Who is not voting? Can Rand Paul get them to vote?

In this Weekly Standard article, Rand Paul is depicted as a different kind of politician, different even from his father. Ron Paul, Rand's father who was a representative from Texas, delivered a libertarian, non-interventionist message during his career that caused a lot of heat in rallies but failed to garner broad support. The elder Paul, however, was able to bring new voters to the voting booths, mostly young, single issue voters who learned a little about Austrian economics along the way. Can Rand build a broad coalition of dissatisfied conservatives, true liberals disgusted with the Progressives's statist agenda, non-interventionists who are beyond war-weary and ready to vote to get us out of the mideast, and new voters who lean libertarian on most issues but aren't that politically active?

The key, I think, is creating a larger pie. Just like our economic problems will be solved by creating a larger pie, even many pies through a free market revolution, in order to get government out of the way, politicians like Rand Paul will have to expand the voting base. On average, around 100 million qualified American voters don't vote or vote infrequently. Oddly, there are very few studies that tell us why there are so many non-voters or infrequent voters, or who they are. Even the one study I could find of California non-voters wasn't all that informative. The study revealed that although most people think it's important to vote, non-voters and infrequent voters say they're too busy. It could be that voting is too difficult for people with full-time jobs and a family. In other articles which simply suggested reasons why there are many non-voters and infrequent, one reason is that people have become cynical watching Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert and don't think their votes will matter. I've seen this argument quite often, even from some who're very intelligent and highly educated.

Although some very smart people believe individual votes don't matter, regarding the make-up of non-voters and infrequent voters, the study shows that education levels have a lot to do with who votes and who doesn't, with those receiving more education voting more. About 59% of the non-voters are caucasian. Young people vote less than old people, but we knew that.

The Democratic Party has put much effort growing the voting pie, trying to create more voters. But Republicans shouldn't get into a contest with Democrats offering government goodies to get more votes, or promising special interest groups favors for their support. This is too detrimental to the country, and any victory would be a Pyrrhic victory. No, politicans like Rand Paul have to gain new voters through attraction, not through promotion.

Most of the non-voters, I imagine, are turned off by promotion, plus they don't believe the promises. The feeding trough in Washington DC has become so big and valuable, it attracts the worst in society, and it even attracts those disgusted by it who must play the lobbying game or lose out to a competitor who knows more about the political game than business, but, nevertheless, could win in the market through political favors. When voters witness the Money Game in DC, and how politicans are bought and sold, the potential voters lose confidence in the system and stop participating in politics. I don't know how many times I've heard people dismiss government as a bunch of crooks who'd sell their mothers to stay in power.

I believe politicians like Rand Paul can attract many of these non-voters and infrequent voters. But Paul will have to maintain integrity and resist the temptation to play the political, crony games. It's a herculean effort for a Republican renegade like Rand Paul to get his message out through media megaphones. Instead, media will likely shut out Paul so that they, media, can define him and those like him, such as Ted Cruz, Tim Lee and Justin Amash. If Paul gets attention through the new. alternative media, then mainstream media, mostly supportive of Obama and Democrats in general, will begin their hit jobs to counter the excitement (especially cable news outlets like MSNBC). If Paul decides to run for President, he'll have to innovate to get his message out. Paul has already shown a gift for innovation, so I think he's up to the task.

Ultimately, though, it's not about Rand Paul

One way the media, and the political class in general, obscure limited government/free market principles is by focusing on individuals like Rand Paul. Just like the media focused the individual, Ron Paul, they are doing the same with his son, Rand. There's much more discussion regarding Paul's bladder or John McCain calling him a wacko bird than there is about the ideas and principles Paul represents.

Paul could shift at some point and support a statist policy that causes media and the political class to smear him as a hypocrite, thus damaging the principles that should be more important than any one individual. I got caught up in the wacko bird silliness on Twitter just because humor is an excellent means to deal with stodgy, arrogant characters like John McCain, but the principles regarding limits on government power, economic liberty and military non-interventionism are serious, and their validity doesn't depend on any one person.

