Advertisement

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Rand Rising: 7 Reasons Why Rand Paul’s Filibuster Matters

Among “the rising stars” in the GOP that we hear more and more about, none shines as brightly as Rand Paul.

To repeat: if the future of the Republican Party can be said to have a face, those who love liberty should hope that is that of Senator Paul’s. 

Paul’s filibuster of President Obama’s nominee for CIA Director John Brennan is significant for several reasons.

First, Paul succeeded in doing what no Republican politician has managed to do from at least the time that Obama assumed the presidency: he raised the morale of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians from the ashes to new heights.  Finally, one of the elected representatives of the party of “limited government” showed himself to be someone around whom they could rally.

Advertisement

Second, if he hadn’t done so already, Paul immunized himself against the sorts of smear tactics to which his father’s fellow Republicans routinely subjected him.  As a consequence of lacking his son’s political savvy, Ron Paul lent himself to being portrayed as a kind of fringe candidate. Rand Paul, in contrast, now commands the respect and admiration of just those mainstream Republicans who made sport of his dad.  In fact, a consensus seems to be emerging that Rand Paul promises to be quite the viable presidential candidate in 2016.

Third, Paul provoked some of his colleagues to join him on the floor.  Whether they would have initiated a filibuster in the absence of Paul’s lead is anyone’s guess.  However, for present purposes, their intentions are not relevant.  What matters is that Paul emboldened them to take a stand against the Obama administration.

Advertisement

Fourth, because of the actions of this one man, on this one day, the issue of drone attacks vis-à-vis our constitutional liberties has been thrust front and center in the media.  That is, people are talking once again about the Constitution.

Fifth, Paul beckoned forth criticism for his filibuster from Senate veterans John McCain and Lindsay Graham.  This only endeared Paul that much more to those legions of the GOP’s constituents who long ago grew disenchanted with their party precisely because of its McCains and Grahams.  It also enabled Paul to sharply distinguish himself from his critics without having to say another word.

Sixth, among those Republicans whose names are now being bandied about as possible presidential contenders in 2016, Rand Paul alone stands a strong chance of garnering, not just the support, but the enthusiastic support, of voters from across the political spectrum.  Those four million or so self-identified Republicans and libertarians who stayed away from the polls back in November because they refused to any longer vote for Big Government Republicans know that Rand, like his father, don’t just talk the talk when it comes to constitutional liberty.  Independents and many Democrats who have grown weary of the leftist excesses of the Democratic Party also find much to respect—and trust—in the Pauls.  Of no other Republican can the same be said at this time.  

Advertisement

There is one final reason why Paul’s filibuster matters. Not unsurprisingly, it seems to have gotten lost in much of the praise that has been heaped upon the Senator from Kentucky.

The points that Paul made during his nearly 13 hours on the Senate floor on Wednesday were just those points around which his much maligned father centered his political career.  They were just those points, in other words, for which many of the same Republicans who now cheer Paul the younger once blasted Paul the elder.

Ron Paul knew what America’s Founding Fathers knew: there is no liberty unless there is a wide dispersion of political power.  Unless a government is divided against itself, unless it is constrained by numerous “checks and balances,” the individual citizen will be forever at its mercy.  It is this insight that led the Founders to devise the Constitution.

Advertisement

And it is this insight that led Ron Paul to throw up as much resistance to the Republican Party’s prosecution of “the War on Terror” as he did.

Thankfully, for the lovers of liberty, the son shares his father’s commitment to the vision of liberty embodied in the Constitution. Rand’s filibuster was not motivated by partisan considerations. Like his dad, and like our Founders, he knows that government, regardless of party, is at no time more a threat to liberty than when it seeks to amass large concentrations of power for the ostensible sake of “keeping us safe.”

Hopefully, more Americans are once again coming to know this now thanks to Rand Paul.      

 originally published at World Net Daily

 

Previous Posts

The Only Antidote to the Oppression of Blacks in America?
In light of the latest turn of events in Baltimore, I’ve belatedly arrived at a painful realization: American blacks will never receive the justice that they demand until they cease being American. In other words, justice for blacks in ...

posted 9:41:52pm May. 06, 2015 | read full post »

The Myth of Munich
AFC guest blogger, Myron Pauli, shows how history has been distorted and transformed into political fodder for such fanatical war mongers as John McCain and Lindsay Graham.   To some, “Munich” is identified with Oktoberfest; ...

posted 9:15:36pm Apr. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Questions on Baltimore for Democrats AND Republicans
In light of the latest Baltimore conflagration—that’s right, as Colin Flaherty, among others, have noted, mass violence and the destruction of property is par for the course in predominantly black cities like Baltimore—I offer some ...

posted 8:34:18pm Apr. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Al Sharpton and Republicans: Like Draws to Like?
“Like draws to like.” “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.” These are pearls of wisdom, the distilled moral wisdom of “generations and of ages,” as Burke has said. Yet they have been largely trampled ...

posted 9:01:43pm Apr. 21, 2015 | read full post »

The Moral Imperative of Being Mannerly
What we call “manners” consists of a family of habits or customs that are, with ever greater—indeed, alarming—frequency, regarded as, at best, niceties or pleasantries. At worst, they are viewed as the antiquated fictions of a bourgeois ...

posted 10:34:06pm Apr. 07, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.