Rand Paul Stands Firm
Yesterday, Senator Rand Paul stood firmly for his beliefs on the floor of the Senate. As a result, portions of the USA PATRIOT Act have been allowed to lapse today. Whether you think this is a tragedy, a victory, or even an absolute farce depends on your feelings for (or against) both the National Security Agency's metadata surveillance program and Senator Paul himself. But while others are debating the finer points of government surveillance, I'd instead prefer to focus on Paul's political tactics. Because, from where I'm sitting, Paul is to be admired and commended for both standing on principle and for using his position in the Senate to show the other candidates what actual (as opposed to rhetorical) leadership truly means.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I am not one of the "stand with Rand" bunch. I'm not endorsing either his candidacy or even his position on this particular issue. Instead, I'm merely offering up my own analysis and opinion on his tactics, of which I do approve. To do otherwise would be hypocritical of me, in fact.
Let's create a hypothetical scenario, to show what I mean by that. Let's say the USA PATRIOT Act has come up for renewal, with a deadline looming. Let's further say that the Senate and the House are held by only one party, so the real fight is happening within the majority party. One senator so strongly objects to the proposed renewal that he lets his majority leader know that he'll filibuster it -- and not just by cloture vote, but that he'll even be willing to launch a real live "talking filibuster" to stop it. But after much drama -- which includes the spectacle of major presidential candidates (who are currently-sitting senators) ducking the issue in a major way -- the reauthorization is eventually passed.
This may sound like I'm describing the current situation in the Senate, but I'm not. Instead, I'm referring to a fight which happened from December of 2007 through February of 2008. Democrats held both the House and the Senate, at the time. The Democratic senator who threatened a red-meat filibuster was Chris Dodd, who had been running for president but had dropped out by this point. John Edwards, who still was in the running for president (but who was not a currently-sitting senator), spoke out in support of Dodd's position. Sitting senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, though, were virtually silent during the whole debate. When the final vote was held, both Obama and Clinton were not even present to cast a vote. Not exactly profiles in courage. Here's what I wrote, at the time:
It is worth noting that the usual excuse of being "on the campaign trail" does not apply here, because today's primaries (Maryland, D.C. itself, and Virginia) are all a stone's throw from the Senate chamber. So where was Hillary? So much for "leadership" and "experience" and all of that -- she was too chicken to put her votes on the record, in fear of them being used against her later in the campaign. Obama likewise has no excuse for missing the final vote, which just brings up the subject of his numerous "present" votes in Illinois all over again. And neither candidate has even mentioned the issue at all in a recent speech, as far as I know. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Democratic Party's leading candidates for president to show us exactly how they'd stand up to Bush and the Republicans... and there is a resounding silence from both of them. This does not bode well for what either of them would do as leader of our country, I have to say.
Before the vote was even held, I had all but begged Clinton and Obama to get involved, in fact:
I would be a lot more willing to vote for either one of you as presidential candidates if you got out in front of this issue, took a stand, and defended it to the public. Which means -- if you choose -- you could show all of us your leadership skills. And challenge Bush administration policies at the same time. Isn't that what you're trying to convince us that you would do as president? So why not start now?
This is why I applaud Rand Paul today. Because he is leading on an issue that is near and dear to his political philosophy. You may not agree with where he's leading, and you may not think this is going to help him politically in the Republican primaries, but you've got to at least admit that he is indeed showing leadership on the issue. And that, to me, is admirable.
There are arguments to be made that Rand Paul is just cynically grandstanding and using the entire issue as a way to raise campaign cash from his followers. There is also an argument to be made that the Senate isn't the proper place for what used to (derisively) be called "electioneering." I don't buy any of those arguments, really. The only one of these arguments that has any real validity is the grandstanding one, because after all Paul's efforts last night, the new House-approved "USA FREEDOM Act" bill is still going to pass in the Senate (it got a whopping 77 votes to proceed, far more than the 60 it needed). So all he's managed to do is to cause a few days delay in the N.S.A. metadata program. But to Rand Paul, this is a personal crusade. He hasn't come to this issue suddenly, he's always advocated a libertarian approach to government surveillance. So to him, even shutting the program down for two or three days is a moral and personal victory.
The other arguments are just silly. Rand Paul is raising money off a contentious issue? Gasp! The horror! Except for the fact that pretty much every other candidate running will at some point do precisely the same thing, that is. They'll do it on different issues, but this is really a core feature of American politics. "I'm for/against this, please donate to my campaign" is about as humdrum as it gets, really. The other argument is one of unseemliness, at its core. Call it the "Miss Manners" argument -- the Senate is so downright pure a forum for reasoned and sober debate that we simply cannot have members demagogue and bluster in some cheap attempt to score political points. Um, what century does this argument come from, precisely? Plus, it's not like the Senate is known for getting all that much done these days anyway, so why not use the floor as a forum for politicking?
