Rand Paul believes Obama is the "worst president ever"

I've noticed a number of conservative ads popping up in my FB feed. One of them is an ad for Senator Rand Paul, claiming that Obama is the "worst president ever".

Really?

I was already disappointed by your complete lack of self-deprecation in attempted comedy at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner. (Anthony Weiner was nearly as bad.)

I thought you were kind of a prick about a routine patdown at the Nashville airport. Yes, I get that you're a libertarian standard bearer. But a patdown isn't a police state. And that you made such an announcement after it happened to you -- it's been going on for quite a while -- is at best opportunistic showmanship and, perhaps less charitably, a self-centered, selfish view on personal liberty. I'm willing to grant the more charitable possibility, because you appear to have been consistent -- wrong, but consistent.

But "worst president ever"? Do you even know American history?

Are you aware that Grant basically took bribes during his presidency?

Are you aware that Teapot Dome scandal crippled the Harding administration and brought down several cabinet members?

Are you aware that, despite generally being a remarkable President, FDR presided over the largest forced relocation of American citizens in the 20th century that disrupted hundreds of thousands of lives, including those of my grandparents? Or tried to pack the Supreme Court?

Going back to the 19th century, are you aware of the Trail of Tears? What about the causus belli of the Mexican-American war?

Are you aware of American imperialism in the early 20th century, or the middle 20th century, or the late 20th century?

Are you aware that Kennedy behaved very dangerously and recklessly toward Cuba and general US-Soviet relations in the Bay of Pigs, the assassination attempts, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and campaigned on a fake missile gap that Eisenhower did not argue against because it would reveal the extent to which America was able to monitor Soviet activity?

Are you aware that Johnson pushed an escalation in Vietnam even after it became evident that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was due to erroneous sonar readings and jittery nerves, and not a Vietnamese attack?

Are you aware that, during Ronald Reagan's presidency, the debt was a higher proportion of GDP and expanded far more rapidly than this current one? Also, do you remember Iran-Contra?

Uh, WATERGATE?

Now, I don't have reason to question your intelligence. After all, your father is a longtime Republican representative from Texas, and you have the blessings of a privileged upbringing, complete with a good education.

But I am left with an unpalatable choice: either you don't know these things, and are guilty of gross ignorance of American history, or you do know these things, and are just cynically ignoring them to make your political points and fight your political battles.

Again, I feel charitable, and am willing to go with the latter, which makes you a douche, not a moron. Congratulations.

Now a rhetorical post with an empty chair doesn't really matter that much -- Rand Paul doesn't give a shit about what I think, and I don't give a shit about what he thinks. 

What does matter is that I find he is influential in the belief system of a number of people I know and appreciate. And not all of those people may have the blessings of a solid history background, or at least historical perspective.

Proportionality is important. "Worst" is a high threshold -- it means that, in sum total, that Obama is more corrupt, more ignorant, more incompetent, more malicious, more dictatorial, more violent, and more fiscally irresponsible than all of his predecessors. 

All of them. 

Men who were not bound by a large and mostly free press. Men who did not have to deal with modern communications technology and information disseminators. Men who owned slaves. Men who authorized the use of the US Army against unarmed civilians (see The Bonus Army), which, as a close student of law, you would know is (or at least was) particularly illegal. Men whose religious faith informed their foreign policy views and whose legacy still poison our policy with their particular brand of Presbyterian messianism. 

Proportionality is the first thing that jumps in my head when I hear people argue about Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or federal debt, or Solyndra, or any of the other charges leveled at this president. 

It hasn't been a perfect presidency. And there's some blame that needs to be owned, and probably is. The case of Shirley Sherrod was a horrible, horrible mess. Guantanamo is still open. Gays and Latinos feel rightly disappointed that what they thought they were getting was not quite what they got, in the form of gay marriage/DADT and immigration reform, respectively. I think this is partly due to unmanaged expectations, but partly due to some real lost opportunities and poor trade-offs.

Benghazi was one consulate attack; there were seven attacks on embassies, consulates, and other major diplomatic missions under George W. Bush. I don't remember anyone raising an outcry then that the deaths of five, or ten, or a hundred people invalidated the Bush doctrine. I already wrote my thoughts on Benghazi here.

Debt has gone up because revenues have gone down, and not because spending has increased appreciably. And in the near-term, it's the right policy -- raising taxes or cutting spending is bad for the economy, and short-term growth is, given the current bond market and the European experience, generally a good idea.

Fast and Furious is a serious matter. But does it deserve this proportionate response? It's not Iran-Contra, either in its scope or its breach of American laws.

Solyndra is being investigated, but at this point, it looks like a way to attack government support of [non-ethanol based] alternative energy without attacking alternative energy directly.

The problem for many conservatives is that Obama's administration, oddly enough, has been an odd combination of competent and lucky. The raid for Osama Bin Laden could have gone down like the botched Tehran embassy attempt that basically killed Carter's reelection chances. Attacks against Somali pirates could have gone more poorly. The Libya campaign could have resulted in combat casualties. There have been no major terrorist attacks on the homeland. The Republican leadership has proven poorly equipped to effectively engage with voters and to manage its own radical elements. 

I think it's precisely because things have worked pretty smoothly that we get histrionics about things that are important, but not as significant as the outcry warrants. We are arguing louder about smaller things, and small politics by small people have diminished all of us.

This post has already gone on too long, but in short, here's what I'd like to say to my libertarian friends: it's damn good to be concerned about civil liberties. It's damn good to investigate drone strikes, or extrajudicial killings. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it."

But if you want to be taken seriously, bear in mind the principle of proportionality. I saw a lot of madness leading up to the election, and it hasn't completely gone away. I'm open-minded, but I'm not a masochist, and will not suffer ridiculousness indefinitely.