Questions For Ron Paul And His Disciples

I didn’t get a chance to see Ron Paul at the U last night.  And even if I had, I’m not sure I’d have gone.

Partly it’s because I just don’t so much care to listen to politicians in my off time.  Even politicians I generally like.  Unless a politician offered some major insights to Western Civilization – a list I pare down to Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and not a whole lot more – they don’t generally interest me (beyond those that are personal friends, which is a whole ‘nother thing).

I went to a happy hour before the Paul event, at the Nomad over in Five Corners.  A few people asked me if I were planning on going; I replied “No, sorry – I already had unicorn farts for lunch”.

Which is a little harsh and dismissive, I know.  I’m a former Libertarian, and agree with Libertarians about a lot of things…

…in theory.  And, in a lot of ways, in practice.  The idea of limiting government – getting it out of as many interactions we can between people, and limiting peoples’ interactions with the state, and the burdens the state places on the individual, to the barest minimum necessary – is good.  Also conservative.  And, in a perfect world, Republican – although the GOP falls woefully short of this ideal in so, so, so many ways that it gets depressing sometimes.

Ron Paul certainly has a way of stirring up activism.  He does it by talking about a brand of politics that relies on absolute adherence to what he calls – and his disciples chant – “principles”.  Principles are, of course, the bedrock of a cohesive philosophy, and the basis for any sense of integrity.  And when combined with an unwillingness to sully them with any contact with the ambiguities of the real world, they’re also a straitjacket that limits ones’ political impact, and even horizons, to the absolute distillation of ones’ beliefs and nothing more.

Which is satisfying to think about – spending one’s political days vigorously agreeing with people like you – and never, ever occurs in nature.

Anyway – I’d have loved to have gone to see Ron Paul last night – if he’d have been answering questions.  Because I have a few for him.

The Hothouse Flower: The easiest way for a “libertarian” conservative to get thrown under the bus by your disciples, Representative Paul, is to compromise on any political issue with any “liberty” aspect to it. At all. Ever. No matter how abstruse.

It appears as if it the “libertarian” base doesn’t realize that a good 40+ percent of the population is perfectly happy with big government, and that some sort of compromise – that being the origin of the term “politics” – is inevitable.

As a result, it would seem to be impossible to implement “a libertarian society” at a policy level, by legislative action (since legislatures inevitably involve compromise); the only way, in fact, to implement a “libertarian society” would be through a libertarian absolute, if wise and benevolent, dictator who imposed libertarianism on society from above.

How am I wrong here?

People Are Strange: One of conservatism’s core tenets is that humans, left to their own devices without any sort of overarching moral code, are fundamentally corrupt and untrustworthy.

Pure libertarianism seems to believe that people, in their hearts of hearts, are yearning primarily to be reasonable, and are spontaneously moral. I’m not sure that anything in libertarianism says this in as many words, but you, yourself, Mr. Paul, have imlied throughout your career that without some arbitrary authority figure and their monopoly on power, people – even nations – would behave in pure, enlightened self interest.

Which sounds cool, but it is utterly unsupported by history. In any large enough group of people, there’ll be somebody, or some group, they would rather take what other people have than produce it themselves. We call them criminals – unless they managed to find themselves wearing one mantle of authority or another, and which point they become “gangs”, or with enough authority, “government”.

And yet libertarian dogma – especially that of the anarcho-libertarians that eat up much of your movement’s bandwidth – constantly presumes that if we just didn’t have any authority, society would become a mass of gentleman farmers, coexisting, negotiating, and getting along.

What basis for this is, in any heterogenous society, in any of human history, is there?

That should be a good start.

12 thoughts on “Questions For Ron Paul And His Disciples

  1. Capital-L Libertarianism is modern. Like virtually all modernist political creations, it sees no mediating institutions between the individual and the state. No churches, not business associations, no workers associations. Libertarians also tend to see no divisions between government. The local schoolboard is the enemy of Freedom, just as the federal government is the enemy of Freedom.
    If you are going to endorse rule by an antidemocratic elite, you need to explain why the bottom 60% of the people cannot simply vote to grab the possessions and privileges of the upper 40%. Ayn Rand invoked philosophical principles that sound almost Marxist: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
    “Productive achievement” is a social, economic metric. Note the substitution of ‘reason’ for ‘God’ as the only absolute.
    The founders were able to justify the rights of the minority against the majority without invoking high-minded, European philosophy. In federalist 10, Madison wrote:

    The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

    Madison ignores the source of inequality between men. He only wants to develop a republic which recognizes that individuals have legitimate self-interests (based on whatever they like), while preventing the tyranny of any one faction over other factions. You won’t find anything like this in Ayn Rand.

