Now that Rand Paul has announced his candidacy for president , he'll have to decide what kind of candidate he actually is

Senator Rand Paul, on Tuesday, made his intentions for a run at the Oval Office in 2016 known, steadfastly positioning himself as the candidate ready and willing to put on the rubber gloves and scour the last moldering bits of slovenly, inefficiency from the neglected undercarriage of the GOP.

True libertarianism comes in nearly an infinite quantity of different types and sub-types. One common aspect is a desire, on the part of human communities, to participate and organize in order to serve for public up-building and enrichment.

In “theory”, that is, the “narrative” which he delivers to the public, Rand Paul embraces, completely, the gentleman-like ethical norms befitting a plantation-owning socialite, as the legal universe of John Locke is designed for almost only the existence of such things and the things which serve them.

In “reality” Rand Paul is far better at playing the political game than his father and, no doubt, realizes the benefits of detaching himself from his ideological framework. This is a key reason why Ron Paul failed to gain much widespread support among independents representing all parts of the political spectrum.

Rand Paul has, in the past, shown support for the “Reagan doctrine” with respect to military action abroad. This type of thinking also has past precedent in US history. One such example would be military actions undertaken, under the authority of the US government, against the Barbary States in North Africa.

In addition to this, Sen. Paul’s panel questions – as well as most of his interactions with Ben Bernanke, Secretary of State John Kerry, and 2016 Democratic heavyweight Hillary Clinton – have, no doubt, been termed by some as notoriously reminiscent of the Inquisition. Certainly, there is a place for all forms of criticism. On that same note, however, he has portrayed an “anti-war” stance, albeit from a budget-slashing perspective.

Certainly, the prospects for a Paul candidacy are real. Similarly, it would follow that the prospects for a Rand Paul presidency are “theoretically” real. The eventual composition of the election-candidate-herd also depends on certain dynamic variables which have not, as of yet, necessarily been measured or decided.

If Rand Paul wishes to gain broad support from among his targeted (mostly conservative) and right-leaning moderate base he must forge a narrative which embraces a wide variety of groups. Unfortunately, in order to do so, he may have to re-think a few of his arguments as many of them exclude or disenfranchise certain groups (women, the working classes, the elderly, the disabled, etc.).

There are already quite a few contenders for the soiled Republican baton in 2016. Senator Paul, as well as many other Republicans, will have to contend with a politically-correct scrutiny which often, at its root, seeks contention. One can understand, however, where this political culture comes from.

From a Democratic perspective, Rand Paul (and, for that matter, other challengers like Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush) does not represent much of a tangible threat. With that being said, it is prudent to note that variability within political systems increases exponentially with time measured from one’s reference point. In other words, anything can happen, however the GOP will have to deal with its problem of credibility before gaining a place of contention with other seasoned Democratic contenders.

Leave a Comment