Rand Paul Embodies the Republican Tea Party Problem

May 20, 2010 RSS Feed Print

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Rand Paul, the GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky, "unequivocally" stated today that he would not try to overturn the Civil Rights Act if he is elected to the U.S. Senate. It is, he said, "settled" law. In terms of profiles in courage, that's right up there with George W. Bush condemning Dred Scott during one of his 2004 debates against John Kerry.

As I wrote in my column today, Paul typifies a very real potential problem for the GOP this fall. Political candidates typically tack toward their party's base in primaries and then steer back toward the center (where the swing voters live) in contested general elections. But if the Tea Party crowd succeeds in nominating a string of ideologically rigid candidates, the party could find itself in a perpetual primary mode, always catering to its base. It would match core voters unwilling to tolerate compromise or moderation (often necessary for winning elections, always necessary for successful governing) with candidates uninterested in trying those things.

The problem is the absolute certitude of the true believer.

In the true believer's view, everything comes down to the simple principle in which one has invested one's faith. Everything is viewed through that prism. The Civil Rights Act isn't, then, about racism or segregation but simply an abrogation of private property rights and the free market (though as my friend Robert George argues, segregation and Jim Crow were themselves offenses against not only our national conscience but against the free market as well).

There is legitimately a balance that must be struck between a party staying true to its principles and not becoming so ideologically rigid as to calcify and become a permanent minority (click here for a pair of very good pieces laying out each side in this argument, one from the head of the conservative Club for Growth and the other from head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council). But Paul and the Tea Party crowd threaten to leave the GOP unbalanced. They are so convinced of their own civic righteousness that they are blinded to the fact that they have minority views.

They see no need to moderate (or, in office, compromise) because they believe themselves to be fundamentally in the middle of the main stream of political thought. And the true believer's predilection toward philosophy makes them easily drawn into grand philosophical debates, which The Fix points out, is a losing proposition in high stakes politics. Theoretical discussions lend themselves to taking beliefs to their logical conclusions. And true believerism keeps candidates like Rand from having the good sense to not go there.

And this isn't just gotcha-ism. As Ezra Klein notes:

the fact that Paul's view on the Civil Rights Act is so dominated by his libertarian ideology that he cannot even admit race and segregation into the calculus is exactly why this is relevant to Paul's candidacy, why it's an issue and why it's among the best evidence we have in understanding how he'll vote on legislation that comes before him.

Democrats have pounced on this in an effort to define Paul as a radical. "We're learning that Rand Paul has this narrow and rigid philosophy when it comes to government interacting with business in any sort of way," says Jack Conway, Pauls' Democratic opponent. Paul's first couple of days as certified GOP nominee--starting with having his victory rally at an exclusive country club--have been like manna from heaven for Conway, literally. According to Conway, online fundraising has ticked up as the media has turned the spotlight on Paul's nuttiness. (And as I wrote that a fundraising email came in from the Conway campaign asking for a $5 donation to battle Paul's--wait for it--"narrow and rigid" ideology.)

So Paul's radical image does double duty, not simply isolating swing voters, but raising funds for Conway. The portrait of the young doctor as wild eyed and dangerous could well stick. That's why the GOP establishment was so anxious to keep Paul from winning the primary.

Tags:
civil rights,
John Kerry,
Kentucky,
Rand Paul,
2010 election,
Congress,
Tea Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (29)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Whith respect to your comment, I suppose they should contiune to behave in the improperly regulated manner that they are. Even better, they should be able to do anything at all. If the economies of the world go down with them, who cares, they're billionairs! Labor will at the very least be cheaper for them.

bongstar420 of OR 11:50PM October 04, 2010

The thing that makes me laugh is how they try to act like they're not part of the GOP. Yea, and we're all blind!

http://republican-tea-party.com/

william johnson of AL 11:41AM September 21, 2010

Shut up already...you should encourage these people. Look, you couldn't get me to vote republican if you paid me. However, I certainly would want these people to vote for a candidate that they believe in. Paul and Palin, for example, are great for the progressive strategy. Progressives should embrace these people for reasons that will be divulged on a later date for every individual's own good.

Bongstar420 of OR 1:19AM September 12, 2010

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters. E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement