Inside the minds of Ron and Rand Paul

Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his son Rand believe in government employment — for themselves. But beyond that, they don’t believe the government they work for, and which will provide them a tidy pension when they retire, should do much else.

The Pauls have been on something of a PR binge lately. With Ron running for president, he’s been a frequent guest on cable news shows, spouting his “no government help for anyone” philosophy … which he considers a “freedom” philosophy. And Rand’s testimony in a Senate committee has clarified his views on his first profession – medicine – and what he sees as his enslavement by the patients who have made him a rich man.

First up: Ron Paul. He’s been getting a lot of ink for his opposition to the war on drugs. That’s the part of the Paul libertarian agenda that attracts the left. But the rest of what the Pauls believe should give liberal Liberatrians pause.

The elder Paul went on Fox News Sunday and explained why he thinks there should be no Social Security and Medicare … because they are akin to “slavery”:

On that, he seems to agree with his son Rand, who thinks that the idea of a right to healthcare is also slavery, for rich doctors:

Bonus: here’s Lawrence O’Donnell’s dissection of Rand’s “slavery” analogy from Friday’s “The Last Word” on MSNBC:

Back to dad. What else does Ron Paul — who wants to be president of the United States (though thankfully, he never will)… what does he believe?

Ron Paul thinks the country would have been better off without passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and he would have voted against it, though he insists he thinks segregated restaurants and “whites only” signs on laundromats are dumb (and he’s very quick on the “don’t call me a racist” trigger finger:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ron Paul also believes we should abolish FEMA — because when natural disasters happen, people should just take care of themselves:

Over to Rand again. He thinks his home state of Kentucky has made it too easy for pregnant women to access Medicaid, which pays for half of the births in that very poor state.

“Half of the people in Kentucky are not poor,” he said. “We’ve made it too easy. And people are going to say, ‘Oh, that’s harsh, you can’t say that.’ Well, let’s take care of those who are truly in need, which would be a small percentage of the public. Let’s take care of them until they can take care of themselves.

Did I mention Rand is a doctor? An eye doctor, yes, but he did take that Hippocratic oath…

Of course, the Paul’s are not for “total” liberty. Rand opposes abortion, even in the case of rape and incest:

Again … doctor … (Ron Paul, who is an obstetrician, is also opposed to abortion, and opposed to funding for Planned Parenthood, but he seems to oppose government “intervention” on the issue.)

And like dear old dad, he would have voted “no” on the ’64 Civil Rights Act.

Of course, Ron Paul’s principles aren’t so hard and fast when it comes to oil subsidies, which he voted this session to keep in place (along with every other Republican House member.)

And he’s just metza-metza on whether the U.S. should have killed Osama bin Laden.

This entry was posted in 2012, News and Current Affairs, People, Political News, Politics, Rand Paul and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Inside the minds of Ron and Rand Paul

  1. Their combined hypocrisy is mind numbing. What is even more troubling is that there is a very large voting bloc that agrees with them. How badly did Conway screw up his campaign to allow Rand to dispatch him like yesterday's newspaper?

  2. EzekielZ says:

    Not wanting to criminalize something does not = supporting it. There were and are ways of reaching racial harmony without having the federal government hold authority over (literally) every private financial transaction.

  3. jreid says:

    @Ezekielz –
    OK I’ll bite. How would you have ended Jim Crow without the aid of the federal government in the 1960s, when basically, half this country practiced legal Apartheid?

  4. bmull says:

    What Ron Paul said was he would vote to repeal Jim Crow laws but that the CRA went too far. He’s wrong but at least it makes more sense than how the media has portrayed it. He’s pretty terrible at explaining himself.

    The assumption that underpins all the Paul’s social policy goals is that we have a level playing field, which we don’t. Ron Paul himself said his ideals have no hope of being enacted in the near future but he would try to move the country in that direction.

    I can’t decide decide if Ron Paul or Mitt Romney is worse. Neither is going to beat Obama.

  5. Midlove says:

    People like Ron Paul are a good experiment to determine how many racists vote in our system. Racism is a pre-established emotional response. It is stereo-typing. There is no intelligence in the decision-making process, only an emotional response. Ron hopes that their are enough people that will desperately cling to any idea with a racist dialog to become president. He’s playing the numbers game and he’s hoping to fulfill a personal agenda. The American system is designed to encourage his success when we consider media reports, race as it relates to crime, and economic conditions.

  6. bmull says:

    Re MIDLOVE:

    People have been trying to paint Ron Paul as a racist for a long time. I just don’t believe it’s true. Here’s what he said:

    “Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they’re the heroes [of my life].”

    “I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate — Republican or Democrat — who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws.”

    “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.”

  7. Flo says:

    It might also be said that Libertarians (if they believe what they say) are incapable of having a bit of common sense or of dealing with real people.

  8. Rupert says:

    Paul’s association with neo-Confederates and his willingness to publish numerous racist articles in his newsletters are pretty well documented.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

    Of course I suppose he might have changed his mind, a la Mitt Romney.

  9. majii says:

    Only someone who has never lived under segregation or been the object of racism and discrimination their entire life could be so cavalier as to think that racists will “voluntarily” change their policies and be accepting of those whom they don’t approve. I actually grew up under segregation in the South. I still live in the South, and although I’m college-educated and was a schoolteacher for 33 years before I retired, to many, it doesn’t matter. I’m still treated differently because of the color of my skin although I’ve been a law abiding citizen all of my life and have followed all of the rules of society. Only someone who has never experienced institutional racism and discrimination has the luxury of believing in the Ron and Rand Paul philosophy of race relations and private property. You have no idea what you’re supporting, and you never will unless, one day, it should happen to you.

    At age 58, yeah, I truly believe that had the CRA of 1964 not been passed that the racists in my state would have “voluntarily” decided to be fair in their dealings with me and other people of color. /s/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>