Now for a brief spasm of “comic” relief. This past Thursday night, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul found himself surrounded by protesters as he was leaving the White House, after Donald Trump gave his nomination acceptance speech. Paul was apparently “shocked” that people actually knew who he was and might even dislike things he has said or done. On Friday he told Fox News that "I believe there are going to be people who were involved with the attack on us that actually were paid to come here and are not from Washington, D.C., and are sort of paid to be anarchists. The FBI needs to investigate but the only way you can do it is you have to arrest people."
It is rather ironic that Paul used the term “anarchist,” because that is what some on the right have accused him of being. Trump, of course, chimed-in about the protesters who were not “friendly,” but “a bunch of thugs.” Aside from the fact that protesters are not feeling “friendly” about Trump and his familiars these days, Trump as always went too far, claiming that Paul would have been in “very bad shape, or dead” if policeman “didn’t happen to be there.” Yet being typical Trump, he had to criticize even the police there, claiming that the Washington DC mayor had given them “bad instructions,” without explaining what he meant.
You know that someone of far-right ideology has a rather inflated opinion of himself when he thinks that people have to be paid to dislike him. The speech Paul had given in support of Trump was both bizarre and naïve. Three-quarters of it had to do with getting out of war zones; most people do not like war, but the majority who tend to be are on the right side of the political equation. But it is a vicious lie to claim that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy will make the U.S. “safer” from dangerous international entanglements—especially with someone the Washington Post is calling the “worst Secretary of State in our history,” Mike Pompeo.
Trump has abandoned our allies in their quest to create a unified front against rogue players—particularly Russia—and in doing so, vacating whatever say we have in world affairs. Who will listen to us? Even now, European leaders are being forced to work together to find ways to “contain” the damage being done by Trump’s either looking the other way, or worse, encouraging the activities of rogue dictators. Trump’s failure to show resolve in the face of anti-democratic threats has only made the world a more dangerous place—and has weakened the U.S.’ ability to keep potential threats from occurring. The Trump administration has not hyped its “peace deal” with the Taliban as “historic,” and why should it? The Taliban still refuses to renounce its support of Al-Qaeda. Didn’t this country go to war in Afghanistan to eliminate the Al-Qaeda threat in the first place?
In the other parts of his speech, Paul hyped enthusiastic about the 2017 tax cut for the rich, and was just as enthusiastic about his own health care “brainchild,” something he calls “association health plans.” These plans are hardly a “new” idea—in fact in the past they have been referred to as “mini-medical” plans, not real health insurance, but just providing “income replacement.” Yes they are “cheaper,” and as one might expect, you get what you pay for. Naturally there is no guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, they are not “comprehensive,” they generally pay only small lump sums for benefits, forcing people to pay the “balance”—meaning most of the medical costs. These plans have no consumer protections, premiums rise considerably based on age, and “insurers” have been accused of fraudulent practices, such as refusing to pay for even “covered” procedures, to maintain profit margins. Paul’s “plans” are only for young people who think they will never get sick, fall off a ladder or get into a serious car accident. Or, for that matter, be infected by the COVID-19; Paul, by the way, was the first U.S. Senator to be infected by the virus, so he isn’t exactly the person we should be seeking medical advice from anyways.
Of course you know that someone whose “namesake” is Ayn Rand has serious flaws in his character. Rand was a Russian-Jewish immigrant whose “philosophy” has been accused by the right as espousing an extreme form of “libertarianism” that is little differentiated from “anarchy,’ and by the left for her enthusiasm for eugenics theories, caste systems and “supermen” who crush all before them underfoot; basically, Rand was an adherent of the “law of the jungle,” and her most ardent adherents seem not to realize that in her vision of the world, most of them would not be fit to live. Paul’s support for rescinding the 1994 crime bill, with its mandatory sentences that filled prisons with non-violent drug users who were mostly minorities, should be seen as part of his “libertarian” views on drug use, but some may note the incongruity of this with the “law and order” rhetoric we are hearing now, which suggests that we should “re-fill” the prisons with these “violent protesters.”
Paul rode to election to the U.S. Senate on the “Tea Party” wave, despite the fact he had many bizarre beliefs he inherited from his father, Ron Paul—or maybe because of them. For one thing, he was an opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and he believed that employers had a “right” to discriminate against anyone they wanted for any reason. Paul opposed the Fair Housing Act, telling the Bowling Green Daily News that a “free society” should allow even “hate-filled groups to exclude people based on skin color.” You know, the media should be revealing more of these kind of “anecdotes” about Paul so that people actually know that there are very good reasons to dislike him. Although he eventually claimed he wouldn’t support rescinding the 1964 Act, that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t dislike it. Paul infamously single-handedly put a hold on the passage of the recent anti-lynching law, making bizarre claims about it punishing “cuts” and “bruises,” ignoring the law’s explicit reference to the hate crimes statute in the 1968 Civil Rights Act.
Paul has also espoused eye-popping views on border security and gun rights, and his “anti-war” posturing seems to run counter to his view that the United Nations is some sort of rogue outfit whose principle purpose to emasculate this country, which it has somehow failed to do in its 75 years of existence. In fact the UN has been used in the past by the U.S. to assist it in “punishing” other countries with sanctions, like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Paul’s claim that the UN—in seeking to end the proliferation of arms to international hotspots—was actually seeking to “disarm” the U.S., which of course was typical Second Amendment paranoia, and was typical of Paul exposing himself as having an almost juvenile grasp of the world. He is like a child who wants to play with no rules—except, of course, when he needs “rules” to protect himself from those protesters.
No comments:
Post a Comment