Benedict Arnold / Rand Paul

In a letter to George Washington in 1780, a then ashamed Benedict Arnold, caught in his treachery of betraying his cause, tried to justify his actions in behalf of his country.

Love to my country actuates my present conduct, however it may appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right of any man’s actions.

Today, in a short interview on the Sean Hannity Show, Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman and presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, also exposed his treachery in betraying his cause as he openly endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

His justifications for supporting former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, were almost as nauseating and insulting as those penned by Benedict Arnold more than 230 years ago. While Benedict Arnold betrayed his country in a time of physical war, Senator Paul has betrayed his cause during an intense war of ideas and principles.

I have written previously on my own thoughts concerning endorsements (that they’re basically worthless), but this endorsement is shocking to many “Revolution” supporters of Ron Paul — especially considering Rand’s previous position of “Ron Paul or no one!”

Why did he do it (besides the meaningless list of social and political platitudes that he offered)? There is only speculation. Will he get a VP nod? I doubt it. A cabinet position? Perhaps, but I think unlikely. Will it set him up for a 2016 presidential bid should a Romney presidency fail to Obama in 2012? Well, I can see that — but at what price? He has sold out his cause.

What good does it to gain the whole world, but to lose your credibility within your cause and your soul in the process?

Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters are different than your normal political supporter. They don’t support the man Ron or Rand Paul, they support the idea of liberty and freedom purported and defended by these men. Paul supporters do not dislike and fight against Mitt Romney the man, they fight against the tyrannical and progressive ideas that Romney defends and promotes.

This makes the betrayal more significant — for Senator Paul has not betrayed Ron Paul the man or a particular group — he has betrayed the entire idea of libertarian principles in throwing in behind someone who is so adamantly conventional as for Senator Paul to lose all future credibility when seeking to stand on principle for the cause of American liberty and freedom.

My long standing and extreme skepticism of Rand Paul is no secret – even while he was running for Senate in 2010. His language, speech, and stated fundamentals were not as principled as his father’s. Congressman Paul’s principles, whether you agree with them or not, are there for everyone to see – and you know exactly where the Congressman will come down on any issue. The same cannot be said for his son, Rand – as is obvious in his endorsement.

So what of the supposed lack of principle? I have written concerning the difference between principle and convention here, and I see a growing trend in Rand’s voting and support record that clearly demonstrate that Rand is a man of social convention – not of sound principles.

Rand Paul was elected to the Senate as a “Tea Party Candidate,” and it is very interesting that he would throw in behind Mitt Romney. Senator Paul was elected as a “Tea Party Candidate,” yet he has endorsed a presidential candidate that has no connection whatsoever to the Tea Party or its stated platitudes.

In fact, Forbes recently published an article asking if Mitt Romney has, in fact, killed the Tea Party altogether by “substitute[ing] sincere flattery for insincere imitation.”  In other words, Romney is placating the Tea Party, he is not adopting their principles. Since Romney has never fully embraced the Tea Party or its principles, we are left to wonder why Senator Paul has endorsed a candidate not in line with the very movement that put him in office.

It is apparently obvious in this endorsement that Senator Paul is merely playing the political game – a game that his Father refused to play, as Congressman Paul consistently stuck to his principles in the face of the Party’s opposition. This demonstrates the Senator’s willingness to compromise, as he goes along to get along.

In the end, there is no principled reason to hold out hope for Senator Paul to act according to absolute truths of liberty and freedom as his father did. His conventional endorsement merely proves that he’ll be like the rest – as he acts like the rest.

If a presidential bid is in the cards for Senator Paul, I will refuse to vote for Rand in 2016, for the same reasons I refuse to vote for Romney in 2012. America needs men and women of principle — not of social conventions who bend for Party favors.