speech the Neocons Will Love"
Click to view link
"Rand Paul's War Against 'Radical Islam'
Click to view link
"Rand Paul: Preemptive War with Iran Should be on the Table; Let's Get Illegals in the System So We Can Tax Them"
Click to view link
Posted by provolone on 02/09/13 05:30 PM
If he is the next nominee, then he has offered more concessions than just supporting Mitt.
Posted by Nustart on 02/09/13 04:16 PM
I think Rand's heart is in the right place, but he is unwilling to endure the political exile that comes hand-in-hand with his father's methods. I'm sure he feels his approach will provide an improved chance of making progress toward the Libertarian ideals he shares with Ron. I hope he is right and can avoid the pitfall of being co-opted by the power elite.
Posted by earnst on 02/09/13 04:11 PM
Rand currently has an audit the fed bill nearing a vote. Ending the Fed has always been central to the Tea Party agenda. However pragmatism is a virtue even in this Thank you.
Posted by MetaCynic on 02/09/13 04:00 PM
Is anyone here familiar with how Rand's voting record in the Senate compares with his rhetoric as Republican candidate for the Senate? Does he vote the libertarian line more than he talked it? If so, that may be a clue as to how President Rand Paul would behave.
How much do we really know about Rand's formative background and the dynamics with his father? Could Rand be slyly positioning himself as a libertarian mole who would, once elected to office as a Reagan conservative, do everything in his power as President to bring down the system? That office has now accrued immense dictatorial power typically exercised to erode liberty. Is it possible to exercise such power to undermine tyranny and restore liberty?
True, the shadowy power elite are enormously wealthy and influential, but how many divisions do they command? They are a bunch of mostly old men who could be could be suddenly disappeared without warning under the NDAA powers foolishly granted to the President by Congress. So could any politicians or bureaucrats, especially those in the Federal Reserve, who stand in the way of free market capitalism. Dictators typically yearn to micro-manage every detail of people's lives. A libertarian dictator would be historically unique by simply removing the government's boot off society's neck while leaving private individuals and institutions alone to go about their lives and businesses.
Throughout history how many tyrannies had gradually peacefully morphed into free societies? Usually they suddenly disappeared under the pressure of some combination of war, revolution and mass civil disobedience. Which will it be for America - the road we're on now to a totalitarian police state, or will it be a violent upheaval maybe leading to civil war or perhaps it will be an unexpected libertarian Night of the Long Knives which removes statism in one swoop?
Posted by cosmos on 02/09/13 03:33 PM
Rand shifted and squirmed out of his Father's mantel, so much for Rand.
I'll look to a better non-shifting candidate, Jesse Ventura for one, but there are others. Rand blew it ! ! !
Rand for Romney = No Rand for me
Posted by ptruthp34 on 02/09/13 03:07 PM
I'm willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt. He and his father are operating a two-pronged attack. One works inside the establishment, and one outside. In the end I hope and pray that Rand maintains his father's anti-fed and anti-military industrial complex ideals as he ascends in political relevance.
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 02/09/13 02:01 PM
Sadly, IMO, Rand's views merely represent those of his dumbed-down and degraded 'conservative' constituency.
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 02/09/13 01:05 PM
Rand's a sleazy weasel. No more needs to be said.
Posted by 1776 on 02/09/13 12:53 PM
Maxine Waters: Obama Has a Database on Everything About Every Individual
Click to view link