Progressive are the ones proactively trying to better society for all humans. The people who push to improve social conditions for all. Progressives push back against corrupt entities that have resentfully overpowered the vulnerable, in hopes to improve the quality of life for all.  

When the term “progressive” is referred to a political figure, we often think of people like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The individuals who endorse equality and opportunity for all.

From mainstream to alternative left-wing news outlets, Most progressives have been painted as liberal political figures.

I would concur that yes, political figures such as Sanders and Cortez are proactively pursuing the interest of the American people. They entered the political arena, not for personal gain, but to fight for a prosperous country for all. They back the minority populations that have a history of oppression in the US.

But with that said, who is the arbitrary person, or persons, who boiled progressive values down to politicians who publicly advocate for socialist values. Did we forget that socialism has led to mass starvation in third world countries? Did we forget that communism is the predecessor of Marxism, which has killed more people than Nazi Germany? Is it “progressive” to put the military, the corporations, and those who write the laws and regulations in control of us all? Do we want a corrupt, inefficient government monopolizing everything? If this ideology is progressive, please leave me out.

So when I hear progressive journalists advocate for the advancement of big government, I can’t help but shake my head and roll my eyes. Instead of trying to advance Bernie Sanders’ domestic intervention policies, why aren’t progressives aiming their agenda towards more liberty and freedom? Why not seek progress in a political figure who has fought for both? The ideal progressive candidate that comes to my mind is Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is the most unorthodox, brutally honest, hard-fought member in Washington. Paul’s agenda includes both cuts to Democrats’ welfare state and cuts to Republicans’ military spending. Instead of being pushed to a one-track mind, Paul seems to be the voice of reason with fiscal conservatism and civil liberties for all.

Let’s go back to 2013 when the Obama Administration used their executive power to conduct drone strikes -domestically and abroad- to kill US citizens on the grounds that these people are enemy combatants; which in part exempt them from due process. Senator Paul carried out a 13-hour filibuster to stop the inauguration of John Brennan and stop the use of unconstitutional drone strikes on US citizens without a trial.

For 13 hours straight, Senator Paul confronted the entire D.C. Establishment on their unconstitutional and immoral behavior. This filibuster resulted in (then) CIA director John Brennan on agreeing to cease unjust military force on civilians without a proper trial. Even left-wing outlets applauded the efforts by Paul and loathed the absence of Sanders and Warren during this revolutionary filibuster.

This isn’t the only epic filibuster Senator Paul has participated in. In 2015 Paul seemed to be the only member of Congress to defend the 4th amendment when he carried out a 10-hour filibuster to appeal the patriot act. Fighting for revision of the government’s domestic surveillance program; much of Congress remained silent as Paul stood up to protect the individual privacy of all US citizens. Not to mention the filibuster was aimed to dismantle a policy formed by George Bush’ “war on terror.” This demonstrates the unorthodox approach Paul takes to defend liberty, regardless of political affiliation.

The patriot act filibuster isn’t the only incident where Paul has fought the powers of the Republican Establishment. Paul went toe to toe with Lindsey Graham on Indefinite Detention; highlighting the absurdity of this bill and the importance of due process for all citizens regardless of those being deemed a “terrorist.”.

Key points arose from Paul when he pointed to the imprisonment of innocent people at Guantanamo Bay and the WW2  imprisonment of Japanese citizens without a proper trial. Not only is Indefinite Detention unconstitutional, but it’s also morally wrong and real progressives understand abolishing this bill is necessary.

It’s not unusual to see Rand Paul defending civil liberties. He has been extremely vocal on prison reform, pointing out the unjust impact our prison system has on black and brown people. Instead of grandstanding and calling police officers racist, Paul articulates on how disproportionate prison cells are compiled of less white people and more black people. Paul explains the impact wealth has on individuals, but he does not exempt generations of systematic racism  having a huge impact on the black community today.

With decades and decades of slavery and Jim Crow laws, much of the black population is limited to resources and capital compared to the white population. Racism has pushed black and brown people into low income areas, where crime is high and police are present to arrest citizens on petty crimes. Compared to white communities, with less poverty, police are less present to arrest for these same crimes.

