by Scott Creighton
Rand Paul’s “business first” philosophy is showing through… he said Barack Obama’s criticism of BP for its handling of the Gulf oil spill “sounded un-American”
‘I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business’. Huffington Post
Rand Paul’s libertarian education (apparently shaped by the Lewis Powell memo ) is starting to show through…
(Rand) Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are “always someone’s fault” and added, sometimes accidents just happen. MSNBC
So, to Rand Paul, it’s “un-American” to find fault with a business that has been deliberately skirting their responsibilities and containment procedure costs and as a direct result of these cost saving practices, their preventable oil spill promises to grow into the largest ecological disaster in our history.
An independent researcher investigating the Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident has released preliminary findings, based on accounts from rig employees and others, that the accident was the result of a series of mistakes and flawed decisions, which had compromised safety.
… “This disaster was preventable,” Bea writes, “had existing progressive guidelines and practices been followed.”
… Bea also says “drilling and well completion operations did not meet industry standards.” NBC
Opps. Guess Rand was wrong about that one… someone should ask Rand if it’s “un-American” for someone to do an independent investigation and does the fact that BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum factor into Rand’s “un-American” comment at all? Does Rand Paul think it’s “un-American” to find fault (where it belongs) with a FOREIGN business?
You get that Rand? Maybe you should rethink that whole… “its un-American to criticise business” thing. Or at least that “sometimes accidents just happen” line. You’re hemorrhaging credibility Rand and your “Friedman” side is showing. Is it really possible to be an anti-establishment corporatist?
But I guess Rand Paul may have something there; perhaps our forefathers wouldn’t have given a shit if businesses all across America decimated our entire east coast for nothing more than the love of a few dollars and then put up “Whites Only” signs in their windows. Maybe that is what the Founding Fathers really wanted America to become. Maybe that really is “Liberty”.
Of course I come from a different school of thought as far as what I think our Founding Fathers had hoped for in America. I also think our moral structure as a society may have evolved a little since then. But that is just me and I am not looking to line my pockets with corporate “campaign contributions” either… so maybe that factors somehow. Who knows. Personally, I kinda remember how ben Franklin and other Patriots were rebelling against the privately owed Bank of England when we first decided to part ways with the English. That would be a “business”, you know.
But what I find most odd is that a libertarian like Rand Paul is all about “personal responsiblity” when it comes to dismantling the social safety net – he feels that retirement savings should be left to the individual (privatizing social security) and that unemployment insurance and Medicare should pretty much be abolished because it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual to look out for themselves… but when it comes to big business Rand Paul and the libertarians (“neoliberals/neocons”?)seems to think that it’s “unAmerican” to even start to hold them responsible (not that Obama is doing ANYTHING OF THE SORT with BP)
(Rand Paul’s America “hold people responsible to the point where they can starve in the streets and leave big business alone to the point were they can destroy our beaches and wildlife”… does that about sum it up? He’ll fit right in congress won’t he?)
So is this latest quip of his just an out of context misquote or is it a glimpse into the melting down of another candidate who is pretending to be one thing, but he keeps letting his truer nature slip out? I suppose if Rand wants some big time donation money from BP, hell, he just got it. But what about his anti-establishment facade that it took him and his daddy and Alex Jones so long to craft? Is that going bye-bye now that Rand is getting closer to sucking at the teet of his oligarchical birthright?
Who is Rand Paul? What does he really stand for?
In the now infamous interview, Rand Paul couldn’t bring himself to say that Woolworth’s lunch counter shouldn’t have been segregated…
RACHEL MADDOW: Should—Woolworth lunch counters should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.
RAND PAUL: What I think would happen—what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe that any private property should discriminate either, and I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer, when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to brind up, but if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants. And then, do you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants? Democracy NOW!
(“Guns in Woolworths”?! What the hell does that have to do with the question? This interview was painful to watch… by the way, that “abstract, obscure converstation” he mentions just happens to be the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
This latest set of Rand Paul pearls of libertarian wisdom are evident in his past as well. From a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News
“The Daily News ignores,” wrote (Rand) Paul, “as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.”
… “A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination,” wrote Paul, “even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities.” Washington Post
In a world of spiraling “public/private partnerships”, where the government (and therefore the role government plays in our everyday lives) is being consumed by the privately owned corporations, Rand (Ann Rand?) Paul’s libertarian ideology (where “freedom” is primarily focused on the “freedom” of completely deregulated business to do exactly as they wish to do; as the “market” dictates) is a dangerous and potentially explosively regressive concept.
The most obvious of these issues was brought up recently as Rand Paul seems poised to win a seat in the senate simply because he is Ron Paul’s son (can you say “Oligarchy“? “is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony.”) and it deals primarily with his idea that private business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they wish, as is evidenced by Rand Paul’s 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News shown above.
