I’ve expressed my skepticism about some of Rand Paul’s positions, but as I hear the rhetoric from the establishment demonizing the Tea Party at every chance, I’ve come to the conclusion that Rand Paul might still be worth supporting.  In support of that, I found this at Humble Libertarian:

“Ron’s success in the 2012 Presidential race is DIRECTLY tied to Rand’s success in 31 days.

WHY?

Think it through.

Allow me to elaborate the possible scenarios:

Scenario 1- Rand loses. The media, liberals, Democrats, and even Republican establishment will declare that the liberty movement and tea parties are not viable and have no chance of electoral success. Rand is seen as the leader and if he fails then the symbolic victory of the statists will be crushing to any hope for 2012. If this happens then Ron might not even run in 2012 because it would be somewhat pointless for him to do so. Morale will be in the gutter, donors will turn cold, and enthusiasm will be largely nonexistent; not to mention the lack of momentum.

Scenario 2- Rand wins barely. Although victory is victory, a small margin of victory will then give the commentators and media an edge to fight against us in 2012. They will say that we just barely won, and that it was a fluke, or we just got lucky, or whatever. It’ll still be an uphill battle in the fight for legitimacy and credibility. This also will not bode well for Rand when he has to fight for his seat again next time around in perhaps a less friendly political atmosphere.

Scenario 3- Rand wins in a large victory (Randslide). A mandate by the People will be undeniable and cannot be countered. This paves the way that our ideas are now mainstream, acceptable, and that Ron stands a good chance of winning in 2012. Think of it as leap frog. Rand run’s on Ron’s shoulders and wins. Then Ron runs on Rand’s shoulders and wins. We will be unstoppable and perceived as unbeatable because momentum will be on our side.

There you have it — those are the possible outcomes as I see it. If you are cold on Rand, realize you are hurting Ron’s chance in 2012. A large victory for Rand paves the way and is even necessary for Ron’s electoral success in 2012. Anything less makes it highly unlikely. The campaign needs money, it needs volunteers, it needs people on the ground. It needs door knockers, phone bankers, sign placers, etc. Will you come to KY in the final weeks of the campaign and help out? The realization that when you are campaigning for Rand you are also simultaneously campaigning for Ron to be President is critical.”

My Comment

First. I don’t think libertarians should be pouring money into anything..Their first job is to look after themselves and their families. Ron and Rand Paul have received a lot of money already.
They need volunteers and support more than money. Besides, there are plenty of wealthy businessmen and gold dealers in the hard money community who can and should support them financially.

[I say this because some libertarian activists have expressed anxiety about what’s actually been done with the money they’ve given. That’s always a problem for all politicians, of course. I just mention it here, because I’ve heard concern expressed by a couple of activists.]

Two. I think the answer isn’t political – it’s education. And criticism/analysis of propaganda.
The best contribution libertarians can make is to refuse to demonize the Tea Party or ANY candidate being bashed by the establishment. That will allow the candidates’ voices to be heard on their own merit.

Participating in the media circus is a problem in itself. Ignore it. Refuse to listen. Refuse to change the terms of your argument.

Three. I don’t think any libertarian should support only one person. Support anyone who is antiwar, first and foremost. War is the heart of the police-state. I would sooner support someone who was antiwar and pro-government than someone who reduced domestic spending, but wouldn’t touch the military budget, which I think might be where Rand Paul ends up….

But if he’s willing to do both – cut the military and domestic spending  – then of course, I would support him.

Still, just because I don’t know what he’s going to do, I would NEVER make common cause AGAINST Rand Paul with the establishment liberal/left. That would be simply opportunistic.

I would only make alliances with principled people on the issue of war and the police-state.

Once the military budget is cut, we will be on a sounder footing to tackle other problems.

And when people aren’t deathly afraid of surviving (“Muslims are going to get us!”), they’ll be a lot more open to libertarian thinking too.

I know Rothbard moved to the left. But that was then. Things are very different now. Libertarians must keep to the right and try to convince neo-conservatives and the Christian right to stop selling out their core values to socialist ones.

We don’t have to concede ANYTHING to the liberal establishment.

The only thing we want from them is a groveling apology for their Stalinist behavior.