Compare what Rand Paul just did with another recent situation in the Senate. Two sitting senators -- Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz -- have a core issue which they feel very strongly about (which is understandable, given their own personal histories): U.S./Cuban relations. Both have strongly denounced taking Cuba off America's "state sponsors of terrorism" list. John Kerry announced he would be doing so over a month and a half ago, and then there was a mandated 45-day period, where Congress could have acted to overturn Kerry's decision. Not only did Congress not do so, neither Cruz nor Rubio led any major effort to scuttle Kerry's plan. Last week, Kerry announced that the waiting period was over and Cuba was off the list. Whether you agree with the position of Cruz and Rubio or not, would the fact that they essentially did nothing in the Senate when they had a chance -- on one of their core issues, mind you -- make you more or less likely to support them as a presidential candidate?
Both cases offered opportunities to show leadership. Not only leadership in general, but leadership within the party (the whole government surveillance fight was essentially fought between Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, in fact). Rubio and Cruz did not take this opportunity. Rand Paul just did.
It has always baffled me when politicians running for president (especially those sitting in the Senate) throw away their biggest bully pulpit. It astonished me when Clinton and Obama did so, eight years ago. You'd think that a presidential candidate would gladly use one of the biggest microphones in the country to show political leadership, but in many cases, you'd be wrong. Many presidential candidates actively struggle with being noticed by the public, this early in the race. They'd probably give their eyeteeth for a platform as big as the U.S. Senate to use to fight for one of their pet issues, in fact. But, as Obama and Clinton showed back in 2008, sometimes senators don't just decline to lead, sometimes they actively scurry away from the opportunity.
We currently have a bumper crop of senators running for president. Today there was a new addition to the ranks of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Bernie Sanders, as Lindsey Graham officially announced his candidacy. Who knows what chance any of these senators has of actually winning, but my humble guess is that their chances will improve the more they follow Rand Paul's example of using the bully pulpit of the Senate to fight for what they believe in. They can make good on their big campaign promises ("I'm going to fight hard for you" is a stock line for just about any candidate), and they can do so in real time (instead of just "I'll fight hard if-and-when I make it to the White House").
Which is why I wrote this article today. I've been calling for politicians running for president to use the power of their current offices to advocate and advance their agendas for years now, and I was particularly impressed to see Rand Paul doing so last night. Once again, I'm writing this while dodging any commentary on the issue itself, I realize. But on a purely tactical level of political analysis, I have to vigorously applaud Rand Paul for taking a stand, and I heartily encourage more candidates from both sides of the aisle to do the same thing. Because it marks the difference between merely talking about leadership (in some nebulous campaign rhetoric during a speech to supporters) and actually attempting to lead. And that's a pretty clear distinction, at least for me.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Program Note:
I have to apologize because I have fallen way behind on answering (and even reading) comments for the past week or so. I'm behind on everything, and it's even been a struggle to write new columns every day, because my mind hasn't been on politics.
A week ago, we had to deal with a veterinary emergency, and we got the sad news that our cat has a heart condition which is not going to go away. Now, she's 15-and-a-half years old, so this is mostly old age, which unfortunately hits us all at some point. But even so it's been a heart-wrenching week to live through.
Kitty is doing fine now, and is taking medication. She has bravely bounced back from the emergency and is actively enjoying life once again. She is in no pain and we will be closely monitoring her condition and trying our best to make whatever time she's got left as happy and as comfortable as is possible. But while I am normally not one of those bloggers who shares private details with my audience, I did want to let people know there has been a reason I've gotten so behind on site maintenance, just so nobody thought I was ignoring things.
One final note: the "grumpy cat" at the top of my website's banner is a stock photo I found on the web when I was initially creating this site. It is not, in fact, my cat. My cat values her privacy, and refused permission for me to use her photo in my banner, at the time. So rest assured, no matter what the future brings, the masthead of CW.com will not change.
Thanks for everyone's patience and understanding.
-CW
Chris,
Here's hoping that everything goes smoothly for you and your beautiful cat now that she's come through the emergency. I know she is in the best possible hands ...
It's almost enough to make you forget that Rant Paul (R) spent two years as Mitch McConnell's BFF.
Hey Chris:
I always have dogs and cats and know well the real anguish engendered by their getting sick and eventually dying. Every pet is a future heartbreak -- no avoiding it -- have to get through it. The comfort has to come from the fun and companionship you enjoy while they live, and the hope you've helped enrich their lives as they've enriched yours.
Sorry to hear about Kitty.
Sorry ta hear about your family member, CW... We know exactly what you are going thru. We lost our beloved rottie after a fight with cancer. We had raised her from newborn puppy and had 14 wonderful years with her, including a few show ribbons...
"It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all."
Was truly a quote written with pets in mind..
Michale
Now, don't get me wrong -- I am not one of the "stand with Rand" bunch. I'm not endorsing either his candidacy or even his position on this particular issue. Instead, I'm merely offering up my own analysis and opinion on his tactics, of which I do approve. To do otherwise would be hypocritical of me, in fact.
Hear, hear...
A Weigantian is quoted as saying, "We support Obama on some issues, we don't support him on others.."
Such a statement certainly applies to Rand Paul... I bet that makes the lot of Weigantian's skin crawl. :D
I vehemently disagree with Paul on the issue of domestic surveillance.. I have no problem with the NSA vacuuming up my phone call's meta data because I have nothing to hide..
My personal privacy is not worth a single innocent life..
So, I disagree with Paul and I will likely not vote for him if he becomes the GOP Candidate. (I am not allowed to vote in any primary..)
But like you, CW, I respect Paul's commitment to his cause. Unlike practically every other Congress critter (and practically every Weigantian) he doesn't change his position on issues depending on the '-x' after the current leader's name... He believes what he believes without any consideration to politics..
THAT is leadership...
The fact that he is completely wrong on the issue doesn't mitigate the admiration for him taking a stand...
"A man who has nothing he believes in enough to die for is not fit to live..."
Martin Luther King
Michale
I guess it's fair to say that Rand Paul would be the front runner for a "Most Impressive Republican of the Week Award" were one to exist? It certainly is refreshing to see a presidential candidate actually taking a strong stand on a contentious issue and backing it up with actions.
I guess it's fair to say that Rand Paul would be the front runner for a "Most Impressive Republican of the Week Award" were one to exist? It certainly is refreshing to see a presidential candidate actually taking a strong stand on a contentious issue and backing it up with actions.
Hear, hear...
Well said...
I like to see Weigantians giving credit where credit is due, even if it's across the aisle..
It warms the cockles of my heart..
"Hu..uh..huh...huh... he said "cockles".. huh hu uh..."
-Beavis & Butthead
:D
Michale
Senator Paul's defiance may symbolic, but symbols are important. I suspect he'll take some heat on this during the primaries, especially if looks like he's gaining too much traction for the likes of the current GOP "Big 3" - Bush, Walker and Rubio or the likes of the back end of peloton for that matter. (The Tour is coming in matter of weeks, and has a lot in common with the US primary process).
I little reason to doubt Paul's sincerity on this issue. Your politics are heavily influenced on what you hear at the breakfast table growing up, and I'm sure Rand got an earful from Ron.
The NSA metadata program is pretty much predicated on the assumption that internet traffic is broadcast. Broadcast information is inherently subject to evesdropping. A lot of people, and I'm one of them, would be much happier if E-mails were regarded as mail. To be opened by the addressee, or in rare cases by somebody with a warrant based on probable cause.
CW -
The Downton Tabby (currently on my lap)and Lord Chumly (currently on my feet) stand in solidarity with you and your beloved cat. I had to let go of an 18 YO cat a few months ago.
I finished reading The Burglary. Very impressive. I left a few comments at the end of the "If You Care About Government Surveillance, Watch 1971 Tonight On PBS" column.
Oversight is to Hoover as Oversight is to NSA. Inadequate and perilous.
Chris:
You have my deepest sympathy. We just lost our own deeply beloved chihuahua Jake on Mother's Day. He was the best little boy in the whole world. He loved to give hugs. I am still torn up about it. He was 15, almost 16 years old. Once he developed congestive heart failure, it was just a matter of days from him being diagnosed to his loss. It was shocking how fast he declined despite all we tried to do to save him. The last thing he remembers is going to sleep on Daddy's chest at the Vet. We had him cremated and brought him home. There is not a day that goes by that I still don't think about him or miss him.
John
Best wishes to Kitty, that she may remain pain-free and active for as much longer as possible.
I think statecraft requires its practitioners to choose their battles. I commend Senator Paul for choosing this one under his circumstances, but I think then-candidate Obama and Hillary Clinton were also right not to choose it under their circumstances. The issue is much more central to his ideological identity than to theirs. And causing a statute to lapse is something, even if it gets reinstated shortly after, whereas taking a stand then would most likely have gotten either Hillary or Obama nothing at all (aside from getting them knocked out of the running for the presidency).
One has (in fact, if not in law) a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an encrypted email. From what I've heard, though, one cannot reasonably expect the contents of unencrypted email to remain private.
Authorities can observe, without a warrant, that a postal worker stops at someone's mailbox and puts something into it; so it sort of seems reasonable to let them observe who's emailing whom, as long as they don't look at the contents of sealed envelopes (or the digital equivalent). On the other hand, quasi-military spying on residents of the US is rather creepy and Big-Brother-ish, regardless of the medium.
On the other hand, quasi-military spying on residents of the US is rather creepy and Big-Brother-ish, regardless of the medium.
The ends justifies the means....
Michale
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150602/us--fbi_surveillance_flights-e2320f0d2a.html
Stuff like this..
SO???
FBI is flying around taking videos....
If your child is kidnapped I'll bet you would be on your knees praying to the FBI gods that they had a bird in the air at the time...
When you walk outside, you forgo your "right" to privacy...
Michale
When surveillance is justified, they should be able to get a warrant.
When surveillance is justified, they should be able to get a warrant.
How do you define "justified"??
Michale
For example....
The issue in comment #14..
Do you have a problem with the FBI flying around recording public places??
Michale