The Curious Case of Rand Paul
Like a little kid constantly demanding attention, Senator Rand Paul whined and squirmed this week, stating he wasn’t going to vote for Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His reasoning was that as a “Republican/Libertarian” he was against American interventionism, and Pompeo might be too willing to enter into the world’s problems.
And, like a little kid bribed with the right amount of attention, he got several calls from the President and lots of media speculation about whether he would be the decisive vote. Paul switched and voted for Pompeo.
It’s not that there aren’t lots of questions about Pompeo’s fitness to do the job. He has impressive academic credentials, finishing first at West Point and earning Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law. But, he has taken concerning stands: coming out against LGBTQ rights and blaming all of Islam for terrorism. These are views that shouldn’t be represented as “American” to the rest of the world.
But those views aren’t Senator Paul’s issue. And clearly Senator Paul’s “Republican/Libertarian” foundation is flexible. He abandoned it in this case. This year, time and time again, Paul has grandstanded on his principles, garnered the publicity, and then knuckled under.
In the continuing budget resolution debate in February, Paul exercised his prerogative as a Senator to “filibuster,” forcing the government to shutdown temporarily. As the Senate was ultimately able to end debate, the government reopened in the middle of the night, but Paul got the “stage” for his period of time. In the $1.6 trillion budget debate of March, Paul again threatened to hold up the voting, but on the last day merely scolded the Senate for the “…monstrosity of bloated government spending.”
In the Affordable Care Act debate, Paul actually stuck to his views, voting against the repeal (the vote when John McCain put his “thumb down.”) In keeping with his philosophy, his negative vote wasn’t in favor of the Affordable Care Act’s survival, but because the repeal that was offered was not complete enough.
So the question is: is Rand Paul a principled Libertarian, or is he a grandstanding Senator, looking to get fifteen minutes of fame. Or, is there a more nuanced way to analyze Paul’s behavior. He wants to get along, especially with President Trump (his fellow Senators have definitely had their fill of him.) It’s not so much out of affection for the President, but out of affection for the “Trump Base.”
Paul’s vision of the future may be a collapsing Trump administration, with an open lane for a race to the Presidency in 2020. Whoever can claim “the base” has a strong starting point for the Republican nomination. And if Trump runs again (oh boy!) in 2020, well, Paul is relatively young at fifty-five, he can wait.
There are several “principled” Senators, who follow their established beliefs, on both sides of the aisle. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Flake of Arizona both have taken different but clearly defined paths about what’s good for America. And there are Senators who, due to politics or their ideological beliefs, stand in the middle. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Susan Collins of Maine are good examples of that.
But Paul’s stands are curious, as he follows his own Libertarian bent. It’s not that following a philosophy is wrong whether you agree with it or not, it’s that his views seem to conveniently bend to the needs of his political life.
Maybe that’s why the neighbor next door decided he’d had enough and attacked Paul in a backyard brawl. I’m sure Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have all wanted to do the same.
