Rand Paul has been running a strange, and underwhelming, campaign.
From the start, it had an explicit goal in mind: to take his father Ron's strong base of support in the GOP, but break the ceiling built by his father's orneriness and unwillingness to deviate even one iota from his libertarian orthodoxy, to not only win the nomination but reshape the Republican Party and, indeed, American politics and policy.
The problem is, his strategy has been to triangulate. Rather than emphasize the issues on which he's out of step with the Republican base, he's emphasized the issues where he's in step with them, such as a rabid distaste for taxes and government spending.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
At first, I thought this strategy was smart. After all, Rand can take libertarians for granted — his last name and background is enough to tell them he's a true believer, and it's not like they were going to vote for Chris Christie anyway. Meanwhile, Rand needed to tell the Republican base that he's one of them, that he's not a crank like his father.
And Rand's decision to shape his critique of hawkishness as both anti-Barack and anti-Hillary, as well as as a form of realism, was smart both politically and on the merits.
Ron's base nearly put him over the top in Iowa and New Hampshire. With just a few more votes, Rand could win those states, and thus, be well positioned to win the nomination. Parts of the Republican establishment could live with him as a fervent tax cutter and small government ideologue; parts of the Republican base could live with him thanks to his pro-life credentials. And while national security conservatives have a very strong presence in the GOP elite, they aren't very numerous at the polls.
All that said, it's time to note that the strategy isn't working.
There are 57 other candidates running, or so it seems. Rand's job is to stand out, and saying that you hate taxes and want to cut them is not exactly the grandest way to announce yourself in a Republican primary — heck, even Kasich is saying it.
What's more, this primary is scrambling all of the rules of politics. Trump may be the frontrunner (with Carson nipping at his heels) but his "coalition" is not at all a "base" coalition — nor, needless to say, is he the establishment candidate. Typically, at this stage, the anti-establishment frontrunner is powered by evangelical votes, but Trump supporters are more secular than the typical Republican voter, not less.
The Republican Party's soul is up for grabs. No one knows in which direction the GOP is headed, and we have countless proposals. It's strange that the libertarian wing of the party, which was so strong in 2008 and 2012, thanks to Ron, is not making itself felt in the polls now.
I'm no libertarian, but I am deeply concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in the U.S., runaway executive power, and the sometimes reckless adventurism of foreign policy elites, both left and right. On top of being smart politics, these are debates the country needs, and these are fights Rand needs to pick.
Let Rand be Rand.
After all, at this point, what's he got to lose?