Now, to be fair, Rand Paul’s spin doctors have come up with an answer to the growing criticism he is facing; he says he does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
Aside from the fact that wasn’t the question, Rand Paul (like most lying politicians) decided to answer the question he would rather have been asked rather than dealing with the one in front of him. Yes, Rand Paul believes that in a “free society” business has the right to discriminate against anyone they choose.
Why is that so destructive in this day and age and especially when it comes from someone like Rand Paul? Because, Rand Paul also believes in the privatization of most government services… like education. Rand Paul has a very interesting view of education… he wants to eliminate the Department of Education in favor of homeschooling.
Rand Paul’s website has this up under his “education” position…
As the Federal Government has increased the size and budget of the Department of Education, test scores and scholastic performance have markedly dropped. More money, more bureaucracy, and more government intervention are eroding this nation’s educational standards. Meanwhile, home-schooled children continue to excel as evidenced by their test scores and rapidly growing admission rate into some of the nation’s most prestigious educational institutions.
Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire. He seeks to prevent the Department of Education from regulating homeschooling and will fight to keep the Federal Government’s hands out of this promising alternative to conventional education. Rand recognizes the potential and scholarly prowess of homeschooling and will ensure that homeschoolers are allowed the freedom to compete alongside those who attend public and private schools. Rand Paul
The debate surround homeschooling is too vast for me to jump into at this time. But effectively what homeschooling actually does is that it perpetuates the class system. Let’s face it; some parents are more qualified than some teachers to provide a real education to their children, and as far as I know, homeschooling is allowed in many states in this country already, were the parents to choose that route. However, the flip side of that is a bit more grim; not ALL parents are better suited to educate young people. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. How many parents can teach trigonometry, algebra, world history, a foreign language… to their children?
Without a doubt, the children of the educated classes will certainly have an advantage over those born to lower and working class parents. This kind of advantage is exactly what one might expect to find a privileged son in a oligarchal system to advocate. Keep the ignorant… ignorant. Keep the privileged… privileged.
Now I can’t say much about Rand Paul’s philosophy on privatization other than I know he supports it. If he supports a completely privatized education system run by privately owned businesses, does that mean he would support the idea of those institutions being able to discriminate at will? That is the exact kind of answer people have been looking to get out of him since this whole thing started and he simply refuses to delve into it.
So in order to try to understand where he is coming from I decided to spend a little of my investigational energies looking into that thing called “Libertarianism”. I had previously thought they were the epitome of the neoliberal agenda.
I was right.
You see, like when Obama pretended to be a “progressive” and a “liberal” running for the White House, I figured that Rand and his Daddy both decided that they would never win any seat of power running on the Libertarian ticket, so, like Obama, they pretended to be something else… republicans. That being the case, I figured I should take a look and see just what that Libertarian thing really stands for. You’re gonna love this.
1.Right now the Libertarian Party (the party of “Principle”) is chaired by Bill Redpath… a man who got his MBA from… wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)
2.Right now the Libertarian Party Secretary is Bill Sullentrup… a man who got his MBA from … wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)
3. Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian the Cato Institute with which he has been associated since 1988 and he went to school at… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)
(anybody see a pattern developing here?)
4. The CATO Institute is the libertarian (little “L”) think tank in Washington. It was founded in 1977 as a direct consequence of the Lewis Powell Memo (called “Attack of American Free Enterprise System”) The memo itself laid out a surprisingly libertarian viewpoint about how American businesses were under attack…
… The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.
… Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.
… There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.
The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy. Reclaiming Democracy
The CATO Institute supported the Bush administration on these issues: “most notably health care , Social Security, global warming, tax policy, and immigration, Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives” on these issues.
The Cato Institute established its Project on Social Security Privatization in 1995, renaming it the Project on Social Security Choice in 2002.
The libertarian CATO Institute was founded by Charles Koch who is the brother of the Libertarian Party’s 1980 vice presidential candidate, David Koch. In 2008, Charles Koch was listed on the Forbes 400 as having a personal net worth of $17 billion. His brother, David Koch, is even wealthier and “is New York’s second wealthiest resident, after Michael Bloomberg.”
The Koch’s of the libertarian CATO Institute and the Libertarian Party didn’t build their own fortunes; the inherited them from their oil baron father, Fred Koch. What they inherited was nothing short of the second largest privately own company in America, Koch Industries. “Koch Industries also is well-known for its long-time sponsorship of free-market foundations and causes” … no shit…
5. The libertarian movement itself…
“Additionally, various political parties and factions have worked to develop the goals of libertarianism, and numerous writers and intellectuals have become public figures within the American libertarian movement by laying out broad philosophical tenets underlying libertarianism, as well as specific strategies aimed at effecting practical changes toward libertarianism. Examples include:”
- Ayn Rand, who rejected libertarianism herself, played a substantial role in libertarianism.