  2. Really, the only question one needs to ask of big L libertarianism is the one you asked–and really, that’s the only one you need to ask of any advocate of big government, too. Are people basically good, or do we have a sin nature that we all express in little or big ways?

    If we’re basically good, then we can go to the Libertarians or the liberals and moderates. If we’re not, then we need to be both social and economic conservatives.

  3. “How am I wrong here?”

    You’re wrong in that imposing a “libertarian” society, top down, by fiat, is fundamentally unlibertarian.

    The only way to create a libertarian society, when 40% of the population is happy with statist tyranny, is to educate them into understanding why they are wrong.

    Which is why I don’t much care for Paulbots. They do a lousy job of teaching the basic principles.

  4. JDege,

    You’re right (and my original premise, “libertarian from above” is intended to be absurd).

    And I’ve heard a lot of Libertarians/Ronulans claim their mission is in fact education; and your’e right. They are largely terrible at it. Or, rather, really good at vigorously agreeing with each other.

  5. Try to get over 5% before you go for 40%, jdedge.
    If Libertarians concentrated their fire on the federal government, rather than just ‘government’, they could gain power in the GOP w/o losing all the social cons.
    The federal government is the least democratic layer of government. Pro-democracy and pro-liberty forces can align against the federal government better than they can against small-town Elmer Gantrys (to use a cliche).

  6. You’re wrong in that imposing a “libertarian” society, top down, by fiat, is fundamentally unlibertarian.

    A dictatorship that largely leaves its population alone might be more “libertarian” than a social democracy that regulates ever aspect of its citizens lives. At least in the short term.

    In the long term though, autocratic methods invariably get turned against those who wield them which is why (even though there is nothing inherently “libertarian” about it) we opt for more democratic forms of government. Because while they don’t guarantee freedom, they’re usually better at course correcting when things go too far the wrong direction.

  7. And I’ve heard a lot of Libertarians/Ronulans claim their mission is in fact education; and your’e right. They are largely terrible at it. Or, rather, really good at vigorously agreeing with each other.

    And while they haven’t cornered the market on moral vanity, they do have a strong investment.

  8. Years ago, I stopped at the Libertarian Party’s State Fair Booth. A display asked Yes-No questions and as I flipped the switch to answer each question, a tiny light was lit on a board showing which political party most closely aligned with my answers.

    When I finished, I was one light away from a perfect Libertarian score. The only answer I got wrong was “Children should be compelled to attend school.” Rather than signing me up as a 99% member, the guys at the booth wanted to argue why I was wrong on the 1%.

    Making perfect the enemy of good is why you don’t win, fellows.

  9. I went to go see Ron Paul several years ago when Michelle Bachmann brought him to the University campus. I walked out halfway through. Not because of the good Dr. or what he was saying, but because his supporters kept interrupting him with chants of “End the Fed” and other Ronulon Slogans.
    Coming from a sales background, I’ve tried to explain the similarities between sales and politics/campaigns. It doesn’t matter how good or necessary your product is to the potential buyer if your delivery turns them off. At best, they buy the same product from a different salesman. At worst, they buy snake oil from the guy that makes them feel better because of it.

  10. Regarding the education issue, I would no more look to Ron Paul or his son Rand as my guide on the Constitution then I’d look for a faith healer to advise me on how to treat a loved one’s cancer diagnosis. Their supporters tend to be very earnest about what they believe but frankly they’re wrong about a lot of the important details. I’ve found also that when they get into an area they’re not familiar with, they try to rephrase the issue so it matches with their talking points usually something along the lines of “first principles.”

    Part of the problem is that they’re relatively inexperienced at politics and are still at the stage many of us were at in college or high school when we didn’t know what we didn’t know – namely that often times you need to be even more skeptical of the people who tell you things that validate your beliefs and that if you have to constantly try to reframe an issue to fit into a nice neat ideological box, you’re going to have an especially difficult time persuading the other 90 percent of people who aren’t in your club.

  11. Also the cult of personality thing is really creepy. Some of my Paul supporting friends have posted Obama/Soviet-style colored portraits of themselves on my FB feed last night and this morning with “Rand” written in the corner. I guess they wanted to let us know that they’re as devoted to Rand Paul as Obama supporters were in 2008. Hopefully they won’t be posting pictures of school children singing his praises.

  12. Also the cult of personality thing is really creepy.

    Ding ding ding.

    I remember seen Ron Paul photoshops that looked like they could have have as easily featured Kim Jong Un. My “favorite”; a speeding locomotive, pulling a train full of people, with Ron Paul’s face at the very front of the engine.

    I keep wanting to ask some of these people if they realize the incongruity of a libertarian personality cult…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.