Ron Paul and Rand Paul back Mitt Romney … Today is a day to praise Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Yes, I said it. Yes, this Neocon still disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy. Yes, there is enough animosity between many Paul supporters and me to start a small undeclared war. Yet the biggest question mark about Dr. Paul and his son was whether they would fall into line when push came to shove. They did. Without sacrificing their principles … My personal criticism of Dr. Paul is that he never reined those vocal supporters in. Until now. On the first day of the largest state convention in calendar year 2012, he told his supporters that upon arriving in Tampa for the Republican National Convention, they were to "be respectful. This is a big deal. Maybe they will listen. Dr. Paul's son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, also offered a major olive branch later in the evening by officially endorsing Governor Romney and pledging to actively campaign for him. This is another big deal. – Washington Times
Dominant Social Theme: Pragmatism is always a positive.
Free-Market Analysis: Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney is a bit strange. We question the necessity and we are interested in the reasoning. On the surface, to us it doesn't make much sense.
But on a deeper level it illustrates the differences of vision between father and son. The differences have import but predictably, the mainstream media has not explored those differences. Articles have taken a predictably surface-y, even snide, tone.
Neocon commentator Sean Hannity, for instance, burbled to Rand Paul yesterday that he still didn't know why his father was "angry" with him. (He should know full well given his constant misrepresentations of Ron Paul's political positions.)
And this article, excerpted above, by self-proclaimed neocon Eric Golub is an especially fatuous example of how Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney is being misrepresented. Golub goes so far as to claim that Rand Paul's endorsement implies something similar for Ron Paul. It does not.
Ron Paul has NOT endorsed Mitt Romney thus far and we would be surprised if he does. We are also surprised that Rand Paul did so. Perhaps Rand Paul wants to be vice president, or perhaps Mitt Romney promised him other things in return for his endorsement.
It still doesn't make much sense. Rand Paul in a single stroke has made credible all the things that his father's supporters suspected of him: He's a conservative politician first, someone who has gone into politics to serve his own interests.
There's nothing wrong, of course, with serving one's own interest. And yet … the reason Ron Paul entered the political arena was to address issues that were of grave import to the country (and thus to his grandchildren) – excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve, high rates of regulation and taxation and trillions of dollars being wasted on overseas military ventures.
Ron Paul made mistakes in his campaign, just as most people do. Certainly if he had wanted to, he could have made a major issue out of the corruption and malfeasance that has greeted his bid for the candidacy in the past few months.
There is no doubt that had Ron Paul fought hard, the manipulation of the primary votes would have become obvious. But such a spectacle would probably have ruined the Republican Party or at least have ruined any chances that Romney has to capture the presidency.
As it is, Ron Paul's candidacy provided a powerful insight into the reality of the GOP for people who wanted to look. The GOP does not, after all, stand for fiscal solvency and responsible power. It is a handmaiden of the military-industrial complex.
Perhaps Ron Paul's biggest accomplishment is to show for the history books what the GOP really is – merely part of a larger charade that attempts to give people the idea that there is a political choice when there is none. President Barack Obama has continued President George Bush's policies virtually without a hitch.
Prior to what we call the Internet Reformation and Ron Paul's double candidacy, the reality of the GOP was not evidence. GOP pols posed as fiscal conservatives. But Ron Paul has thoroughly exposed that as a farce.
The ramifications shall be longlasting – and they are not fully glimpsed yet. Young people, especially, want to take the pronouncements of the Republican Party at face value. Without winning the nomination or even coming close, Ron Paul has incited a profound change among the younger generation.
It is probably not an exaggeration to say that millions of young people are engaged in the political process in ways they never have been before. The candidacy of Ron Paul shall ensure that these young people will not be content with the current two-party system.
Ron Paul is an educator first, something of a legitimate intellectual. He understands the US is on the wrong track. All in, the US has something like US$ 200 trillion in established payables that will never be fulfilled. It is engaged in various wars and skirmishes around the world and still has something like 1,000 military bases abroad.
These wars have cost trillions and are responsible for the deaths or maiming of millions. They have not brought freedom, but merely more suffering. They have drained the US Treasury and expanded cynicism and corruption.
The current US system is funded by monopoly fiat money – a state of affairs that Ron Paul knows is destructive to polity and the larger social order. He will not say it, but central banks, as destructive as they are, are central to the control that a handful of dynastic families – what we call the power elite – exercise over the West's various socio-political systems.
What does it gain Rand Paul to endorse someone like Mitt Romney who will merely further the destructive goals of these elites? The idea of world government is a ruinous chimera, but does Rand Paul believe that he can better effect change by "working within the system"?
It is likely his father knows better. More than almost anyone in memory, Ron Paul has proven to be a revolutionary figure, someone who contributed to the knowledge base of modern civilization. Almost single-handedly, he revivified the freedom conversation that has echoed uncertainly through the Ages.
Ron Paul's participation in the "great conversation" is his singular achievement, not his accomplishments as a politician or lack thereof. Rand Paul's ambition and interest are obviously on a different plane. He is interested in the hurly burly of the political process. Good luck to him.
Chances are the US is too far gone to be resurrected by any political process. Chances are, in fact, the US will have to fall apart (along with the rest of the West) before significant changes are effected.
These are not changes that will come via the political process. Instead, they will emerge as part of the larger chaotic socio-economic scene that shall likely accompany the bankrupting of the country – which is well underway.
It is the inevitability of what we call the Internet Reformation itself that may provide at least some of the changes that Ron Paul has fought for. This is a much larger process than a mere political one.
Rand Paul is apparently seeking political preferment. Ron Paul has his eyes on a much larger prize. This is the difference between them and the reason why some might suggest the father's vision is a good deal broader than his son's.