PDA

View Full Version : What Rand Paul And Bill Clinton Have In Common



Chris
03-25-2014, 08:34 PM
I found this to be a fairly interesting analysis--so naturally you might have already lost interest, lol. But I am interested in the reactions of Rand Paul supporters.


What Rand Paul And Bill Clinton Have In Common (http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/what-rand-paul-and-bill-clinton-have-in-common/)


Let’s be clear about one thing here: Rand Paul thinks he’s going to win in 2016. He has a vision for the party, but he is not running as an idea candidate. He is trying to win the election. He’s not running for Vice President. He’s not running to grow a movement. He thinks he can run, beat everyone, and be president.

In order to get there, he is deploying a unique approach to outreach – one that is designed to promote a certain type of cross-pollinating political appeal, one that is largely unfamiliar on the right, in order to broaden a coalition not around limited government ideas so much as around his uniquely libertarian positions on key hot button issues....

Of course, Paul’s rise has relatively little to do with his positions on social issues at all. In truth, it’s in large part due to the rising distrust of government and big institutions, Paul’s message has the ability to puncture typical biases against any politician with an R after their name with constituencies who Republicans have traditionally ignored. This is why what Paul is attempting is actually far more interesting than just the promotion of a prospective 2016 candidate. What he’s attempting is an approach to politics adopted with great success by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton – one that targets particular issues to broaden his appeal and build his own personal brand.

As Jonah Goldberg and others have noted, since Ronald Reagan, the right has formed into an ideological coalition while the left has formed a coalitional ideology. Where the right has its three legs of the stool, the left has formed a coalition which gloms together the disparate interests of the middle aged school teacher, the wealthy Silicon Valley liberal, the Ivy League hipster, the environmental non-profit, and the third-generation blue collar union dad… even when their interests really don’t really align.

What Paul represents is a post-three-legged-stool reality for the Republican Party – a politician who recognizes that the party’s brand has been markedly harmed, the old ideological coalition is dying, and that the path to success may instead lie in creating a patchwork majority based on the varying faces, and unique appeal, of libertarianism.

...the Clinton “all things to all people” model contains some hope for Paul’s approach....

What held this odd grouping together was Clinton’s particular gift of reptilian political skill, and a knack for shooting the moon. Can Paul replicate that? It’s a challenging strategy. It also just might be that Paul has the personal gifts to make it work.

Green Arrow
03-25-2014, 08:54 PM
The only point I really disagree with is the idea that Rand is just trying to be President. I don't agree with that. The reality is that the movement was already started by his father. He doesn't have to start a movement, he just has to lead the movement that exists into the highest office in the land. Once that happens, we fill up Congress. The Congress step has already begun.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 09:13 PM
The only point I really disagree with is the idea that Rand is just trying to be President. I don't agree with that. The reality is that the movement was already started by his father. He doesn't have to start a movement, he just has to lead the movement that exists into the highest office in the land. Once that happens, we fill up Congress. The Congress step has already begun.

I tend to agree with that. The problem with the Ron Paul revolution was that it leaned too heavily on one politician.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 09:34 PM
I tend to agree with that. The problem with the Ron Paul revolution was that it leaned too heavily on one politician.

There were no other national figures advocating what Ron Paul was advocating for.

Green Arrow
03-25-2014, 09:42 PM
I tend to agree with that. The problem with the Ron Paul revolution was that it leaned too heavily on one politician.

We learned from that experience. Dr. Paul the Elder left Congress only after personally mentoring Rep. Justin Amash (MI-3) and ensuring that 10 others he endorsed made it in. We're looking to expand that number.

And it's not just Republicans, by the way. Democrats in the establishment like to pretend that the Pauls and their followers are just an off-shoot of the Tea Party, but we have allies in the Democratic Party, too.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 10:27 PM
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against an Amish farmer who didn't want to pay into social security for his employees. He claimed that his religion taught him that the community should support the elderly, and not the government. In 1990, the court ruled unanimously that it was still illegal for Native Americans to use peyote, even if it had been a long practiced religious rite.

In response to the peyote ruling, Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "It was passed in response to the peyote ruling to say even though the Constitution doesn't give you this kind of protection, we want through a federal statute to protect your religious expression." I believe that the 1st amendment should have upheld these rights in the first place, but whatever, Clinton went above and beyond the ruling of the Supreme Court to offer additional religious protections.

I believe that Rand Paul would work to go above and beyond the Constitution in allowing the free expression of religion. But, then again, he is a politician, and like Clinton, and I'm sure there would be a myriad of ways that Paul would disappoint his devotees if he were elected.

And, a sidebar; I'm not seeing any preponderance of libertarianism coming out of a GOP Congress. It's easy to talk a big game when you aren't in power.

I put no hope and faith in the election process, but that's just me.

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?”-- Patrick Henry

nic34
03-25-2014, 10:30 PM
Paul would ensure more intense gridlock.

Come to think of it, so would Bernie Sanders.

Enjoy.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 10:39 PM
Paul would ensure more intense gridlock.

Come to think of it, so would Bernie Sanders.

Enjoy.

In the run-up to the mid-terms, I think that GOP candidates for Congress will play up the Clinton + GOP Congress model, which is popularly regarded as being very productive. Clinton had been humbled, if that's possible, and so had Newt Gingrich, if that's possible. But, they did manage to balance the budget (with help from the dot com bubble and radical increases in property values) and pass a lot of 'reforms'.

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 04:39 AM
Paul would ensure more intense gridlock.

Come to think of it, so would Bernie Sanders.

Enjoy.

Gridlock is usually good. Our Constitution was made for it.

Chris
03-26-2014, 07:19 AM
Still in terms of building a "coalitional ideology" Paul is certainly reaching out to a broad demographic. That would speak against gridlock. Or did nic mean the Dems would gridlock Congress.