As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., visits Russia this week to encourage more diplomacy, he does so in the wake of criticism from the Left and Right that he’s “dumped his principles,” proved himself a “hypocrite,” and even a “stooge” for President Trump, citing everything from the senator’s changing positions on the administration’s nominees to his defense of the president’s efforts in Helsinki last month.
“Once the G.O.P.’s resident iconoclast, the ‘libertarian-ish’ senator and the authoritarian-curious president have become unlikely allies,” Vanity Fair’s Tina Nguyen charged. “We are all used to the Kentucky Republican’s defenses of his (allegedly) deeply held principles,” wrote Washington Examiner contributor James Hasson. “According to Rand, his career in the Senate is that of a man who has fought doggedly for civil liberties, reduced spending, and conservative values.” Hasson added, “Except he has not done those things.”
Where has Hasson been? Does he have cable or Internet? Does he even follow politics?
How many times in Paul’s eight-year senate career has he held up a vote, been accused of obstructionism or utterly annoyed his party and larger Washington establishment because he stands up time and again to defend the Bill of Rights or demand fiscal conservatism? He’s done this time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. There’s no way I could possibly hyperlink every example where he’s fought consistently to promote a libertarian and conservative agenda in this column. (But here’s another example of Paul doing what Hasson says he never has. And another. What the hell, here’s one more).
Too many of Paul’s critics seem to want to have it both ways.
They say the senator is more interested in theatrics and lone wolf stunts than results, thus supposedly proving he really has no principles and is just always showboating; but also, when he pursues policy goals or attempts to wield influence by making politically calculated decisions or forming alliances (particularly with Trump) — in other words, the accepted conventional way of doing things in Washington — taking this approach also somehow proves Paul has no principles because he’s behaving as a practical politician.
Almost all of these criticisms come from Democrats that never liked Paul to begin with, or Republican hawks and neoconservatives who never miss an opportunity to take a jab at a libertarian senator they rightly see as their natural enemy within the GOP. Paul has enough predisposed haters on both sides of the spectrum that when enough of them pile on in any given moment, it’s easy to construct mostly false narratives intentionally designed to negatively target the senator.
It’s a ruse.
Here’s the truth: Paul is arguably the most principled leader in Washington and in the Senate, with respect to others who belong in that conversation, like rigid constitutionalist Mike Lee, R-Utah, and consistent civil libertarian Ron Wyden, D-Ore. This is something I can say with confidence not only because of the senator’s record, but also as a former staffer, collaborator, and fellow libertarian traveler who’s watched him closer than many since day one.
Paul takes whatever approach he deems necessary depending on the circumstances of the issue, precisely because he’s most interested in advancing an overall libertarian and conservative agenda. He’s never above taking a lone or quixotic stand to make a point, and often does, but he also doesn’t limit himself to a career of doing only that, even if many of his foes and fans believe he should.
This was true when Paul said he was “honestly undecided” on voting for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over his troubling Fourth Amendment views, and then announced later he would support him. Critics were quick to call it a flip-flop, though Paul had never ruled out voting for Kavanaugh. Few if any of those critics also noted that Paul’s decision was based largely on the nominee agreeing that a recent court decision (Carpenter v. United States) set a new precedent that refuted his earlier anti-privacy views that troubled Paul. This important fact is probably worth mentioning, but few did because they were too busy relishing the idea that the senator had simply rolled over for Trump.
One can reasonably disagree with Paul’s decision. But they’re simply wrong if they believe liberty principles are not a primary consideration. For Paul, they always are, and are never taken lightly.
That said, Paul’s critics are not wrong that he picks his battles.
This was particularly true in the case of the nomination process of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, where Paul originally said he would vote no on the hawkish nominee, but then changed his mind. This was a flip-flop by any measure. He said one thing originally but ended up doing another.
