Originally Posted by
SicEmBaylor
My thoughts and feelings on the last two Republican nominees is no secret. People have criticized my politics by saying, “SicEm, don’t you know that no candidate is perfect? You have to compromise.” Or they would tell me, “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils! Don’t you understand that one choice is always going to be better than the other choice?” I always rejected the sentiment behind all of those statements and questions. My position was and remains the same: I will not vote for a candidate who does not share my values and principles. I’m quite aware of the fact that no candidate is perfect; I’m aware that some allowances and some compromises must be made. My standards should not be viewed as unrealistic nor should the bar be considered too high to reach for a viable Republican candidate. What I expect is that, on the whole, a candidate demonstrate a commitment to truly limiting and reducing the size/scope of government while also protecting and expanding individual/civil liberties. That is why we’re all Republicans, correct? We didn’t just wake up one day, flip a coin, and choose our party based on whether the coin landed on heads/tails. We’re Republicans because the Republican Party is *supposed* to stand for something. It’s supposed to stand for limited-government and individual/constitutional rights. Let’s be clear: John McCain did not and does not believe in limiting government or expanding liberty. Mitt Romney did not believe in limiting government or expanding government. McCain is downright hostile to both while Romney, at best, sought to merely manage the rate of government growth.
There are two viable Republican candidates who have shown a commitment to the aforementioned criteria I laid out in the previous paragraph (one more so than the other.) My choice, as everyone knows, is Rand Paul. Paul has often been criticized by committed libertarians as not being libertarian enough, but Paul has never claimed to be a strict libertarian. He has been criticized for not being conservative enough (more on that later). Paul more closely matches my politics than any other major Republican since, perhaps, Barry Goldwater. Nobody should mistake Paul as being anything other than a conservative -- Paul is decidedly conservative with a libertarian streak. He’s libertarian in precisely those areas that will appeal to a greater constituency than the traditional Republican base, and this is an area where Paul has a definite edge over Cruz. Paul has made real efforts over his Senate term to reach out to those constituencies that normally have little or no contact with the Republican Party, namely, the tech industry and black community.
There have been criticisms of Paul from so-called conservatives who think he is too soft on foreign policy (he’s actually too hardline for my tastes), too weak on national security issues, and too permissive with drug policy. These criticisms belie the fact that those individuals fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Mainstream (neoconservative) foreign policy that is the dominant position of the Republican Party is the deformed and monstrous offspring of progressive foreign policy -- it is a bizarre and dangerous combination of Wilsonianism and Trotskyism. It is entirely alien to conservatism save the last 10+ years that saw the rise of its popularity to such an extent that it redefined the meaning of conservative foreign policy. Paul advocates a more traditional conservative view of conservatism that ensures the nation is prepared to defend itself, non-interventionism, and peaceful trade and negotiations even with nations that may be viewed viewed as hostile. Paul maintains, correctly, that any military action must be accompanied by Congressional authorization. Paul also maintains that the 4th Amendment is vital and one of the cornerstones of our Republic. Conservatism is about protecting and maintaining our Constitution, and our traditional/founding principles of liberty. Paul’s opposition to mass government snooping and surveillance on private information does precisely that -- it conserves the integrity of our Constitution and founding principles. Lastly, Paul has fought to point out the injustice of our nation’s drug laws and how it has turned such a large portion of our population into criminals making society even less safe. Criminal justice reform and a grand re-examination of our ‘drug war’ ought to be principles conservatives are in the street demanding. Furthermore, it’s a state issue that ought to be decided by the various state legislatures as opposed to the Federal government mandating a uniform policy upon all.
With all of that, I get messages from friends and family pointing to this or that and asking whether I agree with Paul and how I can still support him in lieu of that comment/statement. Sometimes I agree with Paul; sometimes I disagree with Paul. That takes us back to my 1st paragraph when I pointed out that I have never expected a candidate to be perfect. People criticize me for being too uncompromising and looking for the ‘perfect candidate’ while others expect me to abandon a candidate because I disagree with them on this issue or that issue. Which should it be? For my part, I will continue to support candidates that (on the whole) stand on the side of liberty. That isn’t to say that Paul will never do anything to lose my support -- he very well might! But no disagreement I have yet had with Paul rises to the level of abandoning the best chance the Republican Party has ever had to expand its base, the best chance to limit the size and scope of government, the best chance to expand individual liberty, and the best chance to move toward a more rational and pragmatic foreign policy.
That’s why I continue to #StandWithRand
