In late February 2015, the Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual straw poll, asking members of the conference to pick whom they would like to see as the next President of the United States. For the third year in a row, the members of CPAC- impassioned and bright minded activists- chose Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. But Rand Paul is no titan of the Republican establishment, nor is he a far-right social conservative whom party die-hards tend to favor. Like his father Ron before him, Rand Paul has his roots in a young, blossoming libertarian-minded faction of the Republican Party. This faction is somewhat of an anomaly among the greater party, often loathing military operations as much as taxation, and cherishing civil liberties as much as free markets. More so than even his father, Sen. Paul has been able to both invigorate the libertarians of the Republican Party and bring their ideas into the mainstream. This is the senator’s greatest asset. Unfortunately for Sen. Paul, it is also his deadliest liability.
Most pundits would agree that winning the Republican nomination requires the support of either far right social conservatives or the Republican establishment. However, the far right’s social conservatism lies in direct contrast to many libertarian values, and the establishment vote requires more moderate stances on government spending and military action than many libertarians are willing to give. If Rand Paul wants the Presidency, he will need to pander to both social conservatives and the Republican establishment. If he panders too much to either one of them, Paul risks alienating his greatest source of political momentum, the ideologically-minded libertarians. Put simply, Rand Paul faces one of the toughest juggling acts in modern U.S. political history.
When Rand Paul became a senator for the state of Kentucky in 2010, he very much encapsulated the spirit of a libertarian. Throughout his term as senator, Rand Paul often publicly took issue with what he saw as the excessive powers of the government, even challenging his own party. He has been one of the few senators on either side of the isle to take issue with the Patriot Act, which allows for warrantless government surveillance of phone calls and Internet use. He has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and has advocated for legislation that would cut the nation’s defense budget. A passionate advocate for tax reform and cutting government spending, Rand Paul has in many ways represented libertarianism in the truest sense.
In other ways, Sen. Paul has espoused a more traditionally conservative mindset. He is unapologetically pro-life, something that runs counter to the position of many libertarians who tend to value personal choice. He has also advocated for the construction of a fence at the U.S.-Mexico border, contradicting the libertarian belief of open trade and open borders. By and large, however, Rand Paul has been an excellent embodiment of libertarian ideology in action. But with the announcement of his candidacy for President, that has begun to change.
In the weeks leading up to Rand Paul’s announcement of his candidacy, the Senator’s stance on an array of issues such as national defense, international relations, and gay marriage started to seem far less clear than was originally suspected. Of course, Rand Paul is no stranger to political realities and the need to appeal to an array of groups for support, endorsement, and money. Sen. Paul knows that he cannot win with only the support of ideological libertarians, he must appeal to both the establishment and the far-right base of the Grand Old Party.
Defense seems to be the area in which Paul has had the most dramatic change of heart. He recently proposed that the budget of the Defense Department be increased by almost $200 billion, a radical deviation from his earlier calls to reduce the military’s budget. In another strange move, Senator Paul joined 46 other senators in sending the Iranian leadership a letter urging them not to make a nuclear deal with the Obama administration. Paul had previously expressed his support for nuclear talks, and just on April 10th expressed his support for them again. He also earlier this year made a controversial statement that he did not believe in gay rights because to do so would be granting rights based on behavior. But in an even more recent CNN report he reiterated that he did not want the federal government to have a role in the marriage debate.
This is the squeeze that Sen. Paul finds himself in: move too close to the hawkish establishment or the socially conservative base and lose the support of the impassioned libertarian wing that has gotten him so far to begin with. This likely explains why Paul is both advocating for an increased military budget and for withdrawing many deployed troops, or why he has expressed personal distaste for gay marriage but has come short of suggesting any policies that may impede its disseminating legality. Or why he has hopped between wanting to grant illegal immigrants work visas and suggesting that being born in the United States should not guarantee a person citizenship. Paul is indeed walking along a very thin line.
All of this line-stepping and political juggling may prove too much for Paul to handle. Already much of the senator’s libertarian base has expressed dissatisfaction at his perceived flip-flopping on defense. Yet for all of his efforts Paul still struggles to get backing among the Republican establishment. Appealing to the far right is likely to yield few returns with Ted Cruz and (quite likely) Mike Huckabee in the running. And pandering to the party’s two dominant bases has a high chance of losing Paul his libertarian constituents, who tend to be more ideological and less attuned to compromise.
Of course, some of Paul’s libertarian ideas have widespread appeal not just among Republicans, but the U.S. population as a whole. For one, Sen. Paul’s proposals for criminal justice reform have broad support among both Republicans and Democrats. His protest of government surveillance strikes a chord with many Americans fearful that their privacy is in jeopardy. Other “libertarian-ish” ideas of Paul will likely help him in the primaries, but may hurt in a general election. For instance, Paul has often talked of completely shutting down the Department of Education and is incredibly conservative on the issue of gun rights.
In the end, Sen. Paul will likely be better to the Republican Party than the Republican Party will be to him. Republicans have been in desperate need of a candidate who will attract young minorities and bring forth new ideas to make the party more palatable to the country. Sen. Paul could be that candidate. Young and minority Republicans overwhelmingly lean libertarian. His emphasis on criminal justice reform, drawing back US military involvement, and ending the surveillance state will embolden younger, more volatile groups of Republicans, and his candidacy may ultimately help the Republican Party finally appeal to minorities. But such success is far from certain, and already it seems to be Paul, not the party, doing the brunt of the compromise. Rand Paul may just give the Republican Party the passion and policies it needs to survive. Whether the Republican Party allows Sen. Paul to survive, however, seems ever more uncertain.
– By Austin McCandlish/Photo Credit: CNN.com