The Libertarian Party Still Loves Ron Paul
Brian Doherty | November 19, 2007, 5:35pm
In what Alabama state LP chair (and former national LP employee) Stephen Gordon is calling an "unprecedented" move, the national LP, in a press release pushing their new "Liberty Decides" program (which basically allows people to show support for potential LP presidential candidates by donating in their name), notes their own party members enthusiasm for GOP candidate Ron Paul. In an email from national LP executive director Shane Cory that Gordon quotes:
due to the quantity of respectful e-mails, letters and phone calls that I receive from our own members, even if I tried, I could not ignore the fact that many Libertarians are excited about the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. In no way, shape or form, can I ignore the positive impact Dr. Paul’s campaign is making on America. I’m not asking you to do that either.
If you are a supporter of the Paul campaign and you want to send a message to the delegates of the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, you have the option to do so with this new program. If you are hopeful that Ron Paul (or another candidate) will seek the LP nomination, even as a “Plan B,” you can make a donation to show your support for a future/unannounced candidate (please include your preferred candidate’s name in the comment box when donating). Also, if you feel that the LP should not run a presidential candidate in 2008, you can put your support behind NOTA (none of the above).
Ron Paul was already the LP's presidential candidate in 1988, and remains a life member of the party. My July article on some reasons libertarians have been leery of the Paul campaign--and why in my judgement they shouldn't be.
Elemenope | November 19, 2007, 7:36pm | #
No, no alternate universe. BTW, I think that American Libertarianism, while it may take its economics from the Austrian school, finds most of its historical grounding and claim from American Constitutionalism. Hence, while some of the issue might not be
directly Libertarian, they follow from the Constitutionalism that has always been a fairly tight companion to Lib thought in the US.
Overall, the Dems have been better than the Repubs on drugs, civil liberties, and corporate welfare. I didn't say they were saints and angels; all I said was they were better than the Republicans, and at least they pay lip service to those issues the way that Repubs pay lip service to "small government". The difference, I think, is occasionally the dems actually try their rhetoric out.
It was democrats and not republicans who first started talking about drug abuse as a medical rather than a criminal issue and have fairly consistently pushed that direction while repubs were content to stuff the prisons and build more when those got full. On civil liberties, most erosions have been from the drug war (historically a republican policy) and from terrorism-scare measures which, aside from R. Paul, were swallowed whole by repubs. The only significant resistance aside from him, however feeble, came from the democratic side of the aisle. The only one on this I'll give you is the 2nd amendment, and I mentioned that in the original post.
And, in the guise of "privatization", which is repub code for "crony no-bid contract system" repubs are the kings of giving tax money to private interests for, well, no good reason. Again, the dems win, if only marginally.
Come on, SIV, the Republican party has gone so far and deep into the Dark Side that it is painful to see Libertarians still line up like lemmings for them. At least Ron Paul gets to show them something of what a libertarian republican is supposed to look like.
Marc Scott Emery | November 19, 2007, 9:57pm | #
Mayor Giuliani had 283,000 New Yorkers arrested (many jailed overnight for one night minimum) in his 8 year term for marijuana-related offenses, up from 84,000 in the previous 8 years of NYC administration (when non-libertarians Koch & Dinkins were Mayor).
Giuliani has said he will accelerate even those draconian arrest rates once he is President. Giuliani has boasted on the campaign trail, " No one has had more drug users arrested than me. " This is a record and a boast of authoritarianism, or despotism. This is not libertarian in any way whatsoever, certainly not "mainstream libertarianism".
By contrast Ron Paul said he would repeal the entire federal war on drugs, end the Drug Czar's office, terminate the DEA, respect states rights on medical marijuana & industrial hemp. Ron Paul has promised to pardon the pot people, end mandatory sentencing, and is promising, as his 10 term Congressional voting record validates PERFECTLY & CONSISTENTLY, to be completely libertarian in his policies and philosophy regarding personal drug use. He has promised to uphold the Constitution, none of which empowers the US federal government to wage a drug war, or regulate drugs in any way.
