I would like to discuss the similarities between Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard.  They go beyond just running for president.

First, I’d like to preface this by saying that I like both of them.  Rand Paul has been quite good on many issues since folding up his presidential campaign in 2016.  I obviously much prefer the policies advocated by Ron Paul (his father), but Rand is definitely the best senator there is right now.  I know I’m not setting the bar high with that, but he really has been pretty good on most issues.

Tulsi Gabbard brought some extra enjoyment to the Democratic debates that she was able to participate in.  She focused heavily on U.S. foreign policy, which has largely been ignored.  And her discussions of foreign policy were mostly good in criticizing U.S. wars and interventions.

Even though the rest of this post will largely be criticisms of these two, I do respect them and hold out hope that they can do even better in the future.

Rand is a Republican, and Tulsi is a Democrat.  But they both are different from the typical politician in their respective parties.  They both attempted a run at the presidency, and both of them failed quite miserably.  They failed in getting any significant support, and they failed in inspiring any kind of movement.

This is where Ron Paul differs.  Ron Paul did inspire a movement.  More than twelve years later (from his 2007/ 2008 campaign), there are hundreds of thousands of principled libertarians in existence largely because of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

Aside from this, Ron Paul even did much better electorally.  He received a significant number of votes in the primaries, along with many delegates.  It wasn’t his place and time to win the nomination (or presidency), but he did quite well considering he staked out a radical position as compared to the other major candidates.  Actually, this is the reason he did quite well.  It wasn’t because of his speaking ability or his charm, although his genuineness did help.

Rand and Tulsi failed because they were afraid to go too radical.  This is hard to believe because they were already being ostracized by the establishments of their own party.  Tulsi was slightly more bold and radical than Rand, but she still fell far short.

Going All In

The problem is that they hold back because they want to be respected.  But as soon as they gain any traction, there will be no respect coming from the corporate media and the swamp that is Washington DC.

Tulsi was called a Russian asset by none other than Hillary Clinton.  The establishment media was calling her an Assad apologist.

At least Tulsi had the guts to stand against her party when it came to the impeachment of Trump. She didn’t really defend Trump, but she didn’t vote in favor of his impeachment.  I think she saw it as a deep state coup, but she didn’t come out and directly say that.

Anyone who gains any traction who advocates a more peaceful foreign policy is now labeled as some kind of Russian asset.  Now there are accusations (made up stories) about the Russians trying to help Bernie Sanders.  But Bernie is extremely weak.  He doesn’t want to call it a hoax because this would imply that it was also a hoax against Trump.  Tulsi could have been stronger on this issue, but she wasn’t as weak as Bernie.

Tulsi was fairly consistent in speaking against U.S. regime change wars.  She wasn’t as consistent as Ron Paul.  Even when she was on Ron Paul’s show (The Liberty Report) recently, she was not as hardcore as I would have liked. And this was speaking to Ron Paul’s audience.  When she talked about the draft, she did not sound principled at all.  It took Ron Paul to point out the moral flaws (to put it mildly) with the military draft.

Tulsi should have hammered on the foreign policy issue at every moment.  Instead, she tried to sound too politically correct. She tried to say slogans that may have sounded nice but were mostly ineffective.  Whenever she was asked about another issue, she should have responded quickly and then used the rest of her time on foreign policy. When asked about domestic issues, she should have said that we can save money by stopping all the wars. She should have been a one hit wonder.

Rand Paul was even weaker in his presidential campaign.  The first question on the first debate was about supporting the eventual nominee.  When Trump was the only one who didn’t raise his hand to promise supporting the eventual nominee, Rand chimed in right away going after Trump for this.  It is somewhat ironic given that his father never supported the eventual nominee after his campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Rand was an instant loser.  His father’s supporters didn’t see the same thing in Rand as they saw in Ron, and rightly so.  I don’t even think Rand had to be completely hardcore on foreign policy, although that would have been nice.  He really should have adopted a populist position similar to Trump.  He should have hammered away at how the middle class is getting a bad deal in America.  Differing from Trump, he should have said that the answer is to drastically reduce the size and scope of government so that the living standards of middle class America will go up to where they should be.

When I watched Ron Paul in the Republican debates, I never got really frustrated.  There were a few times I wished he had responded in a different way to a question.  But overall, he answered questions with a pro liberty response.  He also hammered away at his key issues, particularly foreign policy and monetary policy.

Rand and Tulsi should learn a lesson from Ron Paul.  The establishment is going to hate you no matter what.  You might as well go down telling the truth and not being shy about it.