Blame Rand Paul for not being on the debate stage

For libertarians, this has been a difficult year. After years of building and preparing, Senator Rand Paul fell short in the Republican presidential primary. Not only did he fall short, but he was barely a blip on the radar in the Iowa caucus vote. In the time since, the alternative proposed by the Libertarian Party is Gary Johnson, who has been criticized by many more harder line libertarians for not being in line with principles. Debates about Johnson aside, there is a clear absence of a staunch libertarian in the race.


The social media response to the first presidential debate by many liberty movement activists lamented the fact that it wasn’t Senator Paul on the stage. Would he have been a better representation of the libertarian philosophy than Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump? Would Senator Paul have delivered a stronger takedown of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

It ultimately depends on whether we’re talking about the Rand Paul who originally ran for United States Senate or the Rand Paul who is surrounded by bad advisors with terrible political advice.

When Senator Paul ran for President everyone expected the campaign to go better than it did. This was not a wrong expectation, given the performance of his father in 2012. Former Congressman Ron Paul never compromised his principles and refused to bend to the party establishment, but still took his presidential primary fight to the end. How would his son fare, given he seemed to be better at maneuvering the system and making friends?

As it turns out, that was Senator Paul’s problem. Instead of taking a stand for libertarian principles, he was throwing down standard Republican rhetoric. Instead of taking a stand against an entire field full of pro-war neoconservatives and big government hawks, he decided to become an obsessed Anti-Trump candidate just like everyone else.


In terms of style and identity in the primary, Senator Paul blended in with the guy to his left and to his right. Everyone was running on recycled rhetoric and everyone was running to stop Trump – it wasn’t exactly unique. As a result, Senator Paul didn’t stand out, and that’s why he lost.

So would it have been any different this election cycle if Senator Paul made the debate stage?

Donald Trump may not be the ideal liberty candidate with his embrace of “stop-and-frisk” and his position on whistleblower Edward Snowden, calling him a traitor. But would Senator Rand Paul have been any better? Any candidate must be able to deliver these principles. As a candidate in the Republican presidential primary, he refused to convince us of that. His debate performances were weak and ineffective, refusing to stand defiantly in support of the principles America needs. If anything, his refusal to embrace the message of liberty helped enable the rise of Trump.

Instead of having a conversation about a bombastic loudmouth running for President against Democrat Hillary Clinton, we could’ve had a libertarian speaking out against government surveillance, endless spending, and a constant state of war. Senator Paul, however, blew it. His not being on the debate stage is a direct result of his own terrible primary performance.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.


  1. Even if Rand Paul did stand out, he would have still lost AND he would be in jeopardy of losing his Senate seat. The Republican base is just too dumb to embrace libertarian values.

  2. Senator Paul never quite compromised on principles; he would emphasize transitions. For example, he was in favor of cutting all foreign aid, even to Israel. But, it would be a transition. Or take Social Security, where he favored an option to opt out.

    I believe Rand Paul would have been a fantastic choice as the Republican Nominee because he was indeed principled and a true conservative. However, I do agree with you when you say his stamina and shock factor were just not there and he was pushed out.

  3. Rand’s first and biggest mistake was going after Trump in that first debate. He should have taken the Ted Cruz approach. But honestly, if Trump had not run, I think Rand would have won. His strategy was to become the alternative to Jeb, since Jeb was obviously the favorite to win. Trump messed everything up and changed all the rules right at the time that Rand learned how to play by them.

  4. Rand Paul was my first choice. But I am going off topic for a second. I just heard that in the budget bill we are signing away our control of the Internet. Meaning we will not be the ones oking new domain and standards. Is this true? If it is we need to jump on some fast track train and start screaming from the hill tops that we cannot give up our control of it.

    This is where I read it.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Politics

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.