Strange
by digby
To any progressives who are flirting with the idea of backing libertarian candidates as a protest vote against the Democrats, here's an interesting editorial from the Louisville Courier-Journal about the Republican Senate primary between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson.
Here's the passage about Paul:
Dr. Paul's father, Ron Paul, is a well-known congressman from Texas who has run for president twice — in 1988 as a Libertarian and in 2008 as a Republican. But with Rand Paul, it's not merely a matter of “like father, like son.” Dr. Paul, 48, is an independent thinker, whose articulate, good-humored approach to politics has caught many in the Grand Old Party by surprise.
Dr. Paul's maverick streak is a challenge of sorts to the pooh-bah of Kentucky Republicans, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who at least behind the scenes is backing Mr. Grayson. The secretary of state is positioning himself to be a loyal foot soldier in Mr. McConnell's destructive, dishonest effort to undermine virtually every initiative from the Obama administration.
The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.
He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.
His perspectives — like Mr. Grayson's — are repellent to those who believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Indeed, Dr. Paul wouldn't even permit exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says the mother and the unborn zygote have equal rights.
It's an unusual kind of "liberty" and "property" that says a woman doesn't own her own body, but that's where libertarians Ron and Rand Paul stand on the issue. If that, or the fact that they believe that (men's) property rights trump human rights is something with which you agree, well then I'm sure they say some things that sound pretty good.
These are certainly people you'd think Democrats could work with in congress on certain issues. In the same way that a far right Republican will discover that he wants the government to fund research for Parkinson's when his mother comes down with it, libertarians will sometimes make common cause with Democrats on discrete civil liberties issues and foreign wars. But other than that, there's a very good reason why they almost always align themselves with the Republican party --- after all, they agree with them on the most important issue to both of them. Taxes, of course.
Legislative strange bedfellows are common in DC. Indeed, alliances made up of people who find each other useful even if they have completely different aims is a natural part of negotiating political deals --- and politicians often suffer from lack of trust because of it. But I honestly don't think movement politics can be coherent or successful if it adopts such a utilitarian philosophy. People identify with political movements (as opposed to single issue advocacy) out of broad shared values and world view. They aren't all that well suited to legislative sausage making or convoluted political gamesmanship. It's dissonant and ends up confusing people. Sometimes strange political bedfellows are just too strange.
.