The occasion of Rand Paul, son of congressman Ron Paul, winning the senate Republican primary in Kentucky afforded this victory speech:
I have a message, a message from the Tea Party. A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We've come to take our government back.
I find myself wondering, which government does he want back?
Looking at his issues page, one is struck by how simplistic each of the views really is. He is opposed to bailouts (who isn't?), likes national defense (who doesn't?), wants the gold standard back, wants lower taxes and no government spending, doesn't want binding treaties with other countries, likes homeschooling, really likes guns, thinks the private sector will handle our energy problems; he wants to kill the Fed, repeal the Affordable Care Act, make abortion illegal, and to close the borders.
I wonder, does he understand any one of these issues? Are the issues on his website just being overly simplistic, or do they truly represent the extent of his knowledge and empathy? I think they do. Based on his interview on Rachel Maddow yesterday, he appears to oppose the Civil Rights Act's provisions making it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race. His reasoning is that people should have the right to discriminate if it's their business.
My favorite part of the above linked video is how Paul purports to be a knowledgeable historian. But that actually is the main thrust of his campaign. He would like to substitute his judgments about education, law enforcement, and economics for people who work in those fields, because he's an expert. His opinions seem fine upon first glance. Why not allow everyone to home school his children? Why not have our money backed by gold? Why not allow racist business owners to stop serving blacks? Why not deport every Mexican and secure the border?
It takes very little sophistication to understand why not. This is to the point where I guess I need to make a list. See what he does to me?
- By saying he "opposes bailouts", just what the hell does that mean? Is he against having institutions that are too big to fail? So are most of us. Is he against TARP? The problem with opposing the Troubled Asset Relief Program is that we tried that. Bear Sterns was allowed to fail, as was Lehman. And their reach was so wide that it caused a panic (in the technical sense). What is the market-based approach that will keep them from reaching so wide? Oh, wait, there isn't one. In fact, when the financial system was unregulated, we had a panic or depression about every 20 years. Economists know this. I'm not clear on how someone can be an interested historian and not realize the link between the deregulation in the 80s and 90s and the problems we have today. Bucket betting and non-clearinghouse trades are what directly led to this crisis, and nobody really argues with that. Except Tea Partiers, who think those practices are just dandy.
But look what happened. We are permanently poorer from this recession. Productivity cannot return to previous levels, due to the damage we've done, according a recent IMF report. We have massive, disastrous unemployment and human suffering. What is the plan? - Apropos of my discussion with a complete looney, I find myself wondering what it is about wingnuts, the Federal Reserve, and the gold standard. I mean, I know why looneys like the gold standard: Glenn Beck tries to sell them gold, and so they have a positive association. But what about politicians like Paul? Why does he think we should do away with the Fed? There's really no reason given, except what appears to be paranoia. The truth is, if we were on the gold standard we would basically revert to an agrarian society, with barely any capital at all. Production facilities like the one Intel has require billions in capital equipment, but are fiscally sound. Under the "libertarian" system, advanced CPU production is impossible. What do they say about this? Nothing, of course; they haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. Without the Fed we have no monetary policy, we would be constantly inflating and deflating our currency, making it near impossible to have sound investments. And, thus, again, we would have no capital, as people would just put their money into savings accounts. This isn't hard stuff.
- So, the government shouldn't spend anything. This is an interesting idea. If you study econ and history, you soon realize what happened to our national debt in the wake of WW2. Precisely nothing happened; we maintained roughly the same debt through the next 10 years. However, our productivity grew, we had mild inflation, and thus the debt/GDP ratio decreased to perfectly fine levels. This is how modern economics works, and it works very well when allowed to. Recessions are ended responsibly, not by printing money, but by deficit spending which is accounted for by a large increase in GDP and continuing mild inflation afterward. The debt ratio stays at easily maintainable levels, even with constant deficit spending, and deficit spending is a great GDP stimulus. We should never run a surplus, or even have a balanced budget.
- Why is having lower taxes better? I know that libertarians would guffaw at this question, but I think it's legitimate. Is it because the economy does better? As the Clinton years showed, it doesn't. Is it because people will leave our country if they aren't low? Does anybody really believe that? Is it because we value having rich people stay rich, even when they don't continue to contribute to the economy, or even if they didn't meaningfully contribute in the first place? Does anyone think that Wall Street bankers actually help productivity?
- On immigration, I have to ask, Do Libertarians ever think about what it's actually like to be any person other than themselves? Do they realize that legally immigrating is basically impossible without a lawyer and more money than the average Mexican has made in his lifetime? Do they know that we let very few people in legally? Do they consider how imperative it is to leave Mexico if that's where your family is, suffering in a banana republic with rampant murder, kidnapping, and human trafficking? Also, have they even thought about the other countries that have tried to totally secure their border? Japan is unable to keep illegal immigrants out, and they're on a fucking island.
It's this lack of empathy that I find disturbing in libertarian types. I'm not talking about in a bleeding-heart type of way. "Oh, those people are breaking the law when they come into our country." So? So they had an alternative (No.)? So they should have stayed home? Would you?!
Of course not. Tea Party libertarianism is a luxury of living in a rich nation, of being frightfully uneducated and incurious. These policies actually make no sense. So can Rand Paul win in Kentucky? Well, that depends on whether Kentuckyians are uneducated and incurious. I suspect the answer is "yes".