- Milton Friedman, along with other Chicago school economists.
- Murray Rothbard, along with other Austrian school economists.
You notice how they have Milton Friedman stuck in there? He’s the founder of the neoliberal IMF type “Shock therapy” style of economic “reforms” that we are facing right now. Isn’t it odd how he is so closely associated with the “libertarian” philosophy? I thought he was a “neocon”?
“In the 1980s, pro-property libertarianism grew substantially more popular and gained considerable influence in Republican administrations, though at the national level the Libertarian Party still fared poorly.”
Many trade barriers have been lifted, (NAFTA, GATT, outsourcing jobs overseas) reducing what most libertarians argue are unneeded interferences with functioning markets and the right to use one’s property as one sees fit.
Ronald Reagan popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms, though many libertarians are ambivalent about his legacy
To say that libertarian philosophy is closely akin to that of the neoliberal/neoconservative movement is not only valid, its painfully obvious to anyone who has a little time to research it. In fact, modern libertarian philosophy was founded at pretty much the exact same time (and then apparently the leading libertarians were taught at the neocon founding university, the University of Chicago, where Leo Strauss put it all into motion)
Ironically, it was Richard Nixon who fractured the Republican Party, driving out the Libertarian wing with his announcement of Wage and Price Controls on August 15, 1971. The Libertarian Party was officially founded on December 11, 1971, by David Nolan and a small group of former Republicans in the living room of activist Luke Zell in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
David Nolan had been an officer of three organizations at MIT which were working for the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. The three separate groups operating at MIT in 1963-64 were Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom (“YAF”), and Youth for Goldwater. The officers overlapped, making it possible for them to have more presence on the campus. Nolan came to the ideas on individual freedom, economics, and the Constitution from Barry Goldwater, Robert Heinlein, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” and other fiction, and Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.”
Soon after this, the first wave of eager and ambitious Trotskyites, soon to re-label themselves as Neo-Conservatives (“NeoCons”), left the Democratic Party to become Republicans. The first of these were Irving Kristol, his wife and son, William Kristol. These were soon followed by the cadre that, at present, still comprises the main intellectual end of the NeoCon cabal.
These idea-mongers had found a flush living re-packaging the strategies of Leo Strauss for use on Republicans and Libertarians. These included posh weekend-seminars that helped them identify potential academics and intellectuals who could accept their ideas with a straight face, keeping a clear eye on the potential for self profit.
Soon, the need to suborn and redirect the nascent Libertarian Movement and Party would be turned over to Edward H. Crane, III, and other profit-minded people. Melinda Foster
Rooted deep within Rand Paul is the same libertarian philosophies that drove Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Alan Greenspan, George Bush, David and Charles Koch, Lewis Powell, and all the other neocons and neoliberals who are currently busy ruining this nation.
It is not surprizing that Rand Paul tries as best he can to distance himself at this point from that obvious fact.
Having not really cared about Rand Paul in the past (I did think his Alex Jones “money bomb” was a bit over the top) I didn’t spend much time looking into his positions. I always knew that his father was just one little tiny step away from the worst neocon you can think of. Sure he says we shouldn’t be in Iraq, but what do Ron and Rand really do for the establishment that justifies them not kicking them out like they easily did with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney?
Well, that is easy.
Ron and Rand’s jobs are to bring the neoliberal economic agenda to the young people and offer it up as an “alternative” to what is going on today. When in fact, it is actually the neoliberal/libertarian agenda that is behind every single problem we face.
Rand Paul is as “different” as Barack Obama is. During Obama’s candidacy I tried to warn people that voting for Barack was the same as voting for George W. Bush all over again. Not many listened. But they know it now.
On that note, I have to say that voting for Rand Paul would be the exact same thing as voting for Barack Obama and George W. Bush and for that matter, the neoliberal Hilary Clinton. He represents the same oligarchical power structure and the same corporatist and business first mentality. He represents the globalist agenda but like Obama he just puts a more pleasant face on it.
Just like Obama’s campaign, Rand is pretending to be one thing while he is really something very different. If the neocons and the neolibs wanted him out, trust me, he would be out. But with very little exception, Rand Paul shares many of their core beliefs and pout as they might in their WWE style, the neocons don’t have any problem with another Milton Friedman economic theory supporter in office.
I said it before all this research and I will say it again… Rand Paul is a neoliberal scumbag… just like his daddy… and he doesn’t deserve your vote.