The New Hampshire primary hadn’t even happened yet and already Democrats were exasperated with George W. Bush.
“He is trying to make himself out to be a right-wing moderate and you can’t be a right-wing moderate,” Democratic National Committee chairman Joe Andrew fumed.
William F. Buckley Jr. offered a slightly different assessment: “He’s conservative, but not a conservative.”
Rand Paul is no George W. Bush fan. He’ll probably wind up being a Jeb Bush primary opponent. Paul is nevertheless more credibly positioning himself as a “right-wing moderate” by being libertarian, but not a libertarian.
The distinction is important. While full-spectrum libertarians remain a small minority, most of the electorate holds at least some libertarian views. Classical liberalism still suffuses the political culture. If they look hard enough, libertarians will find themselves in agreement with virtually everyone at some point.
Except if you’re a libertarian, your preference might be to disagree with virtually everyone all the time, especially other libertarians. Elements of libertarianism are totally mainstream and becoming more so, but to some of its adherents the essence of libertarianism is to be drawn to the fringe.
Back to Rand Paul. Traditionally, Republican presidential candidates present themselves to the primary electorate in one of two ways. One approach is to try to be seen as the One True Conservative in the race. Ted Cruz will probably try to claim that mantle in 2016.
The alternative is to argue you are a reasonable, electable Republican who can pivot to the center and reach beyond the base in order to win the general election. For whatever reason, this is popular with Republicans named John or Jon: John Anderson in 1980, John McCain in 2000, Jon Huntsman in 2012 and maybe John Kasich and John Ellis Bush in 2016.
Paul is trying to use libertarianism to somewhat combine these two strategies while also doing something completely different. He can simultaneously position himself to the right of most Republicans on economics while moderating the party’s image on mandatory minimum sentences, drug laws, even foreign policy.
A pro-life variant of libertarianism can even be suitably socially conservative while at the same time moderating by making the culture war mostly off-limits for the federal government on constitutional grounds.
When Paul is libertarian, he often succeeds. He is getting much better mainstream media coverage than you’d expect for a tea party senator from Kentucky with a lifetime 95 percent rating from Heritage Action. Consider headlines like “Rand Paul’s crazy dream of a libertarian-Democratic alliance on civil rights is actually happening.”
But when Paul turns into a libertarian, engaging in philosophical discussions of libertarian first principles with mostly liberal reporters who don’t understand libertarianism and aren’t well-wishers of Republican politicians, watch out.
This is what happened with Rachel Maddow and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s what’s happening with vaccines right now.
When Paul’s libertarian pitch works, it really works. His drone filibuster produced a big public opinion swing in favor of his position. He was applauded by Jon Stewart liberals and the head of the Republican National Committee. His fans run the gamut from Sarah Palin to David Letterman.
And when it doesn’t work, it really doesn’t work. Conservatives who are more hawkish than Paul on foreign policy pile on any missteps with the glee of a College Democrat applying for a Media Matters internship. Liberal media outlets prove fickle and revert to Republican-mocking form.
Suddenly a sensible commitment to follow the Constitution and avoid $1 trillion deficits is portrayed as defending one’s constitutional right to spread Ebola.
Broadly opposing racial discrimination and supporting sound medical science should suffice. Constitutionally the president isn’t our doctor even if the president is a doctor.
None of this is to say that there aren’t legitimate debates about the limits of state power on contentious issues ranging from public health to public accommodations. It’s merely to point out that the people raising these questions aren’t interested in having them.
What they are interested in doing is taking libertarian ideas out of the mainstream and returning them to what they think is their rightful place on the fringe. Some libertarians are interested in this too.
It’s better to be a right-wing moderate.
W. James Antle III is managing editor of The Daily Caller and author of the book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Follow him on Twitter.