I certainly hope Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash and the others stand tall and maintain their integrity, but all these representatives are different, and they aren't all singing from the same song sheet all the time. I've heard Cruz talk about terrorism and foreign policy, and he sounds a lot like McCain. I don't know if Cruz holds different views overall  from McCain's hawkish views regarding our seemingly endless war in Afghanistan or our backfiring interventions in Libya and Egypt, because I haven't heard him give a foreign policy speech. So, any one of these New Republicans might not maintain all the principles I would want them to maintain, but we need not allow media and the political class to marginalize the principles themselves just because a few individuals in the group of New Republicans aren't pure constitutional/limited government/free market, non-interventionist Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal.

If we can just stop the Progressive madness and begin the slow process of changing directions, then that'll be a huge, nation-changing turn-around. If we can start looking for ways to limit government power and empower the private sector rather than ways to expand government's power and the public's dependence on government, then maybe we can spare the nation from financial collapse and a State command and control reaction to the chaos caused by a collapsing economy.

Bill Kristol's dishonest attack on Rand Paul

Bill Kristol's father, Irving Kristol, had a first rate mind and is considered one of America's most important and influential intellectuals. Irving Kristol is often called the Father of neo-Conservativism, after his journey through neo-Marxism, neo-Troskyism and neo-Liberalism. Bill Kristol is also a well known intellectual in America, and his upbringing no doubt provided a comprehensive education -- an educational experience in which one values an evolving worldview based on the revelation of new information. It's highly debatable that neo-Conservativism is the best conclusion to such an evolution, but at least Irving Kristol made well thought-out arguments to defend his world-views. Given all this, it's hard to imagine that Bill Kristol lacks the historical knowledge attached to the term isolationism and the nuanced distinctions thinkers have made between isolationism and non-interventionism.

To explain, on Fox News today, in a section with Megyn Kelly and someone from Breitbart News, Bill Kristol repeatedly criticized Rand Paul for his filibuster, attributing motives to Paul that aren't true, and referred to him as an isolationist. This use of the word islolationist by Kristol is an intentional smear to marginalize Rand Paul. Kristol is dishonest when he calls Paul an isolationist. Isolationism gained its negative connotation in the early 20th century as FDR fought for a globalist US presence. The isolationists were mostly opponents of international alliances, free trade, and various international agreements that were proposed from time to time. Isolationists would prefer tariffs and protections for US trade at home. The isolationists also fought against any foreign military entanglements, but they certainly wanted to protect the US from any national threats -- however, the sine qua non of isolationism is not a rejection of foreign military entanglements -- military entanglements are only part of what makes an isolationist.

Rand Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, and even when it comes to interventions, he's no peacenik smoking a bong flashing the two fingered peace sign. In no way does Rand Paul want America to pull away from the world, to refuse involvement internationally when cooperation is helpful, to reject free trade, to oppose alliances or helpful agreements with other nations. Paul values sharing culture, technology and ideas between nations. Paul doesn't, however, value futile interventions like what has happened with Iraq and Afghanistan and Egypt and Libya and so forth.  Paul has indicated he would intervene in Iran if Iran's nuclear capabilities threaten our national security, but Paul is asking for a cautious approach when it comes to deploying our troops overseas. Who can find fault with this after what we're discovering about Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya?

But aside from practical concerns, non-interventionism has been an American principle since the country's beginning, even though we quickly violated the principle shortly after becoming a union. Our sovereignty becomes at risk when we forcefully entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations, and the unintended consequences of our interventions often do more harm than good. But the real reason is that other countries are free to deal with their own affairs, and even when we've tried to instill "democracy", it doesn't work when the people themselves aren't fighting and dying for liberty.

Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and Paul might have made similar decisions to the ones Bush made if Paul had been President when 9/11 happened. History might even show that our military responses following 9/11 saved many American lives at home, prevented further attacks, but only fools will not look back at our interventions and refuse to learn from them. For Kristol to slam Paul as a neo-Isolationist, when Kristol understands the difference between isolationism and Paul's type of non-interventionism, is petty and mean-spirited. Surely Kristol can defend his neo-Conservative ideas without resorting to such cowardly tactics as the ones he's using against Paul. 