Here was Sen. Paul’s statement on the change:
National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote in response to Paul’s Pompeo statement, “It all had the feel of compromise and dissatisfaction, of a purely political decision.” But Dougherty also added, “And for Paul, I think it was the right one.”
“Compromise and dissatisfaction” was somehow still the “right” judgment call by Paul? How could this be? Dougherty continued, “I agree with Paul’s project of calling the party to a less interventionist foreign policy. But doing so requires a very hard-headed acceptance of the limits of one senator’s power and of the political landscape.”
Dougherty detailed how Paul railing and voting against Pompeo would ultimately be a dead-end, not only yielding zero political or moral dividends for Paul, but would also not thwart the secretary of state’s confirmation. Dougherty thought it wiser for Paul to spend his political capital in battles where he could actually make a difference.
Despite these kinds of political frustrations, this is also a good position for Paul and libertarians-at-large to be in. Libertarians now find themselves relevant political players in a way that is unprecedented in U.S. history. Dougherty explained the complex but ultimately hopeful uniqueness of Paul being America’s first “Political Libertarian:”
But a “political libertarian” is inevitably going to disappoint those of his supporters who want a politician to embody their beliefs in a way calculated not to change government policy and our political culture, but to perpetually and clearly condemn it.
Realists, libertarians, and non-interventionists can continue to question whether the compromises Paul is making are worth it. But that he has to make them should be beyond dispute by now. So far, his judgment seems just about right.
Left, Right and even libertarian critics can disagree with Paul’s call on Pompeo. I wasn’t thrilled with it myself. But nor did I question for even a moment whether or not promoting a liberty agenda was Paul’s long-term central mission, even when he’s picking his battles, and even when what he chooses is less than pleasing to his core ideological base.
A few questionable decisions do not overshadow a lengthy record of being pro-liberty. If so, that kind of extreme threshold would exclude Paul or anyone else of being a worthy libertarian torch bearer.
Which brings us to the most ignorant criticism of Paul of late — that somehow his defense of President Trump seeking better diplomatic relations with Russia is a rejection of the senator’s libertarian principles.
This is beyond stupid. If Paul didn’t defend the president on this front, it would be a rejection of what Paul has long said about U.S.-Russia relations.
It would be a rejection of the conventional libertarian view of what constitutes a healthy foreign policy.
Long before the Trump phenomenon, in 2011, Paul helped prevent Georgia’s inclusion in NATO, and potential war with Russia, by stopping a unanimous consent vote. In 2013, Paul praised President Ronald Reagan’s willingness to sit down with Russia in a foreign policy speech at The Heritage Foundation (an aspect of Reagan that Paul has always praised). In 2014, Paul said the U.S. shouldn’t “tweak Russia over Ukraine” and was attacked by Republican hawks and neoconservative pundits for it. In 2017, Sen. John McCain laughably accused Paul of “working for Vladimir Putin” for attempting to block Montenegro’s NATO membership (a membership Paul’s presumably right-leaning Washington Examiner critic James Hasson not surprisingly supports).
Desiring more dialogue with foreign countries, even our presumed enemies, has been a standard libertarian foreign policy position going back to his father Ron Paul, Harry Browne in the 1990s, or President George Washington in the 1790s.
And yet you will hear plenty of blather this week from critics, that Paul’s Russia trip means he’s sold out America, his liberty principles, and perhaps even his soul, despite the fact that this is precisely the kind of foreign policy the senator has promoted his entire career (which should tell you something about the credibility of many of Paul’s harshest critics in other areas).
Again, this kind of off-script or independent thinking by Paul is not new.
Merriam-Webster defines “principle” as “a rule or code of conduct” and “habitual devotion to right principles, a man of principle.”
There’s not another Republican Senator who votes against Trump more than Paul. Yet, when the senator defends or allies with the president, it is always on principle no matter what others are eager to read into it.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. So many on the Left and Right are so emotional about this president that they can’t even think rationally anymore — about Rand Paul or anything else.
Jack Hunter (@jackhunter74) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.
