Rand Paul

Since I should be politically expected to comment on this, a couple things

1) He hasn't won the Senate seat. All he did was defeat the other GOP candidate in order to run for Senate in a state that is politically, typically, a polar opposite to what might be conceived of as libertarian politics: that is, it is socially conservative and fiscally moderate/liberal. There is a strong anti-establishment trend in Kentucky, as appears to be growing throughout the hills and valleys of this broad nation's lands. But there's also still a weird sense of entitlement to controls over establishing certain cultural norms through legal authoritarianism. I suspect Grayson had a better chance of winning the general election, just as Bob Bennett did (and probably still does) in Utah. Essentially what he won then was: an election within conservatives, a group which has self-segregated itself through some attrition into a strong cohort of ultra conservative views on a number of issues, demanding fealty on all of them. Rand Paul delivered on most of these while de-emphasizing opposition to things like the war on drugs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as major political issues. In other words, he ran a better campaign. That might mean he has a good shot at a Senate seat next year, which, following this narrative, is supposedly great for "libertarians".

2) Except, for the most part, Rand Paul does not really seem like my kind of libertarian. He's useful for the mild, but by comparison to his father very mild, opposition to the foreign entanglements that have plagued our political debates over the past decade or more. If he wins the general election, I won't necessarily go out and call the guy a lunatic either. But I have some disagreements to raise, more than I do with Ron, some of the same ones. Most of the "end the Fed" stuff is a non-starter for me, or at least, isn't getting me all riled up nearly as much as things that the Fed does that it shouldn't, or, especially things it doesn't do when it should (such as the continuing trend of deflation when we need a policy of depreciation/mild inflation). Coming to a greater appreciation for libertarianism through Freidman (who was a monetarist), tends to mean that fractional reserve currencies don't bother me as much as they seem to bother others. Usually others with much less economic training than the Rothbard, Rand, or other philosopher/writer they've been reading and presumably are heavily influenced by on this and any number of other topics. Besides which, having a "strong" currency is really a meaningless problem to me in a world with global trade where currency values will be relative and the US dollar is still held as a reserve currency (artificially strengthening it).

I really don't see where someone who favors military commissions gets off being called "libertarian", though there's at least an argument (a weaker one from a national security perspective I think because of the absurdity of treating scumbags with high explosives and rifles like they are soldiers, particularly in an environment with a vague, amorphous enemy force with non-specific end points in combat terms) that these are a form of check and balance against government authoritarian systems that would have no form of trial at all to determine indefinite detentions.

And I really don't expect the government to protect me from the "scourges" of gays and abortions and pre-marital sex (bones I pick with both Ron and Rand). Nor from the "scourge" of having to press one for English or low-wage competition in labour markets. None of this is something I would call particularly "libertarian" and hence a reason to celebrate some great and tangible victory for that largely forgotten corner of political philosophy. It does all seem to be red meat for Tea Party people. But I wouldn't call that a cogent movement centered on libertarian principles either. I guess it's better than nothing, but I really don't feel like celebrating as though some great prize was won here. The needle moved a little bit. I suppose opposing a whole raft of government programs and departments would be useful and appreciated. I'm just highly skeptical of people who don't appreciate basic human liberties and rights as being capable of persuading other people of the pragmatic utility of ending such programs of economic distortion and public coercion used to extract economic rents.

And in any case, the likelihood of any serious legislation on most of these points ever coming up is about zero (mostly because on most of these issues the public does not care and there is broad bipartisan support for many of these silly ideas like agricultural tariffs and subsidies). The likelihood of wars of aggression being started for no apparent service to our national interests is a bit higher. If all the actual use I have for Mr Paul(s) is serious conservative wing opposition to foreign policy adventurism, under the theory that America is like the world's greatest superhero, I guess that's a good start. I don't foresee his budget hawkish-ness translating into policies simply because I don't think there are enough budget hawks in existence, both now because of exigent circumstances that Keynesian/Neo-Keynesians think matter, and later, when those circumstances don't exist (employment picks back up, inflation is "normal", etc), because the choices involved have proved to be still politically toxic (witness Paul Ryan's flat reception to an attempt at serious budget reform, Obama probably took it more seriously than did the public or his own party).

Update: The fact he said on NPR that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act is probably not a great starting point for the general election. Even in Kentucky. (update: and on MSNBC things got tense) It doesn't sound like he would have voted against the entire bill, merely he has strong reservations about one provision in particular (employer/business owner discrimination being illegal). But the history of the Jim Crow South and the legal and cultural institutions surrounding it suggest that the ability of private businesses NOT to discriminate is something that did require some sort of legal action in order to foster and create.

More updates: The fact that Bill Kristol seems to like him suggests that some of the good and pragmatic parts of the libertarian business end are no longer seriously in play (civil liberties, anti-wars, anti-drug war stuff). I'm not sure this is quite true so much as Rand is better at covering these up for his audience while feeding them a line on budget hawkishness (without really explaining how that works in practical "I'm cutting this 200 billion dollars" terms) that apparently sells. But a candidate who runs with the "Obama apology tour" is probably not covering these things up so much as running away from them. And that is not a reason for libertarians to be happier today than yesterday. We're not being endorsed here so much as fleeced.