Giuliani has not been endorsed by any well known or recognized libertarians for this Presidential election. A person who recommends Giuliani, who has no libertarian tendencies, is ergo, themselves not a libertarian. If Hilary Clinton endorsed a tax cut, does this make her libertarian? Good grief, no.
Eric Dondero is an angry, vicious racist (you should hear the filth he spewed against peaceful US Muslim citizens on his radio show where I was unfortunately a guest who had to hear this cruel invective) with the most deviated idea of libertarianism I have ever beheld. His shilling for Israel is the real reason he supports Giuliani, that and his admiration for a Mussolini-type strongman who promises to annihilate the Islamic world with militarism.
Elemenope | November 19, 2007, 11:41pm | #
SIV - You can't find any libertarian democrats on the national field, just as you can't find them in the republican field...except Ron Paul, the anomaly, the example that disproves the rule. The only real difference is that democrats are by-and-large not pretending to be something they're not, which the republicans have been doing for decades, and libertarians have by-and-large lined up and dutifully salivated at Pavlov's bell of "small government, I promise!". It was that devil's bargain they made to halt the threat of Global communism (as if the democrats wouldn't), and then they forgot why they made it.
When it comes to "the ideology of the individual", conservatism in America has almost never been about the individual in any duly philosophically respectful way; paleo-cons talk about personal responsibility, but always do so in a way that makes clear that the responsibility is owned of the person to the
society, not to other free persons. And, surely enough, when power comes into their hands they are just as willing to crush the individual for the greater good. It seems more palatable to you that when they do so it is cloaked in rhetoric more comfortable to your ideals? Then you've been played.
Libertarianism can just as naturally evolve from a leftist position as a rightist one. I know, as that's where I approached Libertarianism from. I grew up in a liberal household, and still value many of the ideals that come from that tradition: respect for difference, a concern for the downtrodden, a commitment to justice as social healing instead of retribution. However, I slowly began to realize as I got older that the world I wanted to see created could not be forced upon people, and also that the power of the state inevitably corrupts all good intentions. I still care about most of the things all good liberals (tm) care about; I just don't believe that the coercion of the state (nor any other coercion that deprives the action of willful intent) is a proper instrument to create the things I seek.
It is a distortion, both of history and of present reality, to argue that Libertarianism is in better hands or makes better friends with Republicans instead of Democrats, which is what this argument was about from the start. That many of you have drunk the Republican kool-aid is one of the reasons that I have hesitated for so long to call myself a Libertarian. I have no desire to be associated with that party who shares none of my ideals but is willing to lie about it to get elected.
Edward | November 20, 2007, 12:39am | #
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Eric Dondero | November 20, 2007, 9:25am | #
Elemenpope, I would argue exactly the opposite when it comes to the Libertarian-Republican relationship for the last 30 to 40 years or so. Yes, it has been abusive. But it's mostly been abusive from the Libertarian side towards the GOP. Libertarians are foaming at the mouth, vicious cynics when it comes to the subject of the Republican Party.
Why shouldn't the GOP react with skepticism. After all, who wants people at your meetings who do nothing but bash you and call you a "fascist"?
Yes, I agree, there was a time in the 1980s and the early 1990s, when the Republican Party was not a warm and welcoming environment for libertarians. The Reagan era was the worst time to be a libertarian Republican IMHO. The Cons were feeling their oats, "we don't need you damn libertarians..." and all.
I personally experienced it when I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus in Florida in 1990.
That was the Gov. Bob Martinez years. He was a god awful fanatic Pro-Lifer Republican. His people were downright nasty towards libertarians and social moderates.
The only people in the Florida GOP in the early 1990s, who would have anything to do with us libertarians were the tiny band of Pro-Choice Republicans and a few of the Moderates(Ann Stone, Marlene Woodson-Howard, et.al.)
