Some things are just too painful to read:
“Let’s say Ron Paul is Nirvana,” said Kennedy, the television personality and former MTV host, by way of explaining the sort of politician who excites libertarians like herself. “Like, the coolest, most amazing thing to come along in years, and the songs are nebulous but somehow meaningful, and the lead singer kills himself to preserve the band’s legacy.
“Then Rand Paul — he’s Pearl Jam. Comes from the same place, the songs are really catchy, can really pack the stadiums, though it’s not quite Nirvana.
The musings of an awestruck Republican-turned-Libertarian former MTV Host lead off what amounts to a fairly evenhanded assessment by the
New York Times Magazine of that weird, vogueish hybrid of conservative and liberal known as "libertarianism." The
Times describes the allure of Ron and Rand Paul to a younger generation (including Millennials, for whom Kennedy is probably next-to-irrelevant) supposedly disenchanted with the Democratic Party's failure to loudly repudiate the NSA's domestic spying or more enthusiastically embrace marijuana legalization. The article trots out the now-familiar statistics about lack of party identification among the young and the resulting potential pool of voters suddenly "up for grabs." What it doesn't do (and it admits as much) is put its finger on exactly what libertarianism is, because it can't. The word is slippery and susceptible to multiple interpretations.
The Times cites the marijuana issue, the growth in support for same-sex marriage, the disinclination of the public for foreign interventions (read: wars) as emblematic of a resurgence in what it suggests is a "libertarian moment," but it fails to recognize these are not particularly "libertarian" positions. They are liberal positions, grown and nurtured by liberals, not "freedom-loving" conservatives. By coupling these liberal-inspired initiatives with the laissez-faire, deregulatory "free-market" theories of the Koch brothers, the media (Times included) perpetuate a mythical "libertarianism" that doesn't in fact exist except as a media contrivance. Conservatives who support same-sex marriage or legal marijuana sales aren't any less "conservative."--they're simply conservatives who latched onto a good liberal idea. Paul opposing the NSA spying is no less a conservative for doing so. He's simply a conservative who opposes domestic spying, much in the same way nearly all liberals do.
This is a nuance that is dangerous if left unchallenged. Because it elevates far-right Republicans like Paul as rock stars or heroes to the young (as evidenced by the quote that leads off this Diary) simply for their seeming novelty-- even though their actions when subjected to close scrutiny are routinely and very unpleasantly right-wing. It's telling that nowhere in the Times article is there any real analysis of Paul's actual voting record in the Senate. The Paul phenomena is the equivalent of the media selling a phony bill of goods, with its target a generation of Millennial voters.
Mr. Paul has shown every inclination to ride this urban myth surrounding his "libertarianism" in a bid to draw younger voters away from the Democratic Party, where they usually and historically end up. So it's useful to examine his voting record in the context of the demographic he seeks to convert, the young voters, asking in effect: What has Rand Paul done for you in his short Senate career?
It turns out there are some clear answers. The best evidence available--his voting record-- shows that Rand Paul doesn't give a damn about Millennials. Nor, for that matter, does he appear to give much thought to anyone else.
S 2569 - Bring Jobs Home Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.
Mr. Paul voted
against (voting "nay" on a Cloture vote means you prevent a final vote by the Senate on the Bill. As Mr. Paul is in the Senate minority, any bill he doesn't want passed can be defeated simply by voting "nay" on cloture) a Bill that would
eliminate tax breaks for corporations who offshore their business to avoid paying taxes. So when the state school you go to raises their tuition, because the state government has no money to subsidize it and your federal loans have been cut, you can thank Rand Paul for allowing businesses in your state to shelter their profits overseas. Too bad those businesses don't have a job for you, huh? Put simply, by voting against this Bill, Rand Paul bankrolled the outsourcing of your job.
What a cool guy.
S 2223 - Minimum Wage Fairness Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.
Mr. Paul voted against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over a two year period. So when the job he made sure you couldn't get fails to materialize, and you're relegated to working in the service industry with your college degree, you can thank Rand Paul for keeping your wage at a level below bare subsistence.
No one ever said so-called Libertarians don't have "principles." Here's a good example of that:
Votes
HR 5021 - Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Passage With Amendment) on this Legislation.
You may have noticed that the roads in your area often need to be repaired, especially if you lived through some severe weather over the past year. Rand Paul's view, as demontsrated in his record, is that rebuilding and repairing the nation's roadways constitutes an infringement on his freedom. That's Libertarianism in a nutshell and that's fine except when you need to actually, you know,
use the road to get somewhere.
