Rand Paul filibuster brings GOP rats out into the light for us all to see

By David McElroy · March 7, 2013

Rand Paul has a better chance of being elected president than his father ever had. That’s partly because he’s more willing to play the pragmatic party political game, but it’s also partly because he’s not the doctrinaire libertarian that his father generally was.

Paul’s filibuster in the U.S. Senate Wednesday was nothing but political theater, but it ended up achieving something unexpected. It flushed out some of the highest-ranking Republicans and forced them to show the disdain they feel whenever individual liberties are concerned.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham not only didn’t support Paul, but they spent Thursday actively attacking him. McCain took to the Senate floor to attack Paul’s concern that the Obama administration would ever use drone strikes on Americans inside the borders of the country. Graham not only attacked Paul, but praised Obama’s use of drone strikes to kill people on the other side of the world.

After starting his filibuster alone Wednesday, Paul was eventually joined by a few Republican senators and one Democratic senator. While they talked about constitutional rights and lambasted the Obama administration for its refusal to say that it didn’t have legal authority to unilaterally kill Americans in this country, where were McCain and Graham?

They were with the Republican establishment having dinner with Obama.

If you’re one of the many conservatives who believe that the Republican Party is your savior when it comes to battling big government, think again. There’s a small core of GOP politicians who are somewhat more likely to be on the side of individual freedom than the statist old guard is, but those who believe in freedom are a minority in their own party.

All Republicans talk loudly about individual freedom and smaller government, but few of them mean it. Even fewer are willing to take concrete steps to implement their ideas. And a few of them — including McCain and Graham — are downright hostile to those who take constitutional freedoms seriously.

You might tell yourself that the GOP is going to change. After all, the senators who supported Paul Wednesday were generally younger ones who were elected in the last few years. It’s a good theory, but look at how this pattern really works.

Remember back in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a group of “radical” conservative Republicans to take over the U.S. House? Their Contract with America was going to change everything. These young congressmen were going to be the ones who restored freedom and reduced the size of government. That’s been almost 20 years. How’s that working out? Is government smaller today?

People who go to Washington and become part of the system are going to tend to become quite happy with government. They’re going to say and do whatever they need in order to keep their constituents from revolting at election time, but most of them aren’t going to do much beyond that — partly because they can’t. The worst of them are going to become so friendly with government that they’re actually happy to trust politicians with the unchecked power to kill, just as McCain and Graham are today.

Paul’s filibuster isn’t going to change anything. The nomination of Obama’s choice for CIA director was easily passed Thursday. Obama is going to keep using drones to kill whoever he wants to kill. And if it ever becomes convenient and politically expedient, he’ll kill whoever he wants to kill here in this country. That’s not because Obama is especially evil compared to the rest. It’s simply because he’s a U.S. president who enjoys power and believes he’s entitled to use it.

On Thursday, the Obama administration finally responded to Paul’s question about killing Americans with a curt letter admitting that the president doesn’t have the power to kill Americans “not engaged in combat on American soil.” It’s amazing that an administration could fight so hard to avoid saying something so obviously true — and it’s also amazing that anyone could believe their statement carries any weight if they change their minds later.

Long-term, I see two things noteworthy about the filibuster.

First, it’s raised Paul’s profile greatly in the Republican Party. He showed the kind of political savvy that it takes to ignite a party’s base and win a presidential nomination. Can you think of any other recent president who’s been elected with no political experience other than a single term in the Senate? Yep. Barack Obama.

Second, Paul’s filibuster got some establishment Republicans to show which side they’re really on. For the most part, it’s not Red vs. Blue in Washington. It’s Establishment vs. Outsiders. In this case, the Establishment rats showed themselves for what they are. I hope the real Outsiders across the country were taking notes.

The filibuster itself didn’t change anything. It’s not going to change anything. But it was emotionally satisfying to hear someone get so much media attention for telling the truth about individual rights for a change. I’m not under the illusion that anything will change.

But it did feel good.

Share on Social Networks

I’ve never been attracted to skinny women. There’s nothing wrong with someone who’s naturally thin, but it’s never been my preference. What has shocked me, though, is the judgment I’ve heard from women all through my life — about themselves and others — about who’s “fat.” I concluded long ago that most women in our culture have been brainwashed to believe that skinny is attractive — and that anything other than skinny is ugly. I first assumed that I was the oddball — for preferring women with bigger and heavier bodies — but I’m coming to the conclusion that most men naturally feel this way to one extent or another. I just ran across new research by a couple of Northwestern University psychology professors that shows that women seriously overestimate how much a straight man will be attracted to a skinny woman. In a perfect world, we would all be at a healthy weight, but when it comes to attractiveness, too heavy is more attractive than skinny. At least to me — and to a lot of men, too.

Years ago, I heard a question that seemed very insightful at the time. You’ve probably heard it, too. What would you do if you knew you couldn’t fail? The question is intended to help you uncover things you really want to do, but which you’re afraid to try — for fear of failure. In an interview today, I heard the great marketing guru Seth Godin give a different point of view. He said the better question is to ask what you would do even if you knew it would fail. That struck me as far more insightful than the original version. We ought to be doing what we know is right, not what will maximize our success or praise from others. There are some battles that are worth fighting even if you believe you’re doomed to failure. Those battles are often for love or important ideas or our children. Some things are simply worth fighting for — and the truth is that you might win anyway. Do the right thing. Take the chance.

The more I understand about myself, about human nature and about the nature of reality, the more I realize I’m a radical by the standards of both Modernism and Postmodernism. Seeing the things which I’m stumbling toward makes me an enemy of many of the core ideas upon which contemporary culture is built. It exposes the culture as a monstrous lie — like a dangerous infection that’s slowly destroying what human were created to be. My “inner observer” has always known that truth was found in the ideas of the Enlightenment, but I’m slowly finding words to explain what has merely been instinct until now. The Enlightenment was humanity’s great leap forward, but shallow and arrogant thinkers for the next two centuries threw away the fruits of that achievement. We can’t go forward as a species until we go back to correct this intellectual and spiritual error — and part of that is acknowledging that our collective attempts to do away with our Creator will always fail.

I’ve come to believe that some of us — including me — aren’t very good at knowing how to be happy. I don’t mean that in the sense that happy talk and positive thinking should be able to make us happy regardless of the circumstances. I mean that some of us had so much experience with being unhappy when we were young that we were trained to be unhappy — and that being happy is an unconsciously uncomfortable thing. When I look at times in my past when I should have been happy, it rarely lasted. I believe now that I found reasons to be unhappy — and caused real problems for myself — because being comfortable and happy felt so foreign to my programming. If I’m right, this means that some of us have to do more than just change our circumstances. It means we have to learn how to accept the happiness that we unconsciously fear we don’t deserve.

After I wrote last night about being happy, I thought of an old song that mirrored what I was feeling. After listening to the entire album, I found it remarkable how well the emotions of that music match my own heart at this point in my life. Bob Bennett’s “Matters of the Heart” came out while I was in college. Even after all these years, it holds up really well, and you can listen to the entire album on YouTube. The specific song which matched my feelings last night was “Madness Dancing,” but I still find every song on the album to be strong with the exception of the eighth and ninth. (The song about his parents, called “1951,” is especially poignant.) In fact, the opening and closing songs paint a picture of my heart at its best now in these lines: “A light shining in this heart of darkness, A new beginning and a miracle, Day by day the integration of the concrete and the spiritual.” It’s old music that you’ve probably never heard, but it means a lot to me.

Related Posts