Rand Paul’s Unlikely Enthusiasts Now Include Nat Hentoff and Ana Marie Cox

One of the big
questions about the presidential aspirations of the
libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) is whether,
when faced with the chance of electing the first female president,
non-Republicans would really pull the lever for the author of the
Life
Begins at Conception Act.

The jury’s still out on that, and may well always be, but it’s
at least interesting that the senator is getting positive notices
from unusual quarters. Most recently there’s Ana Marie Cox, in a
Guardian
piece titled “Ted Cruz’s Tea Party allegiance only makes the
case for Rand Paul stronger: There are two Republicans who can take
down Hillary Clinton, and Rand Paul isn’t much of a Republican. If
the GOP wants to survive, it might be to time to ride the
libertarian wave.” Sample:

The key indicator for the Cruz-Paul matchup, at this ultra-early
stage, is found in state
head-to-head polls against Clinton: in the most recent polls
from Iowa and North Carolina, Paul is the GOP nominee who comes the
closest to besting Clinton – beating not just Cruz but Christie and
Jeb Bush, too. In New Hampshire and Colorado, he’s the only
Republican that can beat her. […]

Cruz’s considerable ego flourishes in the spotlight, while Paul
has a cagier – and more wonkily sedate – approach to grandstanding.
Search the internet for wacky
Rand Paul quotes. He puts his most right-wing proposals in
deceptively simple language: framing the elimination of Social
Security, for instance, as “I think the average American is smart
enough to make their own investments.” His other gaffes are in
support of libertarian ideas that sound weird only in the context
of being a Republican in 2014: “I think torture is always wrong,”
for instance, or saying he would have voted against invading Iraq.
[…]

Paul’s libertarianism is unapologetic; where he’s strayed from
GOP orthodoxy, it’s largely in the direction that the American
public is going – and not just his call for National Security
Administration oversight (supported by
59% of Americans). On marriage equality (also supported by 59% of
Americans), Paul told his party that they need to “agree
to disagree“. In contrast, Cruz has introduced
a bill that would invalidate the federal benefits of
same-sex marriages if the couple moves to a marriage-restricted
state – and he asked listeners to “pray” that marriage equality
rulings be reversed.

But it’s not just about bending with the popular will. Paul has
staked out positions outside the GOP orthodoxy that are also on the
periphery of the average voter’s radar. He at least admits that
the Republican mania for voter ID laws is counter-productive:
“Republicans need to be aware that there is a group of voters that
I’m trying to court and that we should be trying to court who do
see it as something directed towards them.” Both Paul and Cruz
advocate drug sentencing reform, but Paul backs up that gesture
with the belief that felons’ voting rights should be
reinstated. 

There are to-be-sures to be sure; read the whole
thing
here (hat tip: David
Boaz).

Less surprising but more explicitly enthusiastic is a two-part
(so far) endorsement last month from the venerable
civil-libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff. From “My
Pro-Constitution Choice for President“:

For me, Paul made real a fantasy I’d long held: that someone
running for the presidency, as he clearly is, would focus
insistently on what it means under our Constitution to be an
American – with basic individual rights and liberties no government
has the authority to suspend or erase.

In “The
Distinctive Core of Sen. Rand Paul,” Hentoff works through his
hesitations about Paul’s approach toward foreign policy and The
Civil Rights Act, then concludes:

As of now, from what I know of all the candidates for the
presidency across the political spectrum, that advice for
regenerating the Constitution defines Rand Paul.

Hentoff’s archive (which includes more recent Paul-related
material) here. Reason
on “The
Most Interesting Man in the Senate” here.