Ross Douthat, the New York Times' replacement for Bill Krystol as its token conservative columnist, writes today about "The Principles of Rand Paul." He begins:
No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.Had he said that, it would all be over, according to Douthat. But Paul, being the the zealot anti-government libertarian that he is, just couldn't bring himself to say it -- not until the party powerful leaned on him (both Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove reportedly called him).
That was all that Rand Paul needed to admit. . . . "As a principled critic of federal power, I oppose efforts to impose Washington's will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act."
Douthat goes on further to define Paul, like his father Ron Paul, as a particular kind of libertarian, sometimes called "paleoconservative." He acknowledges that there is a lot of appeal to their sweeping critique of American politics. But . . .
The problem is that paleoconservatives are self-marginalizing and self-destructive. . . . they have trouble distinguishing between ideas that deserve a wider hearing and ideas that are crankish or worse. . . . they're good at applying their principles more consistently than your average partisan, but lousy at knowing when to stop. . . .Well . . . Rand Paul must be in really deep trouble if a conservative columnist pronounces this sort of judgment on his judgment. How do you come back when you've been described as leaving common sense and common decency behind -- by one of your own party?
[T]hey tend to drift in every-more extreme directions, reveling in political incorrectness even as they leave common sense and common decency behind. . . . And it shouldn't come as a shock that [he] found himself politically undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.
It's going to take an awful lot of Rovian spin to get this one out of the ditch.
Ralph
There are two opposing things going on with the Paul case - the liberal glee at his pronouncements, and the collective yawn from most voters over the coverage. In fact, there has been almost as much coverage of his opponent's inaccurate comments about Paul's positions as there has been about Paul's positions - that doesn't help the Dems. It gives voters furthur reason to tune out to this media discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, as Huff Post pointed out, Paul now has more support among 'moron' voters than Palin. So the coverage has firmed up and expanded his base.
Sometimes us liberals get so caught up in our own POV we neglect to see what's going on out there.
How many Kentucky voters are actually going to be influenced by a NYT column? I don't think a lot. Let's not count our senators before they hatch. I still think Paul has an excellent shot at winning this seat. Unfortunately.
richard
I agree Paul has a good chance of winning in Kentucky. My point is that the Dems have a better chance of winning with him as the Rep nominee than with a more moderate Repub. Because he's not likely to attract the independent and conservative Dem vote as much as a less extreme candidate would.
ReplyDeleteDo you not agree with that?
You know, I don't see Rand as extreme in the context of the routine Republiclones. He's just says it out loud. I hate everything he believes in, but I like his open-ness, even if it's driven by arrogance. You can shoot straight at him instead of having to use a boomarang to go around the spinning wheel and the long black smokey thing.
ReplyDeleteDouthat even tries to give him a script to get him on board. I prefer Rand Paul "unplugged." And the look on McConnell's face standing behind Paul at the press conference was priceless. Preach on, Rand Paul, preach on...
Ralph, Mickey(is it?),
ReplyDeleteI don't think the electorate will see Paul as extreme because he talks in full sentences, not slogans. He actually has ideas(not that I agree with them). I think he is more dangerous as a candidate than a standard Republican, and more likely to win.
Obama got elected because people in this country wanted change. An increasing number of people feel he did not fulfill that promise, but that desire for change is still out there, as witnessed by the election results since.
Paul is an outsider, and one who comes across as educated, not shrill, and willing to speak his mind(even though he hedges and tap dances around specificity).
His move today was, I thought, a strategically good one. His challenge to Obama to come to Kentucky, his offer to pay his ticket, was obviously political grandstanding, but it put the emphasis where Paul wants it - on Obama. He knows Obama can't take up the challenge. The Dems in Kentucky don't want him campaigning there because he is a liability now(sad to have to say that). If Obama doesn't go, it will highlight to moderates and independents the fact that Obama can't come because he has been a disappointment to many. It's an easy two points for Paul.
If Paul keeps the focus on Obama, and the issues like Afghanistan, the bailouts, unemployment, and the BP spill, issues where Obama has high negatives, Paul is going to be a very difficult candidate to beat.
richard