But we libertarians fought and fought for a place at the table (in Florida). Jeb Bush even made some kind remarks about us, and even once or twice called himself a "libertarian" in front of the Young Republicans.
Nowadays, the Republican Liberty Caucus is one of the most respected GOP organizations in the State of Florida.
The RLC has come a long, long way, (mostly due to the leadership of Phil Blumel.)
You are correct about the GOP in the past. But these days the door is wide open for libertarians.
Eric Dondero | November 20, 2007, 9:44am | #
Sure ACJohn, I knew some of you would come back and say the Times is liberal.
However, kind of shows how out-of-the-mainstream libertarians are these days, doesn't it?
The NY Times, which is regarded by the left as only "moderately liberal" calls Giuliani an extremist government slashing, "Ayn Randian."
Libertarians here at H&R call Giuliani a "gun grabbing, tax raising Fascist."
Well, which is it?
Truth, like always, is somewheres in the middle. No, Giuliani is certainly no extremist libertarian. Nor is he some sort of authoritarian.
He's a basic Moderate Northeastern Republican with lite libertarian leanings.
And folk, that's the best we can ever, ever hope for in American politics.
A hardcore libertarian like say Jeff Flake or Butch Otter or Tom Coburn or Mark Sanfod, will never be elected President of the United States. The press would slaughter them as a "radical government slashing extremist libertarian."
Giuliani scores a 60/60 on the ontheissues.org survey. That's what he is. He's right on the edge of the Moderate and Libertarian Quadrants, (a lot like Arnold and CA Cong. David Dreier and Jack Kemp too.)
Face it, that's the best we're ever going to get in our lifetimes.
Eric Dondero | November 20, 2007, 10:01am | #
Aha! Gotcha DR, you're screwed. You can't answer the question. You know that there really is no such thing as a Pro-Choice NeoCon. Kind of ruins your neat little template now doesn't it.
There are three legs to the political ideology stool:
Economics
Social Issues
Foreign Policy/Defense
A NeoCon would be someone who is Moderate on Economic issues, Conservative on Social Matters, and Interventionist on Foreign Policy.
A Pro-Defense Libertarian would be someone who is Free Market on Economic issues, Tolerant on Social Matters, and Interventionist on Foreign Policy.
That's a big difference there.
A Pro-Defense Libertarian would be: Dennis Miller, PJ O'Rourke, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, John Hospers, Tammy Bruce, Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, William Weld, et.al.
A NeoCon would be Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, et.al.
Now you tell me, would the likes of Meese, Kristol, Barnes and Bauer feel comfortable in the same room as cigar-chomping, occasionally marijuana-smoking, poker playing, cussin', two-girls on one arm PJ O'Rourke or Dennis Miller?
Not only NOT, BUT HELL NO!!
Again, there's no such thing as a libertarian NeoCon. They are two near polar opposites on the political spectrum. Granted, they may be two extremes of the Republican Party, but that's where the association ends.
Eric Dondero | November 20, 2007, 10:08am | #
DR, but these people are associated with LIBETARIAN think tanks. We're NOT talking Heritage, or American Enterprise Inst. here. We're talking Reason and Cato.
As hardlined as libertarians are, don't you think that the bosses at Cato and Reason (Ed Crane, Dave Boaz, Bob Poole, et.al.) would have a shitfit if their employees signed up with say the Hillary Clinton campaign?
They'd not only fire them, they'd run them out of town.
The big bosses at these think tanks know that Giuliani has some strong libertarian leanings. They know he's someone they can work with.
Hell, three weeks ago, Mike Tanner (a diehard longtime Libertarian Party member), who is Cato' #1 Policy Advisor on Health Care Reform, wrote an incredibly favorable article (I believe in the WSJ?) about Giuliani and his Health Care Reform proposals.
