The NYT, already gearing up for the nest election has begun smearing all those Republicans that represent genuine conservative positions. First there was a Jan 25 Rand Paul's Mixed Record, that Pauls call to reach out to the young and minorities is just a cover for his closet racism. Then came a further attack piece by Maureen Dowd on Feb. 1.
The article slams Paul because a former aide, Lew Rockwell was a member of the league of the south, and organization that has the effrontery to not celebrate the rape of the south by the Federal Government during the war between the states and reconstruction.
The article then goes on to attack the Mises institute. Presumably in their eyes libertarianism, because it is opposed to the Welfare state and creating a class depended on a paternal state is inherently racist. Sadly this chorus of attacks has borne fruit. Paul has already distanced himself from the Mises institute and embraced the unconstitutional civil rights act of 1964.
Is history reprising itself? Prior to the 1960 election Richard Nixon was known for embracing extremely conservative positions. After the 1960 election Nixon made his peace with the liberal Rockefeller wing of the party and from that point on was largely a liberal establishment Republican.
Is Paul following suit. Libertarianism lacks any real moral foundation. To the libertarian Freedom is an end not a means. Freedom to someone with a Theistic world view is a mean to free men to render their primary allegiance to God, Not to a state, race or economic class. Not that these things have no value but they may have only a limited claim on our allegiance. In Libertarianism, with its radical individualism, the primary allegiance is always to ones selfish interest. This quite naturally appeals to man in his fallen state.
Only time will tell if Paul will make a deal with the Republican establishment.