In spite of all I admired and wrote in support of Governor Sarah Palin, I cannot claim intellectual honesty if I try to justify her profoundly disturbing endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul.
It is one thing to vote for a flawed candidate opposing one who is worse. It is another thing altogether to place immense credibility and influence at the service of a candidate who is poisonous for the country.
Were Aristotle to read Sarah’s successive endorsements of Michele Bachmann, John McCain and now, Rand Paul, he would declare:
“Opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time.”
Sarah Palin and Rand Paul’s assertions about America cannot be true at the same time. To recommend Rand Paul as a potential Senator shows either utter ignorance of his opinions, which would constitute inexcusable negligence for Palin given her de facto position of trust, or grotesque political expediency.
During his 2009 interview by Scott Horton of Anti-War Radio, Dr. Paul repeatedly spoke of the need to form a coalition with the Left to win his election. Like his father, Rand Paul believes that America is engaged, not in a necessary global War on Terror, but in empire building.
According to Paul, it is our foreign wars and world-wide military bases that are bankrupting the country. Radical Islam abroad and Communists in the White House are not the most serious enemies to be fought, but the “Industrial-Military Complex” and Halliburton-style corporations dictating policy.
For Governor Palin, this legitimizing of the “Ron Paul Revolutionaries” is a true crossing of the Rubicon. It is an Aristotelian moment. Can one simultaneously assert Reagan Conservatism and Isolationist-Libertarianism and expect to be considered a woman of probing political analysis, a responsible researcher, or a credible potential public servant?
Anti-War Radio Interview With Rand Paul
“What are the top issues in your mind?”
“The economy. A couple of years ago it was the Iraq War. I think the two are inter-related. Part of the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases around the world.”
“What about that cost of empire…the enormous expense, your father speaks of a trillion dollars a year, of maintaining this world empire. Is rolling back the empire not the first order of business?”
“Yeah. I think that these issues[the economy and the empire] become the political coalition you need to win a race because there are people from the left who acknowledge the vast expenditure of the military industrial complex. There are some on the right that are beginning to understand that. It’s really that sort of right-left paradigm that you bring these groups together in order to try to win an election.”
“Until we find a way to elect 218 Ron Pauls, we need to find a way to restrict the rest of the crowd”
“I saw your father at a barbecue in 2004 tell a group of pro-war constituents, ‘I know you people respect Bush and that you want to support the troops…but I’m a peacenik and if you don’t agree that’s fine and if you don’t want me to represent you, that’s fine but I’m not changing.’ He explained Robert Pape and the causes of suicide bombers and all that. Are you going to hold up in heated arguments on these issues?”
(Note: Robert Pape’s theories support the idea that suicide bombings would cease if the United States would withdraw from the Middle East.)
“Yeah….I would have forced a vote for Declaration of War. I would have voted for Afghanistan and against Declaration of War with Iraq.”
“’Out of Iraq now!’ is that your position?”
“No. I don’t say, ‘Out of Iraq now!’ I say out of Iraq two or three years ago, or never go in – even better.”
“Will we be able to turn on C-SPAN and see you raising hell in the Imperial Senate?”
“Yeah. In the Senate, one Senator can hold things up and if I had been there during the votes on Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have forced declaration and you might have had a different outcome.”