 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 17, 2008 at 09:37:54
Libertarians Set to Wreck Themselves over Ron Paul by Greg Albert Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
In the wake of TNR’s article about Ron Paul, several libertarian websites and newspapers expressed upset and disavowal. The recent posts in The Liberty Papers are more or less indicative of the general tone. David Boaz of the CATO Institute also had some condemning words for Paul: “We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.” That’s rich. For the last several months, Boaz and CATO wouldn’t explain why they dismissed the Ron Paul movement, which proposed the first viable libertarian presidency since quasi-libertarian Ronald Reagan. Now they suddenly recall that it was Paul’s associates all along. Maybe they mean it, but they mean it with a smug satisfaction Let us be clear about Paul’s involvement in the newsletters: From Liberty Papers and CATO to Andrew Sullivan and Reason.com, no one actually believes Paul wrote the newsletters. The letters can’t be reconciled with the wealth of Paul’s books or speeches, nor his ideology or political platform. Instead, they complain that he is guilty of some kind of publisher’s negligence, and I agree. Being Ron Paul, he probably overlooked the newsletters because of some libertarian, live-and-let-live subscription to the free expression rights of the authors. So I admit that Ron Paul may be just too libertarian to safely rent out his name and I charge him with failing to require authors’ bylines in exchange for his name. But if that’s the worst of his failures, I’d be more worried if he ignored a sexual harassment claim at Ron Paul Barbeque. In reality, libertarians seem to distance themselves because Ron Paul isn’t the perfect libertarian. Every think tank has its ideological nuances and they won’t always square with Paul’s brand of libertarianism. That may seem trite and it probably is, but keep in mind that libertarian writers spend their lives honing ideological twists and pursuing literary achievements instead of learning the law and becoming active. They don’t need to compromise their positions or reconcile their separate idiosyncrasies to form any sort of consensual movement, so they can’t be expected to suddenly change now that there’s a specific brand of libertarianism on center stage. One wonders if this theory-to-practice threshold is a common obstacle for partisan architects when their ideologies make an actual political debut.
With the stakes so high, perhaps the most confusing part of all this is what libertarian authors hope to gain from inaction. Front-runners in both parties pushing pro-federal agendas so Ron Paul could be the last stop on the U.S.’s way to irrevocable statism. By the time another viable libertarian comes along, the federal government may have abrogated so many civil rights and tinkered with the economy so badly that citizens will be carrying IDs to walk on the sidewalk and applying for permission just to turn a profit. Moreover, the internet may be regulated, which may eschew any chance at another Ron Paul-style net-roots campaign. Worse, every economist from the Comptroller General to Alan Greenspan predicts a long-term recession and recessions are hardly the time to propose limited government solutions when voters are looking to the government to solve their woes. A libertarian society may weather economic depressions better than other social constructs, but they need economic momentum to begin with. If the aftermath of the New Deal is any indication, it will take another 60 years after the next recession before libertarianism becomes tasteful again.
The tragedy of all this is that Paul seems to be the only candidate interested in protecting America’s most oppressed minority: the United Sates military and its family members. Over 4,000 Americans have died tragic, inglorious deaths far across the planet from their loved ones. Tens of thousands more are returning home with melted skin, amputated limbs, and blood filled with pathogens due to Halliburton’s negligence. They cannot afford the liberty movement to become fractured over an anachronistic perspective on some nonsense newsletters designed to provoke a newly-minted, politically correct era. They have even said so; by donating more to the Paul campaign than any other, military families are screaming for libertarians and conservatives to take a stand on his behalf. If libertarians wait for some perfect candidate to descend from Plato’s Heaven, they will abandon these people who desperately need them for nothing but a long-shot gamble that something better will come along.
Paul’s brand of libertarian-conservatism deserves an endorsement if for no other reason than it approximates the ostensible positions of Liberty Papers and CATO. There is no question that Paul subscribes to the core tenets of Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, and John Locke and he appears to approach them with deontological rigidity. Whatever libertarian authors' real beef with Paul is, it is so subtle to the layman that one would probably find more disagreement between Richard Pearle and Bill Kristol. And while I have been extremely critical of those two, I will note that at least they had the gumption to take a chance on George W. Bush.
Moreover, there is no question that Paul is legitimate. He has been endorsed by Goldwater the younger, shilled by heavyweight conservative Richard Viguerie, and praised by John McLaughlin (several times). When Carl Cameron of Fox News asked Paul an obnoxious question about Paul’s credibility with Republicans, Paul embarrassed Cameron so badly that Fox cut the clip out of its debate rebroadcast.
