So Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney for president. I disagree with people who consider this a “sellout.” Rand understands that you have to “play ball” and be a team player to ever succeed in politics. As I’ve posted about before, Ron Paul’s failing is that he is so ideologically pure, that he has no real policy successes. He can’t get enough people on board to make a difference because 80% agreement translates to zero support.
The same can be said for some Ron Paul supporters: they constantly remind the GOP that “we won’t vote for anyone but Ron Paul.” And, in return, the GOP establishment basically says “Okay then, we will support anyone but Ron Paul.” You get what you give.
Rand is smart. Politics is politics, it will always be about coalition building and personal connections. If he pitches in now, we can expect the GOP to pitch in and support him if and when Rand runs for president.
We have two powerful coalitions in American politics, the “left” and the “right.” Ultimately the question comes down to this: which side is better and more open to defending liberty? Considering Obama’s re-election plan to differentiate himself from Romney is to call him a “libertarian,” I’m going to go with the right-wing on this one. Conservatives and libertarians agree on 80% of freedom issues. If we allow smaller or academic disagreements divide us, then the left and the statists will crush us, and liberty will dwindle–but hey, some libertarians will be able to maintain a smug sense of ideological purity!
So, Rand made a smart move. We must earn friends for the liberty movement, we must have political players owe libertarians favors, and continue to strengthen its power by electing practical libertarian Republicans to high office, as we have done with Rand Paul.