Monday, April 27, 2015

Why Rand Paul Has Zero Chance Of Any Presidential Nomination (His Groupies Ought to Quit Now)

GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul cut short an interview with The Guardian’s Paul Lewis 2 weeks ago Friday, leaving the reporter in the dark (literally) after being pressed for specifics on campaign strategy and criminal justice. After offering a terse response to Lewis on how he plans to reach both the Republican base and more centrist voters, Paul abruptly shut down the conversation and walked away from the reporter, who continued to push for “a specific answer.”

It doesn't matter as Rand Paul has no chance in Hell of ever getting nominated. Let's leave out for the moment the loopy Libertarian creed to which he subscribes which maintains the world belongs to the 'creators' (like Ayn Rand's fictional Howard Roark) and everyone else became "second -handers" or parasites. We even leave out for now that Alissa Rosenbaum (Ayn's original name) grew up a total deprived neurotic after the Bolsheviks took over and dispatched her family to more humble surroundings in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Little Alissa grew up vexed to the core and vowed that one day she'd get what she had coming to her and so came to America - where assorted family and friends, relatives handed her virtually everything on a platter. (She never thanked any of them either, according to the new book, The Age of Selfishness). Later, she found a niche in a studio as a screen writer and managed to get a bloated, half-baked novel ("The Fountainhead") published - which later became a crappy movie - and managed to find a hubby. (She also found a lover in Nathaniel Branden - a doofus who actually agreed to have his name changed to fit 'RAND' into it!)  She insisted to her hubby that rational people should be allowed to make such choices, and so arranged for trysts with Branden thrice weekly. (This was until the dupe eventually wised up and dumped her - after which - in a fit, she scuttled the "Nathaniel Branden Institute" - where lecturers expatiated on the benefits of "Objectivism".)

After Rand's  first novel she went on to write other folderol as well as developing the hokey philosophy called Objectivism. Basically it maintained that selfishness is the true virtue and we all ought to practice it. At least those who aspire to be "individualists"  as opposed to parasites sucking on the marrow of winners! Every man for himself, devil take the hindmost and all that. This garbage later became the fodder for Neoliberalism as well as the fuel that nearly brought down the economy in 2008- given one of her former acolytes (Alan Greenspan) was full tilt approving of an unregulated derivatives market. And so it goes.

Back to the other "Rand", Rand Paul. First, the guy has zero chance of winning anything national or major given all the reasons I cited in this prior post:

But more disconcerting for him, as an expose of his sordid campaign in Mother Jones notes, is that it's already been tarred and permanently. It is guaranteed to implode sometime in the near future and all bets will be off for anyone dumb enough to back this guy. (Even forgetting for the moment he already walked back one of his key principles, of not extending military might into the Middle East or anywhere else - which had at least rendered him partly preferable - say to Ted Cruz or Chris Christie)

The "time bomb" associated with the Paul campaign would shock the living hell out of the centrists and Millennials to whom Paul is trying to appeal. In fact, it involves a bunch that goes by the title, The National Right to Work Committee which has a mantra - according to one ex -staffer (MJ, May-June, 2015, p. 52):

"We're Right to Work. We hate everybody"

Ha! Charming bunch of douchebags!   Oh, another thing they won't tell you is that the group's origin is firmly on the far right. (Got that, centrists?) Their longest serving President was, in fact, Reed Larson, affiliated with the John Birch Society. For those short on political history the John Birch Society was almost the biggest bunch of nuts around in the 1960s.

But anyway, this sordid background isn't Rand Paul's biggest problem. No, that attaches to Paul's campaign picking up a former NRTWC operative named Kent Sorenson- also a former Iowa state Senator.  After "secretly negotiating for months to lure Sorenson from the Bachmann campaign" back in 2011 the Randians finally got their wish. But the problem is it looks now more like  serious liability.


"The Sorenson deal exploded into public view in 2013 thanks to a pair of whistleblowers from the Ron Paul and Bachmann campaigns and the episode now hangs over Rand Paul and his inner circle like a cloud". (Ibid.)

This could be because "Sorenson pleaded guilty last year to two criminal charges for which he faces up to 25 years in prison."  As MJ goes on to note (ibid.)

"It has pulled back the curtain on the roguish band of advisors, political organizers and fundraisers whose sometimes sketchy tactics have fueled Rand Paul's political ascent. This crew - call it Paul World- reflects the damn the rules, libertarian world view of the candidate himself".

As I noted in a previous blog post:

The libertarians espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

So it would be quite natural for a Libbie like Rand (or his campaign) to disregard all laws, rules and regulations and act like they're in the Wild West. This is given, as Charles Murray has written ('What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6)::

"...the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group."

As I went on to note:

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.

Could we really afford having a nut like Rand Paul as President? Think about it! Do you really want what's left of our society to become totally dysfunctional - say like Paul's current campaign - running along with a hidden "bomb" (Sorenson) soon to go off?  More, do you want a guy who tries to appeal to centrism and reason but secretly harbors extremist right nuts whose motto is We hate everybody?

Young people who believe Rand Paul is the answer to all their political concerns and yearnings need to take note, and perhaps now take the time to consider backing another "horse". One not crippled by toxic baggage!

No comments: