Not Your Average Republican
Last week, Gregory Miller published a scathing and incredibly biased op-ed attacking Rand Paul and his voter base. I am writing this article to refute his points and to make a point as to why Rand Paul is the first step toward a better and freer America.
Rand Paul is not your average Republican, as he is made out to be. The average Republican is willing to cater toward large businesses and implement government regulation where he or she sees fit. While Paul certainly exhibits this on some of his issues (mostly social), he is much more libertarian at heart than any other major candidate we’ve seen recently besides his father. His plans for cutting regulation and taxation for a free market are often mistaken for pandering toward big oil, but they are not the same thing.
Your average Republican would specifically implement policies to promote oil. Paul, on the other hand, doesn’t cater toward big oil. He caters toward nobody, simply wanting to eliminate regulations that have been choking the economy and are in the end illegal, as they bypass congress. Miller argues, however, that if we were to eliminate such regulations, there would be no chance for growth due to the energy monopoly that oil companies hold. This premise is untrue for the simple reason that the point of corporations is to make money, and if it becomes cheaper to use alternative energy, then you can guarantee they will start to use it. The problem we have is that the economy has been so constricted by regulations that we have not had a chance to develop cheaper, cleaner solutions. By removing regulations that hinder all businesses (not just big oil), it opens up the possibility for new, cheaper, sustainable technology. And who knows, maybe big oil will be the ones to take the first step toward clean energy.
The issues of the flat tax and double-taxation are ones concerning the rights of Americans. Miller seems to postulate that the idea of double-taxation is a myth made up to whip up voters. In fact, this is a real issue in America. One example I can give to is the estate tax which the house recently voted to repeal. This tax taxes land being passed down to children, land which has already been property taxed. The federal government is very good at finding every way to extort money from its citizens. The bigger issue underlying this is the issue of taxation itself. Taxation is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil, and should be limited as much as possible. The idea of the flat tax is twofold: it eliminates the hefty tax code with its endless loopholes and complicated paperwork. Americans shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just so that the IRS won’t audit them, and richer people shouldn’t be allowed to hire lawyers to find loopholes allowing them to pay less. The flat tax also applies equally to everyone.
The current tax code takes hefty amounts from middle and upper class families who earned their money on the notion that they owe it to the rest of society. Rand Paul’s flat tax is based on the principle that, as much as possible, if you make money you keep the money.
This ties into the much larger issue that Rand Paul is fighting against: large government. This is evident in both his foreign and domestic policy. Liberals and Republicans alike like to have their cake and eat it, too; they like the idea of more federal government and more regulation, but when things like police violence and other power abuses happen, they heave a surprised uproar. Less government always translates to more liberty, and that is what Paul’s presidential premise runs on. He has pledged to abolish unconstitutional executive orders and cut huge government spending that is leaving the young generation with an unpayable debt. His foreign policy, which Miller has criticized as being typically Republican, is, in fact, far from it. John McCain and other Republicans have publicly come out against his foreign policy for one simple reason: it is non-interventionist. The basic principle of his policy is that we should not be involved militarily anywhere in the world unless it poses a direct threat to America. While I admit his definition of threat may be a little looser than I would agree with, I think this is a huge step toward lessening our government and lessening the world’s dependence on us as peacekeepers.
The final point that Miller brought up is a valid critique. In our political system, people vote blindly. They vote with their party, and they vote for what the news has told them. But they also vote for their primitive needs. They vote for money. They vote for people who they think are like them. This happens on both sides of the spectrum. It isn’t just the redneck hicks from Alabama who do this. This will become apparent if you ask an average college female Hillary Clinton supporter why they support her.
One of the first things they say will almost always be “Because she’s a woman.” It’s the sad nature of America and our two-party system, and Miller is onto something, something that we can work to change. But it is horribly hypocritical to use this to denounce a particular candidate, especially one who is outside the mainstream Republican voter base and whose supporters are primarily individuals concerned with the liberty and rights of the citizens of our state.