Alyosha
10-01-2013, 01:43 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/29/how-did-rand-paul-become-a-liberal-hero.html
Is this liberal hero Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont? Of course not. This lefty hero is Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, who during a period of liberal retreat has somehow emerged as one of the nation’s most articulate defenders of progressive values. Look no further than a Wednesday earlier this month, when Paul testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders. Citing statistics that showed that young minority males were far more likely to face longer prison sentences than other groups, he sounded like a class warrior: “Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas.”
And it has won Paul some plaudits in unlikely corners, with stalwart liberals like Medea Benjamin writing that Paul should be commended for his anti-war stance. (http://www.issuesandalibis.org/) The liberal website Truthdig.org (http://Truthdig.org) has regularly praised Paul’s stances (http://www.truthdig.com/search/results/?q=rand+paul&x=-1277&y=-227&cx=007550919732032875355%3Albmkk4fviak&cof=FORID%3A11), and the site’s founder, New Left journalist Robert Scheer, has regularly sung the Kentucky Senator’s praises on a nationally syndicated radio show he appears on.
“I have a lot of problems with Rand Paul,” said David Sirota, the liberal author and blogger, citing his positions on the economy and on a woman’s right to choose. “But I think that on issues concerning national security and the domestic security state he is as right as anybody in the Congress—and there aren’t a lot of people in Congress who are good on those issues.”
Paul appears to be an all-but-announced candidate for president, but as the events of the last few weeks have shown, should he run, he would represent a new kind of figure on the American political landscape. When Democrats have found reason to praise Republicans in the context of a presidential race, it is usually because they break by a matter of degree with GOP orthodoxy—think Mike Huckabee’s calls for a more humane immigration system in 2008--or because a candidate has been willing to criticize the Republican establishment—think Chris Christie this time around.
Paul represents a whole other phenomenon. Coming from the furthest right reaches of the conservative movement on regulatory and economic issues, he is to the left of even most Democrats in Congress on issues of national security and surveillance. And if you are a liberal yearning for a Democrat to speak out against the War on Drugs or the voting rights of felons, Paul is, at the moment at least, the only candidate you've got.
For liberals, the question of how to square this circle is a vexing one.
“It’s boutique progressivism,” said Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and the liberal standard bearer in the 2004 primaries. “To use the word ‘progressivism’ and Rand Paul together, it's an oxymoron. It’s like saying ‘Fox’ and ‘News.’”
For liberals though, the vexing question becomes: why is someone from the other team speaking out on our issues when our guys are silent?
************************************************** ***************************************
Why? Because progressives forgot that classical liberalism is the right to be left alone, the right to individual freedoms, the right to be free of government tyranny.
His stance on abortion is consistent, allowing states and doctors make those decisions.
His stance on AA laws, good for public sector, not good for private is also consistent.
We as libertarians seem all over the board, but actually we're the most logically consistent.
Is this liberal hero Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont? Of course not. This lefty hero is Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, who during a period of liberal retreat has somehow emerged as one of the nation’s most articulate defenders of progressive values. Look no further than a Wednesday earlier this month, when Paul testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders. Citing statistics that showed that young minority males were far more likely to face longer prison sentences than other groups, he sounded like a class warrior: “Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas.”
And it has won Paul some plaudits in unlikely corners, with stalwart liberals like Medea Benjamin writing that Paul should be commended for his anti-war stance. (http://www.issuesandalibis.org/) The liberal website Truthdig.org (http://Truthdig.org) has regularly praised Paul’s stances (http://www.truthdig.com/search/results/?q=rand+paul&x=-1277&y=-227&cx=007550919732032875355%3Albmkk4fviak&cof=FORID%3A11), and the site’s founder, New Left journalist Robert Scheer, has regularly sung the Kentucky Senator’s praises on a nationally syndicated radio show he appears on.
“I have a lot of problems with Rand Paul,” said David Sirota, the liberal author and blogger, citing his positions on the economy and on a woman’s right to choose. “But I think that on issues concerning national security and the domestic security state he is as right as anybody in the Congress—and there aren’t a lot of people in Congress who are good on those issues.”
Paul appears to be an all-but-announced candidate for president, but as the events of the last few weeks have shown, should he run, he would represent a new kind of figure on the American political landscape. When Democrats have found reason to praise Republicans in the context of a presidential race, it is usually because they break by a matter of degree with GOP orthodoxy—think Mike Huckabee’s calls for a more humane immigration system in 2008--or because a candidate has been willing to criticize the Republican establishment—think Chris Christie this time around.
Paul represents a whole other phenomenon. Coming from the furthest right reaches of the conservative movement on regulatory and economic issues, he is to the left of even most Democrats in Congress on issues of national security and surveillance. And if you are a liberal yearning for a Democrat to speak out against the War on Drugs or the voting rights of felons, Paul is, at the moment at least, the only candidate you've got.
For liberals, the question of how to square this circle is a vexing one.
“It’s boutique progressivism,” said Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and the liberal standard bearer in the 2004 primaries. “To use the word ‘progressivism’ and Rand Paul together, it's an oxymoron. It’s like saying ‘Fox’ and ‘News.’”
For liberals though, the vexing question becomes: why is someone from the other team speaking out on our issues when our guys are silent?
************************************************** ***************************************
Why? Because progressives forgot that classical liberalism is the right to be left alone, the right to individual freedoms, the right to be free of government tyranny.
His stance on abortion is consistent, allowing states and doctors make those decisions.
His stance on AA laws, good for public sector, not good for private is also consistent.
We as libertarians seem all over the board, but actually we're the most logically consistent.