In An Attempt To Sound As Off-Base As Possible...

By TIM KILLEEN

Kentucky Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul, claimed that President Obama's remarks against BP could cause the oil giant to go out of business. Funny, I would've thought it would be the spewing of thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying economies and ecosystems and losing the nation's trust that would have done that. But, besides the obvious idiocy of the comment, there is an underlying premise to what Dr. Paul is saying.

He explained later that if BP were to go under, it would not be able to pay for the cleanup of the disaster it created. Either Paul is being as pro-business or as anti-business as any politician could be by making his statement. The likely scenario, judging from his small-government-is-best past, is that Dr. Paul really believes that the government is bullying BP and that a corporation can fix its mistakes best without an agency breathing down its neck. In that case, his "wouldn't be able to pay for the cleanup" clarifier would simply be a PR tactic to keep the media (who salivates for the chance to jump on him again) off his back.

However, if Paul really meant what he said as an explanation, he just may be the least business-friendly politician in the country. Essentially, he's saying that the only reason we need this company to continue to exist is so that we can squeeze out of it as much as possible, after which, it's of no use to us. With his quasi-defense (and subsequent backtrack) of southern restaurant owners who wanted to exclude black patrons, it can be assumed that Rand Paul is fairly pro-business. I doubt that he wants BP to stay around simply for its responsibility to the Gulf. In either event, the oil company has paid $3.12b so far on the cleanup- only a fraction of the $17b it made last year. I doubt BP will file for bankruptcy any time soon; but if it should, it would be disingenuous to lay it anyone's doorstep but its own.

Self-Monitoring Republicans

It's nice to see that even the party that's considered "pro-business" draws a logical line in the sand. After Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) apologized to BP for what he called the White House's "shakedown" of the oil company (and then apologized to the public for his apology), Reps. Jo Bonner (R-AL) and Jeff Miller (R-FL) have both called for Barton to step down as ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This, after party leaders like John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) all denounced Barton's statement. Whether it's because of political points, sheer moral outrage or (probably) a combination of the two, it's heartening to see the Republicans push back on being overly conciliatory to everything big business does.

Not surprisingly, KY candidate (and loon) Rand Paul skirted back and forth on the line of agreeing and disagreeing with Barton- saying he disagreed with his statement, but he knew what it was like to be "piled on" in the press and he also disliked the "tone" of the White House toward BP. How is this guy still getting support?!

Libertarian Failure

In an absolutely absurd argument written in The Christian Monitor, Sheldon Richman attempts to back up Rand Paul's political blunder with Libertarian "thought." Richman writes:

I write as a libertarian, something Rand Paul claims not to be. The essence of the libertarian philosophy is that each person owns him- or herself and whatever belongings he or she honestly acquires. Thus individuals are due freedom of association and, logically, non-association. It also follows that the owner of property should be free to set the rules of use, the only constraint being that the owner may not use aggressive force against others.

Admittedly, that leaves room for loathsome peaceful behavior, such as running a whites-only lunch counter. Who imagined that freedom of association couldn’t have its ugly side?

Nevertheless, individuals are either free to do anything peaceful or they are not. If politicians decide, we have arbitrary government. But government is force, and force is moral only in response to force

But aren't there boundaries short of someone doing us physical harm that we, as a society, have decided ought to exist? We put limits on non-violent behavior all the time because it's what's best for society as a group (i.e. screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, child labor, slander and libel, etc.).


More importantly, Richman seems to have completely missed the point of a democratic republican form of government in his assessment. "Politicians" aren't "deciding," the people are. We elect politicians to cast votes for us, but when a U.S. Representative casts a vote, he does so under the premise that it's the will of the majority of the people of his district. The people did decide on this, they just decided differently than Richman would have liked. They decided that there are some things we give up as individuals in order to live together in an ordered society. This is something Libertarians are loathe to accept, but also a premise upon which our society is solidly built.

Is Teaparty Support Really Worth It?

After the Teaparty "patriots" threw their support behind Marco Rubio in the race for Florida's Senate seat, Gov. Charlie Crist had to jump off the Republican ballot and continue on as an Independent. Teapartiers saw this as a great victory, but an Ipsos/McLatchy Poll now has Crist leading Rubio by three points (30% to 27%; Democrat Kendrick Meek has 15%).

With last week's Rand Paul debacle proving that Libertarians are more appealing to the Teaparty than to the electorate as a whole, one has to wonder whether Teaparty support beyond the primaries is really helpful or if it will alienate more voters than it will attract.