The Bill Mr. Paul voted against was to keep the Federal Highway Trust Fund solvent. It's funded primarily by taxes on gasoline, but roads are expensive and Republican folks in Congress exactly like Mr. Paul have blocked any effort to raise the gas tax to keep the Fund afloat. So occasionally the Fund needs more money. That's what Mr Paul voted against--He stops efforts to raise the revenue through the gas tax and won't allow any more revenue to the Fund. The result is that the roads never get fixed.
Welcome to Libertarianism. Sorry if you ever have to drive.
Truth be told, I can't even figure out how someone could vote against this, but there it is.
Let's see how Mr. Paul treats women:
From his website:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human...[.]
"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward," Sen. Paul said. "The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress."
This "Fetal Personhood" law would effectively outlaw all abortion. From the moment of conception forward. And in case you think he
doesn't mean it:
S 2578 - Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.
This was the Bill designed to ensure that corporations and employers could not refuse to provide contraception to women as mandated under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). Birth Control enables women to make reproductive decisions on their own, without the interference of corporations whose "views" about birth control are frankly beside point. Rand Paul, supposed champion of individual liberty, voted to deny this basic freedom to women. Not only did he vote to deny it, he voted to deny the full Senate the ability to even vote on it. Because then he would have had to taken a position, which would likely have ended the Pearl Jam comparisons very, very quickly.
So a woman is first denied birth control by Paul, and then she is denied the right to an abortion. This is his public record.
S 540 - Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Concurrence Vote) on this Legislation.
Rand Paul voted not to raise the debt ceiling. What this means is that, if it were up to Rand Paul, the U.S. would have defaulted on
debts it had already incurred. Nearly all economists agree that if this had occurred the world would have been
plunged into a financial catastrophe and you would probably not be employed for the next three-to-five years because the businesses that managed to survive this kind of a downturn would not be hiring. Anyone's stock holdings, 401k's, housing values, would probably have plummeted and flatlined for the same time frame. It would have been a real pleasure to be paying off student loans in that sort of environment. And Rand Paul voted to make it even worse for you:
S 953 - Student Loan Affordability Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.
This was a Bill introduced by Democrats to keep student loan interest rates down due to the difficulty students were having finding employment. Rand Paul voted against it.
It would also have been a tough haul if you'd been fired and couldn't find another job. Rand Paul also voted to block the Senate from voting on providing an extension of benefits to the unemployed:
S 1845 - Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.
"Libertarianism" means you're on your own.
The "rock star" also voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, in effect, giving his seal of approval to discrimination against LGBT persons:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees.
But he found the time to vote for building a mythical "fence" to seal the border between the U.S. and Mexico, something no one expects to be effective or even actually happen:
S Amdt 1197 - Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Rand Paul voted Yea (Amendment Vote) on this Amendment.
In the past year Mr. Paul voted
against a measure to limit the magazine capacity of certain automatic weapons,
against a measure prohibiting the sale of certain assault weapons,
against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act,
against funds for natural disaster relief,
against funds for the treating of autistic children,
against a Bill requiring the disclosure of corporate sources of political funding,
against an International Treaty establishing the rights of the Disabled,
against a Bill to require the labelling of genetically modified food, and
against the Paycheck Fairness Act (which was designed to make the wages of women equal to men for doing the same job).
In short, despite his image as a libertarian, Rand Paul votes just like any Republican. His votes on the actual issues are as anti-Millennial as the rest of his party.
On the other hand, he voted for cutting Food Stamps to the needy. He voted for the Keystone pipeline. He was co-sponsor of legislation to end FCC regulation of the Internet, which would have resulted in complete domination of the web by private interests unfettered by any regulatory constraints on their behavior. Good luck preserving an Internet regulated solely by corporate interests. This from the same guy who makes a lot of noise about how he doesn't like NSA spying.
It's not clear exactly how many young people actually view Mr. Paul as some sort of political "rock star" and the depth of his actual support among the Millennial generation may be overstated. The article correctly points out, however, the absence to date of any significant overtures by any other political candidate, including Hillary Clinton, towards this generation, so right now Paul is filling that gap. These type of media fixations tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies and if history is any guide there will be almost no attempt by the same media to educate the public about Paul's actual voting record. While I'm years removed from the Millennial generation, I know that in my time if a rock star showed up with that kind of record, I sure as hell wouldn't be buying his music.
I'd be headed for the doors and demanding my money back.