In spite of all this, CATO chooses to shuffle Paul out. In so doing, it narrows the scope of acceptable libertarian brands and it alludes to a preference for impotence over risk. It prioritizes a fear of being associated with racial insensitivity over a host of other problems including dead Americans and out-of-control federal spending. Worse, it sets a tone for libertarians to refrain from acting on the fortuitous chance that a wart-less, history-less candidate will charm his way onto the national stage.
Libertarian think tanks should give themselves a reality check. They should compare Paul’s newsletter problem with the problems associated with other candidates. McCain flippantly promises to keep an American presence in Iraq for the next 100 years. In fact, no one but Paul can really be trusted not to. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all promise massive entitlement programs despite dire predictions by the Comptroller General about our ability to follow through with our current entitlements. No candidate even tries to rebut Paul’s predictions about the economy, which is wise, because Paul has anticipated every economic turn since 1997, yet they all assert fiscally wreckless proposals. And the irony is that no one but Obama is likely to be alive to watch the real havoc this fiscal irresponsibility will wreak on our economy. I am dismayed that Paul’s old, denounced publication appears to matter as much as any of that.
Perhaps many libertarian idealogues don’t care. Perhaps they are more content to be right than to do anything about it. Perhaps that’s even a morally neutral choice. But at some point the liberty movement stops looking useful and starts looking opportunistic. And libertarians cannot claim to fight the good fight when they only pick the easy ones.
In case you didn’t read the CATO Institute’s condemnation, here is their best argument: “That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.” I am surprised that even libertarians misunderstand Paul this fundamentally. In reality, Paul says, “I allowed writers to use my name to express their views regardless of whether I appreciated their positions. Now, I want to strip the powers of the executive branch so that people can make their own decisions regardless of whether I appreciate their positions.” Nor does Paul want "responsibility" for the federal government so much as he wants to divest it of the responsibilities that it cannot help but mismanage. That is as libertarian a position as one could responsibly ask a presidential candidate to have. It is difficult to see how the liberty movement can ever succeed if libertarians refuse to stick up for the candidate who adheres to it, especially one who adheres to it without compromise, special interest money, or concern for political ostracization.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 15 comments |
|
Transparency
The self proclaimed Libertarians that have any type of media exposure will all distance themselves from Ron Paul. Why? Well, because RP is the type of guy that will do what he wants regardless of who is sucking up to him. Bottom line is that people over at CATO have nothing to gain by associating themselves with Paul. In fact, they have everything to lose, because if they associated with Paul it would expose their 'polished' brand of Libertarianism for what it is. What is it, you ask. It's surface only, there is very little substance behind the talking heads at CATO. As long as they still get invited on the Network News shows to give their pseudo-intellectual and 'packaged for mainstream' ideas, they are happy. What Ron Paul brings to the Libertarian table is a set of fundamental ideas, geared towards actually rolling back our regressive policies. Now, Ron Pauls ideas to reestablish a solid foundation from which to grow, may not be the most Libertarian. However, there has to be a plan to roll back what is currently in place in order for the Libertarian principles to work. Wake up boys and girls. Ron Paul may not be the perfect messenger, however, it's not about Ron Paul. It's about regaining the constitutional authority and reigning in poor monetary polices, trade polices, drug policies, foreign policies, farm policies, education polices etc... If the kids at CATO can't realize that it's not about the man, but it's about the policies. By not supporting Ron Paul it just kicks their agenda & philosophy that much further down the road. But I guess if all they care about is being talking heads, then they should stay the course. End rant.. by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: The true enemy of libertarianism
So called Libertarian think tanks and magazines are actively subverting libertarianism. They talk a good deal but do they ever do any action? They are an outlet to express an idea or two, but they do everything they can when a candidate actually stands up and tried to implement an actual libertarian movement. Too paranoid? Have you ever seen any libertarian website even mention the American Freedom Agenda Act? How much do you hear about actually decreasing the Federal government? Seen anything about the inflation tax? Let's just admit what these organizations really are. They work against you, not for you. by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 5:27:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Outstanding
Outstanding summation of a sad state of afairs in libertarian circles. It is just amazing that those most in agreement with Ron Paul on most issues are some of his most vocal critics. Ron Paul deserves our full support. by Greg Worrel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul and the Media.
