Rand Paul refuses TSA pat-down. But is he really a libertarian?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rand Paul's much-ballyhooed pat-down refusal today is, to me, a non-story, except insofar as it seems to validate his libertarian cred.

While an airport may not be the best place to make the anti-government case for civil liberties, and while I can't say I'm overly concerned about fairly aggressive airport security (without infringing unreasonably on civil liberties, of course), it's easy to understand why he did what he did.

Basically, he set off an alarm, refused a full-body pat-down, was not detained (according to the TSA), was "denied access to the secure gate area" and "escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement," and ended up on a different flight later on after going through security without a problem.

No big deal.

But here's the thing. Paul is a right-wing libertarian. He believes in extremely limited government. And he has been fairly consistent in embracing that view. But... where was he going?

Paul, a Republican, was traveling to Washington, when he was detained [or not, as the TSA claims]. He noted earlier on his Twitter that he was planning to speak at the March for Life.

"Today I'll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it," tweeted Rand Paul at 9:49 A.M.

As Steve Benen writes, "So, Rand Paul, always cautious about his privacy rights, balked at airport security measures. He was en route to a March for Life rally, where he'll speak to activists who don't believe there is a right to privacy. Libertarians sure are an odd bunch."

I'm actually willing to grant that there isn't any hypocrisy here. If you believe that life begins at conception and that government, even a libertarian one, has a duty to protect life, well, you do the math. Pro-choicers may not want to hear it, but it's not about privacy for these pro-lifers / anti-choicers, it's about protecting the lives of the unborn. This isn't a view that I share, but I used to (sort of, to a point), and I understand where they, or at least the more sensible among them, are coming from. It would be different if Paul were arguing against, say, contraception or same-sex marriage or otherwise trying to deny privacy and equal rights. Abortion, alas, is a different matter -- or at least can be understood to be.

And yet the tag of hypocrisy still applies. Paul, for example, is against same-sex marriage. And, unlike his father, he's pro-Gitmo.

I suppose you could say that no one's perfect, but Paul's views suggest that his libertarianism is malleable, and that he holds views fundamentally at odds with libertarianism. Indeed, he may not be much of a libertarian at all, certainly not like his father. At the very least, he's anything but consistent.

Rand Paul slams Newt, says he's "not even a conservative"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Writing today at The Des Moines Register, extreme Teabagging Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, son of renegade libertarian Republican Ron Paul, pulls no punches in going after GOP presidential frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich:

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012. 

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — "one of the most unpopular government programs in American history," even according to President Obama's own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

And then he specifically targets Gingrich, who "began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party" and whose "heart is still there," who was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, and... well, you get the picture. Basically, "Gingrich is not from the tea party" and "is not even a conservative." He's a member of "the Washington establishment" and "has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day."

Most of this is ridiculous. As a long-time lawmaker, Gingrich certainly has a more nuanced record than an ideologue like Paul, who just arrived on a scene a few years ago. And, sure, Gingrich has been pragmatic, allying with Democrats at times and also taking positions out of line with right-wing Republican orthodoxy, and particularly out of line with Tea Party extremism. But he's still a conservative, whatever his occasional lapses on issues such as climate change and immigration.

What's interesting here is, first, how Rand characterizes himself. He describes himself as "a U.S. senator elected from and by the tea party," not as a Republican. But what's also interesting is the severe litmus test Paul, one of the most influential Teabaggers, is applying to the GOP presidential race. If even Gingrich isn't conservative enough, and he's certainly more conservative than Romney, then what? Or, rather, who? Rick Perry is more theocrat than Teabagger. Michele Bachmann probably qualifies, but she's an also-ran at this point. So who else could there be?

Ah, yes, Papa Paul.

While the race has turned into a Gingrich-vs.-Romney battle, with Newt now pushing back against Mitt's attacks, Ron Paul is lingering as a solid third-place candidate. He won't win the nomination, but he has a loyal and intense following of libertarian Republicans and could do well enough in some states, including Iowa, to influence the outcome. Indeed, the latest RCP averages have him tied for second with Romney in Iowa at 17.4 (well back of Gingrich at 29.8) and running a solid third in New Hampshire (though also well back in South Carolina).

So perhaps Rand is just shilling for Ron, trying to make the case that Newt's not the right Tea Party choice. Perhaps he even understands, as Conor Friedersdorf does, that a Gingrich win would be a disaster for the Tea Party.

Whatever the case, there's no denying the ongoing influence of the Tea Party in the GOP and how unsettled the situation remains. Gingrich has emerged at just the right time, and a big win in Iowa followed by a strong showing in New Hampshire and a win in South Carolina and then Florida could very well propel him too far into the lead for anyone to catch up. But it's clear that a lot of Republicans, Rand Paul included, aren't happy with Gingrich, while the alternative, Romney, is even worse.

So what can they do? Keep promoting Ron Paul, perhaps, though Paul would be even less likely to be able to unite the party, regardless of what his fanatics think.

Really, though, is it any wonder Republicans are already in a state of near-panic? Denial may be holding them back, but reality is about to take over.

The World is the Battlefield

By Capt. Fogg

I find it remarkable that the proposed provision of the Defense Authorization act enabling a President to detain anyone suspected of belonging to a terrorist organization indefinitely and without trial, can be presented as one of those bits of "evidence" that Barack Obama is trashing the constitution. Obama's Indefinite Detention Powers is the title of more than one article. Remarkable indeed since he's threatening to veto the abomination if it passes.

I do recognize that since the Authorization for Use of Military forces (AUMF) that Congress approved after the September 11 terrorist attacks was used to bolster somewhat unfair arguments that Bush was trashing the revered document, an equal and more ridiculous counter charge has to be leveled against his Democratic successor. That is a principle we had beat into our consciousness when Bill Clinton had to face charges, some contrived and some with marginal merit that were so like unto those Nixon was glaringly guilty of.

But I digress. I'm not surprised to hear such things slithering in the murky Senatorial cistern, but I'm surprised at the bipartisan support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) bill and the astonishing lack of debate over this shocking redaction of the Bill of Rights. I was however surprised and pleased to hear Rand Paul declare opposition is heatedly as I would do, given the chance.

I was nauseated and enraged to hear our former Presidential contender, John McCain rail about how dangerous "these people" were without regard to how we determine fairly whether or not the accusations are true. I have been raised to think that justice demanded a fair trial and no decent civilization has failed to provide a process to determine the truth of an accusation, sometimes made under duress or torture or out of jealousy or greed or worse. A less stuffy writer might simply ask: how the hell do we know the charges are true without a trial?

Senator McCain doesn't seem to care, although with his history, he might just give the opposite position tomorrow and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seems proud of his shiny new black boots, claiming that now we can jail any American citizen because "it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland." Did he mean to say Vaterland?

"The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of “Meals Ready to Eat,” weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial."

writes Senator Paul in the National Review.

Yes, I think our legislators have earned their 8% approval rating and can only wonder why it isn't lower. John McCain, you're a goddamn terrorist yourself, attempting to make Americans afraid for political purposes. Rand Paul: you may be far right, but you're damn right too!

(Cross posted from Human Voices)