MILFORD, N.H.
SAY THIS for Rand Paul, the Tea Party Republican who declared for president this week: The brand of libertarian politics he’s pitching is not the eccentric-uncle-in-the-attic variety offered up by his father, Ron. That makes him someone to watch in New Hampshire. After all, Ron Paul finished second there in 2012, quirks and all.
Son Rand looks well positioned to build on his father’s base. Certainly the crowd at his Milford announcement on Wednesday was an eclectic one. Yes, there were some pronounced characters in attendance. And some cranks. But the Kentucky senator also attracted an interesting cross section of Republicans and independents, of software engineers, consultants, homemakers, and veterans.
As a philosophy for coherent national governance, pure libertarianism has crippling real-world shortcomings. Yet in some areas, it has had a salutary effect on American thinking. For example, the notion, a la John Stuart Mill, that self-directed conduct shouldn’t be penalized helps inform the pro-legalization arguments on marijuana, as well the view that possession of more serious drugs shouldn’t carry prison time unless others crimes are involved. On the grass-roots level, at least, libertarianism’s live-and-let-live outlook has helped foster acceptance of gay marriage.
The philosophical difficulty comes at the point where a singular focus on individual liberty collides with the need for government action to accomplish an important societal good. Think, for example, of laws and regulations to prevent pollution or promote food safety.
Ron Paul always seemed ready — indeed, even eager — to chase the rabbit of libertarian purity deep into the warren of hare-brained conclusions; remember his contention that air-traffic control services could be privatized?
Rand Paul, however, is taking pains to avoid the collisions with common sense that occur when libertarianism is pursued to its logical ends. Domestically, his presidential pitch has the potential to play well in a state with a strong leave-me-alone streak: big tax cuts, via a flat tax, and reduced federal spending; an end to NSA’s mass collection of phone records; a rejection of the Common Core; a balanced-budget amendment; term limits for Congress; “economic freedom zones” with a flat 5 percent rate for individual and corporate tax rates for economically depressed areas; and very favorable tax treatment to induce firms to bring home profits held off-shore and invest them in growth-creating activities here in the United States.
Nor does his message fit neatly within the usual partisan narrative.
He blasted not just the Obama administration but the previous Republican team as well for increasing the national debt. Similarly, in rejecting the Common Core educational standards, he had sharp words not only for Democrats but also for those in the GOP who have pushed for a larger federal role in education. Meanwhile, this statement — “Let’s quit building bridges over there and build bridges over here” — is the kind of thing one might have heard from Howard Dean a few years back.
During this campaign, Paul will surely be confronted with controversial past stands and comments. Indeed, that’s already happening in foreign affairs, where he is under attack by a super PAC for his comparatively less hawkish stance on Iran. On the international front, Paul strived to present himself not as a neo-isolationist, but rather as a dedicated defender of American interests who simply doesn’t believe in nation building.
He also offered some refreshing candor: Given the libertarian leanings of New Hampshire Republicans, he said, “I do think we do need to win New Hampshire.”
Watching his skillful performance on Wednesday, I wouldn’t rule that out.
Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh.
Related:
• Editorial: Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016
• P.J. O’Rourke: Top 10 list of potential presidential contenders for 2016