Rand Paul's victory in Kentucky, along with the likely win of his father in Texas later on this evening, raises an important question. What will two Pauls in Congress achieve? by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Now that Rand Paul has successfully joined his father in Congress, albeit in the other house, two questions must be raised. First, what will two Pauls in Congress be able to accomplish? Second, what do the various tea party victories tonight really amount to?
Having a second Paul in Congress, one who can introduce his father's legislation into the Senate, is certainly an enticing prospect. But realistically, they're only two votes out of 535. Whatever gains they are able to achieve for liberty will have to be done by creating coalitions on an issue-by-issue basis, such as almost happened this year with the Audit The Fed campaign.
But as Audit The Fed showed, in the long run the odds are stacked against the father and son duo. The result that was included in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was a mockery of the original Paul proposal, because it only audits pieces of Fed activity that have always been audited. The core, day-to-day operations remain untouched by the bill.
So sadly, while it's good to have a second Paul in Washington, in reality the odds are stacked strongly against them.
Some, very likely including Ron Paul himself, will say that the tea party victories this evening will amass the legislative troops needed in that fight with the national legislature, but I have my doubts. For instance, I took a careful look at all the favorite tea party candidates' websites in September and discovered that, with the exception of Rand's site, none of them actually addressed the Financial Crisis of 2008, the futility of the bank bailouts, the travesty of the aforementioned financial reform act, the corrupt nature of the monetary and banking system, or any of the other core issues that caused the original tea party movement to arise and coalesce around Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2007.
Instead, I found the usual conservative mania about gays, God, and guns, about borders and the evils of terrorism. I also saw a ton of liberal-bashing. But I saw nothing of substance about the only true issue that the country, and indeed the world, faces: the monetary and banking system which caused the financial crisis in the first place.
Nor did the tea parties call their own candidates into account over this supremely important fact. It was remarkably easy for the Republican operatives to stroke the egos of the libertarians in their midst with a few, Palinesque platitudes about liberty, and as usual, that's all it took. The core that pushed Ron Paul into prominence was successfully bought off for the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver.
So the tea party is effectively dead, despite tonight's victories. The tea party has been skillfully co-opted back into the Republican fold, exactly where the conservative operatives want them. The rebellion against Bush/McCain and the Republican Party is over, and the only thing that could resurrect it now would be a tea party within the tea party, which has shown no sign so far of emerging.
It's a sad thing to watch the death of something which, at one time, held such promise. Like most libertarians, I'll be watching Paul and Paul hopefully in 2011, but unlike those libertarians who were so easily seduced in 2010 by the siren song of the Palinites, I hold out little hope for any real substance coming out of it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: November 2, 2010 07:50:09 PM
What a pleasure to read such a first rate, accurate analysis of the Tea Party situation that is so hyped by the media as well as by Republican promoters. Real government reform will take a lot more than this Tea Party crowd that has been so coopted by the Republican Party, a partner in the two-party plutocracy.
Posted By: Adrian S.
Date: November 3, 2010 06:24:08 AM
I don't believe this is the last we will see of the Tea Party. Yes, we have all heard stories about how the vast majority of tea party groups were really canvassing for the Koch brothers, but even if that were true in the end, it definitely was not true at its inception.
The Tea Party is just the first incarnation of a new model in American politics. Or maybe it is a revival of the populist model of old, I am not yet sure. What I do know is that the Republicans' favorability ratings do not suggest their rebranding really worked. The GOP is still in danger of extinction in 10-15 years, if demographic trends hold.
I also don't believe it's out of the question that we might see a "progressive" tea party by 2012. The liberal base is just as equally disillusioned with Obama as conservatives and libertarians are, but obviously they believe he hasn't gone far enough. We already saw the enthusiasm gap this caused. When nearly 50% of democratic voters polled think there should be a challenge to Obama, I'd rate the chances of a progressive tea party very highly.
Some final thoughts: people on every end of the political spectrum, libertarians included, thought 2008 was the defining election of our time. Then it became 2010. Now, it will surely be 2012. If we take this at face value, it tells us nothing more than the obvious: every election is of great importance. But by 2012, we will start to see these traditional left-right paradigms crack, and a reorientation will be in order. This has happened only 6 times in the past 200 years, and we are about to see the next.
Posted By: LibertarianBlue
Date: November 3, 2010 10:29:13 PM
Unless he changed in recently, Rand's foreign policy views are more or less in line with the Neocons than with his father so foreign policy is only going to get worse as we seen how the broad movement reacted to the Muslims community center in NYC. As for so-called Palin Libertarians, they're more or less Conservative Cowards or LINOs trying to co-opt Ron Paul's movement. Majority of the Libertarian websites (Lew Rockwell, Anti-War.com, Future of Freedom Foundation) see that nothing is going to change. Blue statism out, red statism in.
Posted By: David S
Date: November 8, 2010 08:46:09 PM
As you say, two Pauls out of 535 congress-critters is not exactly a tsunami. Plus the Republicans control only the House, not the Senate or the Presidency. So they cannot pass any legislation that the Senate or the President doesn't agree to. And they cannot repeal any legislation the Dems already passed. So it's not likely that much will change. All the Republicans can do is block any new legislation by the Dems. And that's assuming that they aactually want to. So I guess I don't see much happening.
On the positive side, we now have two Pauls were we previously had one. I guess that's progess.
Posted By: Spence
Date: November 11, 2010 06:00:45 AM
Rand believes in foolish populist reforms such as banning earmarks, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment. If the Progressive Era is any indicator, populist reform feels good but actually makes things worse.
-Earmarks. His dad has the right stance. The money's already spent. Should it be spent? No, but might as well get your fair share. It's a diversion and it's wrong to exploit it further for political gain. The lionshare of the budget is actually entitlements that are kept off the books (and will explode as soon as the bond bubble collapses), and the military.
-Term limits. Stupid. If Senators could only serve a total of 12 years, this would essentially make them unaccountable in their final term. Which means a hyper-extended lame duck session of congress. You think it's too partisan now? Just wait. Millions of Americans called their representatives nonstop just 2 years ago in an effort to stop the bailouts. Their plea was ignored. Many of them were thankfully punished Nov. 2. Take away that impediment and watch what happens.
-Balanced budget amendment. A balanced budget amendment is a great thing for states, but states do not declare war or unilateral trade agreements with foreign nations. Therefore, the budget is a zero-sum game of the welfare-warfare. We want less of BOTH, not more of one, not less of the other. The Founders thought that hard money and the lack of a central bank would be enough to prevent skyrocketing budget deficits, and this was true until the passage of the 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Keep in mind, the flip side of a balanced budget doesn't only mean slashing spend. As long as we have the fractional reserve cartel, a balanced budget amendment would actually require steep tax increases. It's perhaps the most well-intended item Rand supports and therefore the stupidest.
If Rand was truly wise, he would not have resorted to this rhetoric. I'll expect more of him when he actually starts voting.