Why is Ron Paul not receiving the Major Media coverage? Most major media outlets are prone to deliver the message that there owners want to hear. To give an example, Rupert Murdock owner of FOX news says, quote word for word “For better or for worse, our company (The News Corporation Ltd.) is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values.” Knowing this all one needs to do is look at Rupert's well known political positions and choices for President and it is oddly coincidental that it is the very same people that are the "Touted" candidates and do so well in the FOX polls. Fair and unbiased? You be the judge.. NBC has it's master called GE. GE has the same privilege as Rupert. GE is one of the world’s largest military contractors. Are we to be believe that we are always getting fair and balanced information? You be the judge. As far as the other media, I am sure some of them also have there "Masters" that are proactive in what message is conveyed by there news outlets. Imho, Ron Paul cannot count on the major media to do anything but sabotage him and we should not cry about it, that’s the way the media works in this country. What Ron Paul supporters need to do is focus on what we do have, a extremely LARGE grassroots campaign made up of millions of individuals, not several corporations like the rest of the field. Be thankful for having a true honest campaign and work hard at getting him elected. Don't get caught up with the bad vibes of others who fear this revolution that is unfolding.. Looking forward to Ron Paul as President. Sincerely Brian Kuszmar Lauderdale by the Sea, Fla. by Bkusz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Great Analysis
Great analysis, Greg. You've done a commendable job of anaylizing this from a detached viewpoint, and it was a fascinating read. I still support Dr. Paul, despite the newsletter flap. He should be chastised for not being more attentive to the content being printed under his name, but if this is the worst of his sins, it pales in comparison to the campaign-to-get-elected-then-back-to-business-as-usual tact of every other candidate running. Dr. Paul will actually act to avert our economic collapse, whereas the others will not. I fear for our nation's near future if he is not nominated. The posture of our recent history's leaders is to take the safe, if eventually ruinous route. The people struggling with imminent foreclosure on their homes are dealing with this lesson on a personal level now. Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, and only Dr. Paul has the motivation to actually DO something about it. by Darryl Schmitz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM (0+)
|
|
The Legacy of Ron Paul
I hope we don't have to wait another 60 years for a viable candidate to come along :) Thanks to Ron Paul the ideas of federalism and some libertarianism have come to find new life with an energetic and optimistic generation. But, I also tend to think that its time to start looking forward to new candidates, even if we have to start locally and work back up. by John McDonald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM (0+)
|
|
I fear for my nation
Self righteous people will be the doom of America. I vote for virtue, I vote for Ron Paul. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Libertarian Wimps
By joining in the kicking-fest over this non-issue, the big-L libertarians have made a huge accidental confession about what they are really about. In the process, they have rendered themselves irrelevant. It appears that they are more interested in bettering one another in a twisted game of mental masturbation than joining in and helping the effort for what may be the last chance to save our republic, along with their own scrawny necks. Which raises the question: who do they think they are pandering to, anyway? Great analyis, Greg. by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:57:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Who to pick?
McCain never met a Bill or a War he did not like. He admits to being part of the problem in the Republican party in the past, to bad he could not have figured that out BEFORE the election. He certainly is not the brightest bulb in the bunch..President? by Bkusz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 2:39:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Call me suspicious but..
I find this claim hard to believe: “We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be." Because they have been on public record since the mid 1990 when this was FIRST brought up. by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 3:15:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Albert can't have really read Rand
if he thinks that Paul lives up to any of the fundamental tenets. Paul's ultimate arguments on many issues, such as abortion, end with the phrase "state's rights." Trouble is Rand makes it quite clear that states do not have special rights. Also, Paul seems to be under the impression that individual rights stop at the border. If paul's policies were enacted in the 20's, Rand would never have been able to come to the US. She would have died at the hands of Soviet dictators. If Paul's pacifist (erm "non-interventionist") policies were enacted consistently for the rest of the century, the Soviets would have gained an even larger chunk of territory, possibly having conquered the world by now, and used the plunder to not collapse yet. Why? You can't wait until you are attacked when you are the strongest party on your side, by the time you are you can't do anything about it. You have to recognize early how to make it impossible for growing slave pens (such as Iran, China, and ironically enough potentially Putin's Russia it seems) to ever conquer you. by Justin Hinkley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 8:03:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I think you misunderstand the point
You're making extraneous points. Paul subscribes to Rand's libertarian, hard asset-backed economics. He believes in Jefferson's libertarian approach to constitutionalism. Abortion is a conundrum for libertarians because some of them believe the baby should have equal protection, but that hardly makes them less libertarian to give out more rights. Moreover, you misunderstand Paul on immigration. He says it's good when the economy can handle it but bad when it can't. He generally wants it open, but he says we can't do that until we have a free market. by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 3:25:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Excellent article!
Good points! I make some similar arguments here: RON PAUL IS NOT A BIGOT: REFUTING THE NEW REPUBLIC CHARGES Thanks, James W. Harris by James W. Harris (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Ain't no one else even close to what I believe.
Ron Paul for the long haul, baby. by Joe Allen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 7:44:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Libertarianism
Libertarianism is nothing but a scam. Its purpose is to destroy public government so when the government collapses private corporations will buy all the public assets. When private corporations own everything they will be free to create their own Global government and force everyone to be their corporate slaves. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