So instead of blaming white people and accusing every white person of being racist, Paul incerts real solution to improve the impoverished black communities. One proposal being Economic freedom zones that are aimed to improve the impoverished communits with tax cuts and incentives for more business opportunity. The bill would most likely provide huge revenue increases in low income areas including: 100 million dollars to flint Michigan and 3 billion dollars to South Side Chicago. Allowing enormous incentives and economic growth in low income urban areas.  

Unfortunately, black and brown people are not inheriting wealth at the same rate as whites. Paul proposed a bill that would allow blacks to inherit their parents social security if they pass. Money that has been accrued over time goes into the hands of the family.

One of the biggest factors contributing to the mass incarceration of both black and brown people is the war on drugs. Senator Paul has relentlessly fought to end this war, mainly due in part to the impact it has on African Americans. This outdated war has led to massive ongoing incarceration of both black and brown people, resulting in economic adversity for their families and communities. Ending this useless war seems to me as a progress step to ending systematic racism.

Senator Paul advocates for equality domestically, and seems to be the most active politician to fight for equality forengly as well. With his stand against the war in Yemen  that is rapidly taking the lives of the Yemenites via starvation and drone strike. Paul constantly fights for US withdrawal from this war and an end to weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. With US support, this devastating war has taken the lives of thousands of innocent women and children.

Difficulties arise when confronting  the military industrial complex and admitting the US has had a fault with foreign wars. Only brave politicians like Paul- and yes Bernie Sanders- are vocal on this matter.

Paul seems to be the most vocal politician to cease perpetual US foreign intervention around the world. He’s been outspoken on the United State’s inhumane nation building. He commented  on Afghanistan stating we are “long past its mission” and “We killed, captured and disrupted people who attacked us on 9/11 long ago. And I think now it’s a nation-building exercise.” He’s stated nation building does not work in Iraq and Iran and has continued to exhort “no war in Syria without congressional approval”.

I yearn to see the day when our military pulls back on foreign intervention and stops the perpetual war that takes the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians each year. Withdrawing troops and discontinuing this madness is a huge step in the right direction for the US.

Big Government progressives would argue that Paul is too conservative when it comes to universal healthcare. I would agree, but his alternative solution to free up the markets and allow individuals the right to purchase plans tailored to their needs is a great alternative. Instead of forcing 325 million people to pay trillions of dollars to the Federal Government, Paul is pushing for health associations that would unify individuals in chambers across state lines to drive down individual cost. Due to regulations, individuals are only allowed to purchase plans that are compiled by insurance companies. Cutting back on regulations would free up the market, allowing individuals to buy plans specific to their needs.

Paul’s a free market libertarian who supports capitalism. Today, capitalism is frowned upon by many progressives, which is interesting considering the system itself has lifted more people out of poverty compared to any other system. Free market capitalism is very much progressive, crony capitalism is not. Crony capitalism only favors the rich and advantage the corporations that lobby their way to success. Corporatism has completely destroyed the free market. Advantaging those who lobby through taxes and regulations.

In order to foresee a fair market, the lobbyist must lose their influence in Washington. Paul went after Big Pharma and  EpiPen for monopolized their industries through government subsidies, regulations, and tax cuts.

He also went after big insurance companies by stating in the Washington Examiner  “As a believer in free markets and capitalism, I favor no federal government intervention in the insurance marketplace. But if Senate Republicans now accept a prominent role for government in the insurance marketplace, maybe Big Insurance should just be told, “Hey, the ‘insurance stabilization fund’ is going to be financed by your $15 billion in profits.”

One would think an official with the audacity to take on corporatism, the military industrial complex, the justice system, systematic racism, indefinite detention, and mass surveillance would be more prominent amongst the public. But he is not. Mainly because Paul does not engage in the political circus that tends to win over voters. He is not a vocal warrior in the modern culture wars.

No, you won’t see Senator Paul blaming illegal immigrants for economic downfall. You won’t see Paul blaming Russia for his defeats or arguing with other politicians on Twitter. You won’t see him lying to the American people, promising them free access to education, healthcare, and a prosperous income. Paul never seems to virtue signal or use racism as a hammer to smash his opponents.

Rand Paul is more concerned with solving problems than political culture wars. 

He doesn’t take the “government will save us all” approach, as some left-wing progressives do. Nor does he take the “American exceptionalism” approach as some right-wing conservatives do. No Paul seems to have the only sense in Washington, understanding problems are not solved on the left nor the right, but rather problems are solved in the middle.