The bait-and-switch is one of the oldest and most reliable tricks in the book when it comes to scamming people. While this low grade technique of fraud is perhaps most typically found at grocery stores or car dealerships, politicians can apparently also resort to this trick, as many have observed with the constantly morphing stances of the Paul political dynasty. For many of those who've grown wary of the father-son duo, the two fit the bait-and-switch description all too well, with Ron representing the always promised but never delivered ideal with the oft cited impeccable voting record, and Rand serving as the actual product, utterly lacking, compared to what was promised. Yet when faced with the choice between Rand or the end of the Paul political dynasty, many offer their support to him, in the waning hope that he will continue what his father started.
Rand's father Ron earned the reputation of being perhaps the most philosophically consistent modern congressmen, albeit unarguably also one of the least effective. Rand's reputation has clearly budded into something close to the opposite, from a strategic perspective. He shows little hesitation in compromising fundamental values and beliefs in exchange for some perceived political benefit, like positioning himself as a 2016 presidential candidate, for example. One instance of this was his support of domestic robot planes for the purpose of spying on Americans from the sky. Another was his voting in support of the NDAA, the legislation which aims to strip Americans of their right to a trial, the very same legislation he initially described as an "abomination." The list goes on, from his support of the "war on drugs" to his aggressive urging of president Obama to "punish" Russia, leaving Rand now hardly distinguishable from mainline republicans.
In his stunningly pro war Op-Ed piece written for Time, Rand skips right past any intellectual foreplay and immediately bombards his audience with falsehoods with his first sentence:
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community.
This statement is false. According to the BBC:
Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there.
While military intervention is by its very nature always dubiously justified, Russia seems to have generally behaved according to it's agreement with the Ukraine, while the US can boast of no such agreement with any of the countries it has illegally invaded since the false flag attacks of 9/11. This entire question, however, seems to have become moot with Crimea democratically voting to become part of Russia, and the US, in its typically ironic fashion, ignoring this apparent display of the will of the people. Rand then goes on to dabble clumsily in Orwellian doublespeak, stating:
This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.
Predictably, the "actions" Paul is suggesting are economic sanctions, which are recognized my many geopolitical experts as nothing less than an act of war. It's estimated that roughly a half million Iraqi children have been killed as a result of US sanctions against that country. It is in the face of incomprehensibly horrid statistics such as these that Rand Paul simultaneously cries peace while promoting economic sanctions against Russia. Fortunately for humanity, however, Russia is not Iraq, and US sanctions are expected to have little to almost no effect on the much more autonomous Russian economy.
So just as George W. Bush's era saw and end to any significant anti-war sentiment from republicans, and Barack Obama's ushered in the death of what was left of the anti-war movement within the democratic party, Rand Paul seems, by many reasonable accounts, to be fulfilling a similar function within the libertarian community. While Ron Paul cannot be expected to answer entirely for his son's politics, each new attack upon constitutional and libertarian ideals offered by Rand makes his father's silence that much more deafening.