Well, it’s a good thing U.S. Sen. Rand Paul didn’t move to the District of Columbia with the intention of making new friends – he’s alienated the one he had in the upper chamber and the other potential compadres on the Republican side of the aisle are hardly toasting him as the BMOC these days.
Over the past week, the freshman from Bowling Green, who has his eyes on the White House, has been accused of demagoguery by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, his fellow Kentuckian and bromance object. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, accused him of lying and Sen. John McCain, with the coup de grace, asserted that Paul was more interested in promoting his own political ambitions than the nation’s security.
It’s reminiscent of what E.K. Hornbeck said of Matthew Harrison Brady in Lawrence and Lee’s always great Inherit the Wind: “That’s why he hasn’t an enemy in the world — only his friends hate him.’’
The tempest, of course, results from impolitic comments and actions made by Paul during extended debate over the USA Freedom Act, that ridiculously named legislation aimed at amending the Patriot Act, which was passed in wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack intended to enhance national security.
Paul, who plays the libertarian card primarily when he senses it is to his political advantage, fought long and hard – too long and too hard, critics say – attempting to kill a provision promoted by McConnell that would permit the federal government to continue collecting the phone data of American citizens.
The insults hurled at Paul didn’t come so much from his perfectly defensible position – the Senate ultimately rejected McConnell’s overture and embraced a compromise from the House that calls on phone companies to maintain the records that the government can only access through a court order. The objections derived from the manner in which he conducted his business.
Paul staged a filibuster, repeatedly delayed votes, questioned the motives of opposing lawmakers – particularly the hawks on the GOP side – and generally acted like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. When the Senate Republican Caucus met behind closed doors to discuss the best way to proceed, he refused to attend – one of many recent get-togethers he has skipped out on.
Amid all the sound and fury, Paul primped like a peacock, declaring at one juncture, “People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me,” as if he were constantly in the thoughts of fellow lawmakers.
Most of the criticism launched against Paul insisted his song and dance had everything to do with the presidential campaign and his effort to gain traction in a Republican field that will offer up to 20 candidates seeking the big prize.
And that’s all true to some extent – Paul has used the opportunity to not only circulate his name in the public and separate himself from the GOP presidential crowd but also to raise the tons of dough necessary to compete. It’s also fair to surmise, however, that Paul would have employed the same divisive tactics even if he weren’t running for president. And that’s a large reason why Congress and the entire federal government continues to be held in such low esteem by the American public.
Paul is representative of a new breed of politician that seems to take its cues from Sherman’s March to the Sea – salting the earth and taking no prisoners. It is an all-or-nothing stratagem to politics, particularly popular among conservatives, that renders it nearly impossible to accomplish legislative tasks formerly considered de rigueur.
There exists a growing number of lawmakers eager to take this approach. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of at least four Republican members of the Senate running for president, has proved to be at least as obstructionist as Paul. And Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, elected last November, has quickly established his bona fides.
That rancorous style is not limited to the Senate. In fact, Paul has a doppelganger in the House in the presence of U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a fellow Kentucky Republican who consistently works to thwart the goal of efficient government. Ironically, Paul and Massie were dining together in Washington on the same day Paul was boycotting the GOP caucus meeting.
If anything, Massie takes his anti-government persona even beyond the limits set by Paul, who he unsurprisingly has endorsed for president. That places him on the outs with the House Republican leadership, particularly House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
During the recent Memorial Day break, Massie remained in Washington while the lower chamber was in pro forma session in case leadership engaged in hanky-panky. If the Senate made changes to the USA Freedom Act and threw it back to the House, Massie wanted to be on hand to object if Boehner’s gang tried to rush it through without a formal vote.
Remember, Massie and Boehner hail from the same political party.
In advancing their agenda, Paul, Massie and others use buzz words like “freedom,’’ “liberty’’ and cite the Constitution as if they were their own personal stomping ground to the exclusion of those who have a different view of the affairs of the day.
“Rand Paul is the most principled conservative in the Senate and is a fierce advocate for personal liberty, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility,’’ Massie said in his formal endorsement. “The United States needs a president who will first and foremost defend the Constitution, and Rand is the only candidate that has proven time and again that he will do just that.”
The “only candidate’’ who has proven he will defend the Constitution. Quite a responsibility.
Just how far this new breed of lawmaker can carry its influence probably won’t be determined until November 2016, but it appears their acrimonious style will continue uninhibited for at least the near future. An NBC/Washington Post poll conducted May 28-31 of voters who are Republicans or lean Republican have Paul tied for the lead with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker among GOP presidential contenders at 11 percent. And Paul may be picking up momentum – he was at 8 percent in April.
And the worst is yet to come. The presidential campaign, with Paul, Cruz and the rest, likely will establish a low water mark for modern political rhetoric. And there will be plenty of opportunity for grandstanding – the federal fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 and developing a spending plan with these guys on the field will be like passing a camel through the eye of a needle.
Washington correspondent Bill Straub served 11 years as the Frankfort Bureau chief for The Kentucky Post. He also is the former White House/political correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service. He currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, and writes frequently about the federal government and politics. Email him at williamgstraub@gmail.com.