Ron Pauls Appearances on Kremlin TV Could Damage His Sons Presidential Aspirations

Families will matter in the 2016 presidential election. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton will benefit from the still positive evaluations of her husbands presidency and enduring popularity. However, there is a possibility that closer scrutiny by voters of Bill Clintonspresidency will not be so positive; and there is also an unspoken notion that Ms. Clinton owes much of her political career to the fact that her husband was President. Possible Republican candidate Jeb Bush will probably try to present himself to the voters as his fathers son, rather than as the brother of the second President Bush.

There is another likely candidate, Rand Paul, who is the son of a politician. Although Ron Paul never was President, he ran for the office several times, most recently in 2012. The senior Mr. Paul is a stronger Libertarian and less polished politician than his son, but the two share an outlook that separates them from many otherRepublicans.If Rand Paul runs, he will have to address some of the more controversial statementshis father has made over the years, as well as the racist newsletters sent by Ron Paul in the 1990s, and his cozy ties to Holocaust deniers. Because Ron Paul has never been much more than a fun distraction in presidential campaigns, he has never been held truly accountable for these activities and statements, but they could come back to hurt his son. Rand Paul, however, should not be blamed for the erraticand sometimes intolerantthings his father has said. Holding that against Senator Paul in a presidential campaign would not be fair to the younger Paul.

It is not altogether insignificant that Ron Paul continues to be active politically, in part as a frequent guest discussing a broad range of policy questions on the network RT(formerlyRussia Today). The cabletelevision network is widely seen asthe major English language propaganda arm of the Kremlin. Kimberly Marten, a professor of political science at Barnard College and Columbia University describes RT as the mouthpiece of the Putin regimeserv[ing] the exact same purpose as the old Soviet propaganda machine, but with much better graphics and production values, and more global coverage.

Most American politicians wisely avoid appearing on RT. Ms. Marten said that she would advise politicians thinking about going on RT that his or her words will likely be distorted and mistranslated in the Russian version of the broadcastThe Putin regime will use the appearance to further its propaganda purposes. Ron Paul, however, has never been like most American politicians.

He frequently appears on RT to discuss a very broad range of issues including, but not limited to, Ebola, ISIS, U.S. government surveillance and the conflict in Ukraine. Mr. Pauls comments usually reflecthis quirky and curmudgeonly brand of Libertarianism. Mr. Paul explained to RT that the whole mess that weve been involved in in the Middle East has been technically illegal because weve initiated war, but we havent declared war. While commenting on RT about the U.S. midterm elections, Paul observed, This whole idea that a good candidate thats rating well in the polls cant get in the debate, thats where the corruption really isIf a third party person gets anywhere along, they are going to do everything they can to stop that from happening. Both of these comments are defendable, and in some respects even compelling, reflecting the intriguing combination of being sometimes brilliantbutoften dead wrong that has long defined the Mr. Paul.

On July 4 of this year, Mr. Paul was a guest on RTanddiscussed the conflict in Ukraine, arguablythe most important issue for the Russian media. On that show, Mr. Paul referred to NATOs decision to stop all cooperation with Russia as pestering and interfering. In August, Mr. Paul wrote a columnpublished on the-free-foundation.org that characterized U.S. and European efforts to oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine as risking a major war with Russia to deny people in Ukraine the right to self-determination, suggesting that events inside Ukraine are due to internal politics there rather than Russian aggression. Ron Paul certainly has a right to his views on Ukraine and Russia, just as policy makers from both parties have the right to ignore Mr. Pauls views. Despite his fathers dubious views, the younger Paul should, and probably will, be evaluated based on his own sometimes inconsistent views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

It, nonetheless, cannot be completely ignored that the father of a presidential candidate, who shares the same ideological niche as his son, is a regular guest on the propaganda arm of an increasingly hostile foreign power. There is, after all, a difference between an eccentric former politician, who happens to be the father of a presidential candidate, producing a newsletter that expounds unusual and unconventional opinions, and that same politician regularly appearing on RT to share those views. At the very least this will be an embarrassment for Senator Paul, who may needto distance himself from his own father as his campaign moves forward. Given how popular the older Paul remains among the Senators Libertarian base, that might not be easy.

As Senator Pauls campaign moves from exploratory to real, and he has to flesh out his foreign policy, he will confront a dilemma regarding Ukraine and Russia, if he breaks with his father and moves toward a more conventional and hawkish view on Russia, he will seem like all the other candidates and potentially alienate his Libertarian base. If, however, he takes a less confrontational position regarding Russia, his opponents can highlight the senior Pauls relationship with the Russian propaganda operation. Neither of these are enviable outcomes.

Lincoln Mitchell is the national political correspondent for the Observer. Follow him on Twitter @LincolnMitchell.

Visit link:
Ron Pauls Appearances on Kremlin TV Could Damage His Sons Presidential Aspirations