So Rand Paul has endorsed Romney. Despite the fact that Ron Paul is still running. And despite the fact that Gary Johnson is running. I guess he’s an ambitious man.
19 Responses to It Usually Ends With Rand Paul
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
Let’s Lynch for the Right Reasons At Least -
June 8, 2012
[…] example, I don’t think Roderick Long’s post, entitled “It Usually Ends With Rand Paul,” makes any sense: So Rand Paul has endorsed […]
I object, your Honor.
As I pointed out on this post, you’re criticizing an anarchist who doesn’t even endorse voting for the more-eloquent equivalent of a facepalm.
Bob, see my response on your site.
There’s no need to add a comment pointing to your post, because your site sent us a pingback and we are displaying it.
I guess that’s strike 2 for Rand Paul in my book (strike 1 was the gay remarks). Just one more and he’s officially Not A Libertarian ™ I guess?
The term “conservatarian” fits like a glove, the mutating-duck sort of vulgar libertarian. Where neocons like to use free-market rhetoric just to win elections, I think Rand Paul means it — he just doesn’t realize he’s a hypocrite.
Err, “fits him like a glove; he’s the mutating-duck”
I hate it when I edit a sentence and leave it in a half-way state between the old version and the new one.
I guess he’s an ambitious man.
Was that a reference to the Nicomachean Ethics by any chance?
No, what do you have in mind?
The part where Aristotle notes that the Greek equivalent of “ambitious” and “unambitious” are both vices, and so names “proper ambition” as the virtue.
I’m assuming you’d agree that Rand Paul’s ambition here is improper.
I’m getting snarky in the comments at my blog post, Roderick, so just to be straightforward here:
It seems to me there are two approaches to endorsing a candidate (if you’re a major figure) or voting for a candidate (if you’re a nobody voter). You either can endorse/vote for the pure candidate (which in the extreme means “nobody” like you and I do), or you can hold your nose and endorse/vote for a person you don’t love, but think will be better than the alternative if you *don’t* endorse/vote for that person.
Now as we know from basic strategic reasoning, this means no voter should ever cast a vote for the lesser of two evils, since his vote won’t on the margin make a difference.
However, with Rand Paul endorsing someone, he actually has more influence on the next president than an individual voter. (It’s still miniscule I’d guess, but it’s like 100epsilon instead of just epsilon).
OK, so whether you think Rand Paul should have gone the purist route or the pragmatic route, in no case should he have endorsed his father or Gary Johnson, in order to win kudos from the likes of you and me. It would make sense for him to (a) keep his mouth shut, (b) endorse David Friedman (or some other libertarian icon), or (c) endorse Romney if he thought Romney would be slightly more libertarian than Obama. Each of those options would have a coherent justification, though I would think doing (c) would be bad.
What I claim has no justification at all is him endorsing Gary Johnson.
Like I said at my blog, I “get” what you meant in this post. I’m just feeling a little protective of Rand Paul because people are flipping out and putting up posters of him with Benedict Arnold etc., and so when I see someone getting lynched I rush to make sure it’s at least a fair execution.
(For those who don’t know me, I think Romney would be awful. It would be basically the same as Obama +/- 10% on any policy, except whatever happens would be blamed on “fiscal conservatism”.)
What I claim has no justification at all is him endorsing Gary Johnson
Well, it’s not like I want him to endorse Gary Johnson. But Johnson’s the closest equivalent of Ron Paul, in the sense that a) he’s an actual politician who has held major office, and b) is actually running for president, and c) is more libertarian than anyone else (except Ron Paul) who meets the first two descriptions. So in that sense Johnson seems the logical next choice for anyone who endorsed Ron Paul. He’s not my choice, but then I didn’t endorse Ron Paul either.
One last clarification: In the above comment it sounds like I am saying David Friedman is a bigger libertarian icon than Ron Paul. That’s not what I mean. I’m saying, most hardcore libertarians don’t think Ron Paul’s personal worldview is the embodiment of their ideal form of social organization, especially since a lot of his supporters are actually anarcho-capitalists. I would have picked Murray Rothbard to make the point better, except he’s dead.
I would have picked Murray Rothbard to make the point better, except he’s dead.
Surely his being dead would make him a far better president than any we’re likely to get.
I agree 100% with this comment.
Roderick wrote:
Surely his being dead would make him a far better president than any we’re likely to get.
Right, and so that’s why I don’t understand why you keep returning to this criterion of, “*Given* that one must endorse someone who is actually running for president, I don’t see why Rand Paul picked Romney…”
Why is that relevant, especially for someone like you who is so radical in every other statement about politics that comes out of your mouth?
Let me put it this way: Suppose I wrote a blog post entitled “Rand Concedes Too Much” and said:
“So, Rand Paul just endorsed Mitt Romney and said he was a good conservative with family values. Despite the fact that he could have rolled his eyes when he said it. Despite the fact that he could have refrained from mentioning family values, and just endorsed Romney flat-out with no elaboration. I guess he’s an ambitious man.”
Wouldn’t that have been an odd post to make? Well if you can see why, then you can understand why I think your post is weird. You are just taking it for granted that major figures should play the standard game of endorsing people who are running for president, but yet you want to change what is also a standard rule that you endorse people who have a prayer of winning.
Not at all. I’d rather they wouldn’t. But once someone endorses Ron Paul, I assume they are already in the game of endorsing actual politicians who are running for president, rather than endorsing the most libertarian person, or boycotting elections entirely, or whatever.
It sounds like Roderick was trying to say by endorsing Romney over Johnson or Paul the Senator Rand Paul is prioritizing his career over principle. I don’t see why this is controversial, he’s more conservative than his dad isn’t he?