“If you ever hear of a group forming up to stop X, put your money on X,”
-Richard Nixon to Pat Buchanan, 1968
It would appear that billionaire neo-conservative Sheldon Adelson has a penchant for spending millions of dollars on losing causes. He recently stated that should Rand Paul come close to securing the 2016 Republican nomination, he will fund an effort to stop the junior Senator from Kentucky.
Adelson nearly single-handedly funded Newt Gingrich‘s 2012 campaign, wasting roughly $15 million in the process. He also spent $30 million on Republican campaigns in 2008, a year in which the GOP lost 8 Senate seats, 24 House seats and the Presidency. Adelson’s presidential candidate of choice in the 2008 election, Rudy Giuliani, finished 3rd in Florida, 4th in New Hampshire and 6th in Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina before withdrawing from the campaign. Adelson has yet to select his horse for 2016, though it appears Lindsey Graham may be an early favorite to be the next in Adelson’s long line of losing candidates.
When he’s not losing elections, Adelson spends time lobbying in Washington in the creepiest and darkest ways possible. Adelson once boasted of using his power to help China secure the 2008 Olympics by getting his friend former Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) to kill a human-rights bill in the House. He was also known to have had major influence on the White House concerning Palestinian-Israeli policy during the George W. Bush Administration, often demanding that the White House to take a hard-line stance on the issue and never yield to a two-state policy. In fact, an Israeli government representative once stated that Bush, not long after meeting with Adelson, had noted that, “I had this crazy Jewish billionaire, yelling at me.”
Adelson was a longtime Democrat before becoming a Republican. In 2012, Adelson penned an op-ed detailing his party switch from Democrat to Republican. In his mind, the Democratic Party isn’t what it was in the 1930s and 1940s. That is, he yearns for the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. He cites a change in policy on individual charity as one of the reasons for his shift, but that certainly doesn’t seem to make sense, as Democrats of that era were just as liberal as they are now on spending and taxation. Adelson’s new-found love for free markets should be viewed with skepticism, as it is probably actually an endorsement of crony capitalism, where he, as a wealthy businessman, is able to use his government connections to receive favorable economic treatment for his casino business.
Even more likely for his party change is what Adelson refers to as “the party’s new attitude toward Israel,” or to translate, a foreign policy which is not nearly hawkish enough for his liking. One can’t help but think that perhaps Adelson may be pleasantly surprised with President Obama‘s policies supporting more war and foreign entanglements. Adelson’s dangerous and reckless foreign policy was encapsulated when he was quoted as saying that the US should drop a nuclear bomb on a remote part of Iran, and that once this feat of strength was put on display, the US could say, “See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.”
On top of all of his cronyism and maniacal foreign policy posturing, Adelson has a “personal passion” in fighting marijuana legalization. In Florida, he donated over $4 million to fight the legalization of medical marijuana, calling the substance a “gateway drug.”
In sum, if Rand Paul’s positions scare Sheldon Adelson this much, we need no better affirmation that Paul is on the correct side of liberty. Statists of all political persuasions will soon rise up in an attempt to prevent Senator Paul from infusing the country with more personal freedom and less unnecessary wars. However, we must bond together to bring truth to the matters involved and ensure that in the end, common sense libertarianism prevails.