How do you destroy a political enemy? Exposing them as part of a sex scandal, which seems to have less of a shock these days. Or, the timeless strategy of making people think they are racist.
The Washington Free Beacon, who's chief editor is arch-neoconservative Bill Kristol's son in law, released a hit piece targeting Rand Paul and one of his aides, Jack Hunter. For those who may not fully understand the term "neoconservative", I was not using it as name calling, rather the political ideology that it is. Neoconservatism has set root into the establishment of both parties, but primarily the Republican party. It's ideology is primarily based on an imperialistic and internationalist foreign policy, and neoconservatives are weak-kneed on domestic issues important to conservatives, notably immigration and the welfare state. And it's operatives include figures such as Kristol, whose father founded the movement, Karl Rove, Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and politicians like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
It's not surprising they are trying to smear Rand Paul. Neoconservatives are never shy against using racial undertones, such as implying those who oppose all foreign aid on principle, or those who oppose the latest intervention they want to jump into, are anti-Semitic. They assume they speak for Israel and know what is best for Israel. Many if not most neoconservatives are of Jewish descent and are based in the northeast, however it would be a mistake to claim all Jews are neoconservatives or suggest a worldwide conspiracy being planned by one race. Nor would it be appropriate to suggest that all of the northeast thinks the same. That would be devoid of reality and common sense. But, because of their background, I am sympathetic to their sense of extreme caution due to the history of persecution of the Jews which can be seen in modern history and read about in the Bible. As well intentioned as they may be, the neoconservative are not automatically right.
Nor should they put out hit pieces instead of engaging in rational debate. The hit piece against Jack Hunter written by neoconservative writer Alana Goodman, is functionally a hit piece on Rand Paul. Guilt by association to destroy his presidential aspirations. Rand Paul cannot be made responsible for things Hunter has said or done no matter how it is twisted. It should be noted that not only did Hunter, a talented writer, co-write a book with Rand Paul, he also did so with Jim DeMint, which the article failed to mention.
Now, onto the article itself. It tries to make many things Hunter has supported-in the past-sound radical, dangerous, and kooky. Following the links provided are more illuminating than the author's politically motivated analysis. Let me go through a few of those points:
- That Abraham Lincoln is not a saint. This is not news to historians. Most try to justify his wrong doing, but scarcely will you find a denier of what he did. Did you know that Lincoln egregiously violated most of the Constitution? Did you know the war wasn't about freeing the slaves until it became apparant England was looking to intervene? Did you know the north followed a scorched-earth policy of war in the south? Did you know that because of the precedents Lincoln set, big government was ushered into America for the first time?
- That most black and white proponents of retaining their culture are, in fact, not racist but relectuant to let go of their heritage.
- That "diversity" is being shoved down the throats of America, which is viewing people in terms of race, and that "white guilt" is being promoted by prominent institutions in society.
- That he used to wear a mask in the style of the Confederate Flag. The author obviously does not know that Hunter is a rabid professional wrestling fan, and that his custome was out of dedication to that.
- That he was associated with the League of the South and has advocated seccession. Neither of these imply racism, despite what people may say. Hunter has traditional conservative and libertarian leanings. The theory or principle of secession is not radical if you view the Constitution from the compact view of state sovereignty, which is the Jeffersonian position and that of the many Anti-Federalist founding fathers. Note that Hunter was not specifically calling for the south the secede again, or stating whether they were correct to the first time they did.
- That bombing Japan with atomic bombs was morally equivalent to 9/11. This is debatable, and it depends on whether you believe in total war theory or not.
- That neoconservatives push America into war in the name of Israel. Look at what is happening in Syria today and Libya previously.
Let's hope Republican voters don't buy into guilt by association and the race card come 2016. And if they read into what Hunter says, they may disagree with him, but it is wrong to paint him as a bad person. He isn't.