In light of months of controversy surrounding Dr. Paul’s candidacy and his constitutionalist-supporters’ infiltration of the Republican Party at the State and local levels of governance, as well as the recent endorsement of Mitt Romney by Rand Paul (proverbial torch-bearer of constitutional government) – it begs the question of whether or not “working within the system” of the Republican Party is advantageous for those who feel that the size, scope, and efficiency of the federal government is out of control. And I don’t have an answer for this, but I can tell you what is not happening – as a candidate, a purist, and a staunch supporter of constitutional government.
1.) The “liberty movement” has largely been infiltrated by the Republican Party. Several organizations that collect donations and then say that they “support liberty candidates and causes” will only support Republicans. And this begs the question of how they call themselves “non-partisan”. And it makes you question their integrity of actually supporting people who draw that hard line in the sand of what is constitutional or not.
2.) The Republican Party is not open to the idea of having the “next generation” of people who are fans of smaller government, be a part of their power structure, and fighting the Republican Party has worked to a point, but how beneficial could it be if we spent this time working with people who have opted out of their corrupt system entirely – could that be more beneficial for the cause of liberty?
3.) It gets really old trying to change something that does not want to change. You can’t change people. You can influence individuals, by empowering them with information to make their own conscious decisions. But to change a party, you are trying to change an entire collective, and that remains to be seen of how effective we have been at that. In addition to this, trying to force individual ideas on a group is the antithesis of the liberty movement – we may be better off stopping this vicious fight-cycle against “the party” and instead start embracing individuals around us.
4.) If Rand Paul has decided it is best for the “liberty movement” to embrace a Republican candidate who has no record of being a staunch advocate for individual liberty and a free market – doesn’t that mean that a compromise has been made and isn’t that the whole reason we got here in the first place? Because of compromises? What happened to drawing a line in the sand where the role of the federal government is, and letting States and localities beat out the intricacies of what is best for their citizens? Why is the federal government gaining so much power?
Good individuals can create new systems, but I do not believe that good individuals can work effectively within a corrupt one. The Republican Party is against mentoring in the next generation of statesman to replace their politicians. Many (not all) organizations that beat their chest about “supporting liberty” actually are only another tool of the Republican Party. And putting all of our eggs in the basket of one or two representatives to “save us” (e.g. Dr. Paul and Rand Paul) is a complete contradiction to everything that we stand for as people who promote personal responsibility, free will, and self-reliance. It is up to us – you and I as individuals – working as individuals to fix the mess we are in. We can’t change a corrupt system, but we can sure start a new one.
