The GOP's senatorial candidate in Kentucky Rand Paul has gotten himself into a wee bit of trouble over the past couple of days, first with remarks about the Civil Rights Act that he's had to walk back and now with criticism of the Obama Administration's tough stance on BP.
I get it: the guy's a libertarian through and through and he's committed to his principles, even if they don't always play well in the 24 hour media grist mill of contemporary America. And you have to admire the guy for having some bedrock principles and sticking to them, but at the same time, this only underlines a problem with politics that America's libertarians have yet to learn: orthodoxy is fine, ideological purity is fine, but it doesn't win you a lot of elections.
I know, I know- it seems like I'm selling out to the forces that say we should just do and say what we have to in order to win an election, but at the same time, there's not an ideology out there that you can name that when applied in its purest form into the real world as either a. remained 'pure' or b. worked all that well. Pragmatic allowances have to made in order to tailor your ideology and beliefs to the world we live in today. It also helps you win elections now and again.
Of course, Rand Paul could prove me wrong, stick to his guns and win the race in Kentucky. But one would hope as a guy who seems to be pretty smart, intelligent and genuinely interested in making a positive impact in Washington, he'd have the intellectual flexibility not to be rigid in his adherence to libertarian orthodoxy.
UPDATED 6:18 PM: Ann Althouse weighs in with some nice analysis that's worth reading, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment