On American Liberty
[Pt. 3]
Imagine a land without liberty. Imagine a land stricken with tyrannical leadership. Imagine a land that forgot its history and its Constitution. Imagine America.
This was essentially what Senator Rand Paul claimed was the state of America in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He used his speech to prove the growth of a younger constituency within the Republican Party tending slightly more toward a Libertarian philosophy.
Sen. Paul tried to paint a dismal picture of America in the present. He presumed the past (the time when the Founding Fathers roamed the earth) was the age of truth and freedom. His picture of America today is one in which people are not free, the government is run on ego, not principles, and tyranny is about to rule.
In a typical conservative manner, Sen. Paul presumed that America was once great (though he gave no measures for greatness), and then encouraged the crowd to make it great once again. This presumption was stated without any evidence of the need to make America (versus any other country) great.
Senator Paul starts by saying the government officials are not following any “principles, convictions, and actions.” Following this, he gives leniency by saying that even if people have good intentions, the Constitution must protect against the misdirection of these good motives. Then he goes back again chastising President Obama for being power-hungry and tyrannical by assuming more power than the executive branch was entitled. It seems Sen. Paul ignored the fact that even if the President acts out of a desire for tyranny, he still acts on principle.
The rights Sen. Paul believes Obama has stripped from the Americans are the right of privacy from government surveillance, and the right to a trial by jury (the Obama administration allowed certain Americans suspected of terrorist crimes to be detained in prison indefinitely without a trial). I doubt anyone would argue there his concerns are illegitimate, but their genuineness does not justify Sen. Paul’s gross generalizations and misrepresentation of the government in his speech.
In giving his call to action, Sen. Paul assumed that the opposite of a citizen of character is one who submits to the government. He implies in his text that surveillance (in all forms) is the opposite of freedom. And he assumes that the Constitution is more powerful than any needs assessed by the current government administration in the present context.
In his assessment of the President Obama’s administration, Paul gives no sense of his earlier admission that some officials have good intentions but poor actions. Rather, Sen. Paul states that everything Obama does is without respect for the Constitution. His words claim to give a survey of Obama’s time as President, but they simply berate Obama’s position with ad hominem attacks. He literally says, “he’s got a pen, he’s got a phone, he doesn’t care what the law is.”
What Senator Paul is doing is creating a state of fear. His words are filled with pathos, but very little ethos or logos. His speech claims that Obama will shred the constitution if more people (like Sen. Paul) are not elected. This is a tactic of creating need, without justifying its existence, and proffering a solution only the speaker (and others like him) possess.
Ironically, Sen. Paul tries to convince the crowd that it is not Republicans he advocates, but simply conservatives. It is as though he is trying to claim that Democrats could be something other than what they are if they want. But since Democrats do not choose conservative values, elect Republicans.
In his closing argument, Sen. Paul comes out with a Disney-fied vision of America’s greatness. He says, “America’s greatness will not flicker if we believe in ourselves.” This sentence actually means nothing. He made a statement purely for emotional effect and tweetable content. This sentence does not substantiate the claim that America was or is great, and it seems to suggest a mindset that all we need to solve our problems is greatness. If that’s true, if it is merely a disposition we need, then what is all the fuss about rights?
This speech, riddled with unstable arguments and personal attacks on the President, serves its purpose. Speeches at CPAC are not necessarily aiming to educate or prove anything. The people who attend want to feel rallied and empowered for things they already hold true. They want the people they respect to affirm their suspicions and complaints against the government. The people want a good catchphrase or quote that they can post on their Facebook as an “aha, gotcha” to all their friends who disagree.
This twenty-minute speech was aimed at good things. Sen. Paul probably cares a lot about protecting Americans and helping them receive justice. But his arguments go in circles. He assumes man is evil, and he wants constraints against malicious individuals in government. Paul says that republics constrain governments. This presumes that the same evil affecting leaders is not affecting the populous. He does not recognize that while republics constrain governments, governments were created to restrain people. Even Freud said that without civilization, man’s selfish instincts would govern him toward destruction.
If Sen. Paul is right, and the government is the force needing to be restrained, then why does it exist at all? Why do we need it if we the people are so well behaved when we are perfectly free? In fact, if we do not need oversight, we do not even need Rand Paul.
vérité et de grâce
truth and grace