The attack on Ted Cruz

Senators are offended when upstarts like Ted Cruz assert themselves. The traditions of the Senate are challenged by the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and it's about time they were challenged. The Senate has been protected by media and members of the club, but we're in the Information Age, so all the flaws of the Senate are revealed. A couple of decades ago, no one would know much of anything about Harry Reid, Lindsey Graham or Dianne Feinstein, but, although there are still low information voters, the Information Age is changing that and people who normally wouldn't be aware of the Senate are now  informed.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul didn't run for office to become well-behaved junior Senators, toeing the line, waiting their turn to gain power and prestige. No, these new servants believe they were sent to DC to make changes in the statist system, not protect it and betray their constituents. The Old Guards of the system are angry, and establishment types in both parties are haughtily attacking Ted Cruz. They'll start back attacking Rand Paul when Paul moves along to matters of economic liberty and anti-statist measures to limit power in government. Paul gained favor with the Center-Left when he temporarily rose above partisan concerns and touched a common nerve among Americans who're concerned with too much power concentrated in the hands of the executive. This doesn't mean there's a bipartisan awakening, and that representatives from both parties will start limiting government power -- no, most just don't want power concentrated in the hands of the President, especially when it comes to ordering the killing of Americans suspected of joining terrorist organizations that could be a threat to America.

When Paul starts calling for the elimination of regulations and the repeal of Obamacare, the Senate Club members will start hating him again like they've consistently hated Cruz. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I watch news shows and comment on the mindsets of political players. This morning on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough ranted against Cruz because Cruz was defending the Second Amendment against a bill proposed by Dianne Feinstein that will ban a number of semi-automatic weapons and large magazines. Scarborough calls himself a conservative, and earlier in the show, he said he likes what Rand Paul said in his speech at CPAC. Scarborough represents the wishy washy Centrist, pragamtic politician in DC who's all over the place regarding what they believe or stand for. Soon, and Mika said as much, Scarborough will reject Paul because Paul has stood on a principle which Scarborough calls for compromise for the sake of getting something done legislatively. Scarborough is actually a nobody politically, but he hosts a format that many political players utilize to get exposure, so he reflects the mindsets that populate DC.

Cruz, Rand, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, and a few others are challenging the establishment mindset. They are not intimidated by those in power. The Left-Center alliance in DC has started a campaign to marginalize the New Republicans who want to change the system. It wouldn't suprise me that the recent praise received by Paul from many on Left regarding Paul's filibuster and speech on civil liberties was only partially sincere, and that a secondary purpose for praising Paul is to separate him and coopt him on the Left as has happened to many libertarian types. Libertarians are lured to the Left by concerns for civil liberties, showing a common cause that can only be won through the Democratic Party, they say, then the libertarians go silent on economic liberty. Paul said in his speech yesterday that we all have to start defending economic liberties as well as civil liberties, so he isn't taking the bait. Good. Ted Cruz is definitely not backing down. From what I can tell, Cruz is just getting started.

2014 elections: a liberty test

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342617/paul-lee-cruz-andrew-stiles?pg=2

Andrew Stiles at National Review lays out the battle in the Republican Party between what he calls the Constitutional Conservatives, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and a few others, and the establishment types such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

2014 elections promise to be more interesting that 2010. 2010 was a surprise. No one really saw the magnitude of political activism among Tea Partiers. Now that the "Constitutional Conservatives" are in government and Rand Paul has led a charge, with the help of Cruz, Lee and the others, will Tea Partiers respond to Paul and become an even greater force in 2014? The 2012 election was a diappointment, and I think it was because the Tea Partiers were disillusioned during the primaries.

The GOP establishment appears determined to support Centrist candidates and policies no matter what, and because the establishment and their Centrists political choices all thought they didn't have a chance in 2012 against President Obama, they stayed out of the contest and ridiculed the base. At one point, some establishment types thought that Romney might have a chance and they stirred a bit, but the superior political machine backing Obama snuffed out any chances Romney might have had.

It appeared for awhile that the Tea party had faded, but then we were reminded that the GOP kept power in the House, and that many local state and local elections were won by Tea Party types. 2014 will be different in that Obama and his political machine are determined to generate turnout. Traditionally, the off year elections in which Presidential candidates aren't involved have lower turnouts, but political analysts are claiming that Obama is fully invested in getting Deomcratic Party control of the House. Many political analysts believe that the only way Obama can complete his Progressive agenda is to control the House as well as the Senate, as he did the first two years. Obama is certainly not going to charm the support of the Constitutional Conservatives, so I agree that he has to shoot for the House in 2014.

Will Rand Paul's inspirational filibuster speech generate more turnout among Republicans than Obama can generate among Democrats? It will be very interesting, even if we all dread the media hoopla that will surround it.