Can you imagine someone from Cato doing the same for Hillary Cliinton?
Cato, Reason, Pacific Research Inst., Manhattan Inst., and numerous other libertarian/free market think tanks nationwide know that Giuliani is someone who has an open ear to free market ideology, and to some extent, even leans libertarian.
It's not just cause he's the frontrunner.
Romney is the frontrunner in NH and IA. You don't see any libertarian think tankers rushing to his campaign do you?
Eric Dondero | November 20, 2007, 10:45am | #
I have to jump off here for now.
But, here's my fundamental point, that nobody has addressed:
Standard "Reagan" Conservative = Fiscal Conservative, Social Conservative, and interventionist on Foreign Policy
NeoCon = Centrist on Economic issues, Social Conservative, and interventionist on Foreign Policy
Pro-Defense Libertarian = Fiscal Conservative, Socially Tolerant, and interventionist on Foreign Policy
Pacifist Libertarian = Fiscaly Conservative, Socially Tolerant, and non-interventionist on Foreign Policy
Now I ask you. What relationship does Pro-Defense Libertarianism have to do with "NeoConnism"?
Yes, Pro-Defense Libertarians are closer to Reagan Republicans. But nowheres near NeoCons.
Pro-Defense Libertarians or "Goldwaterites" are Centrists on the overall Right, half-way between Radical Libertarians and Reagan Conservatives.
Giuliani?
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Centrist, Interventionist on Foreign Policy
So Giuliani is a half a degree away from Pro-Defense Libertarians, and only a degree away from even Radical or Non-Interventionist Libertarians.
Interestingly enough, he's also only a degree away from Reagan Conservatives.
And he's a degree away from NeoCons.
You might say he'd make the Perfect Republican Presidential candidate for 2008.
Bye for now...
Ron Boozell | November 21, 2007, 1:12pm | #
"I do not believe in or advocate
the initiation of force (or fraud)
as a means of achieving political or social goals."
Libertarians, please consider this~
As a member of the Libertarian Party,
and an officer of my local county LP,
I have agreed to support LP Candidates.
IT IS OUR STATED GOAL.
We have worked hard to invite and cultivate
good libertarians to run for office,
and now, officers of our own party
are turning their backs, and their wallets,
on them to support a Republican, that IMO
is not the best libertarian candidate running.
IT IS SHAMEFUL that Shane Corey, and others,
on the LNC have decided to betray the LP,
and our Candidates, by financially supporting Paul, while ignoring our own.
The Libertarian Party is in crisis!
Our leadership has no vision,
and without vision, the people perish.
After speaking with each of our Candidates at least once, as recently as last week, I have discovered that they are having difficulty reaching libertarians with their message.
Their campaigns have been overshadowed by the Ron Paul campaign, which has been getting some coverage as a libertarian-Republican Candidate.
Libertarians are confused and excited by Paul and his message because of the national spotlight on issues relating to Liberty and Individual Rights. Great.
The problem is, he is not the -best- libertarian Candidate, as he does -not- support your Body-Ownership-Rights.
Steve & Christine & George do.
The issue at hand is that many registered Libertarians are giving money to Paul, while our Candidates are struggling to keep their campaigns alive.
NOTA? What an insult!
We ask them to run and then we disrespect them when they do? What kind of assholes are we?
They support our Body-Ownership-Rights,
and we need to support them!
My thinking is this;
Ron Paul has no real chance to win, so,
if we are going to spend our time and money supporting a "longshot" candidate, then we should do so to promote -real- libertarians that support -real- choice.
How can we be free if we cannot own and control our own bodies?
SUPPORT THE CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT YOU!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
PLEASE DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS TODAY!
~Ron Boozell aka stoneman76
founder and host of Liberty Bandwagon
also LP of Oregon Board Member
and LPDC Secretary
Over 1000 libertarian members:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
including all 3 LP Presidential Candidates:
Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, & George Phillies!
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
