A Libertarian Spring
If it were Hillary Clinton versus Ron Paul in the general election I'd vote for Ron Paul. Hell, if it's Hillary Clinton versus any other Republican candidate and Ron Paul runs as an independent I might vote for him, provided Ralph Nader doesn't jump in and then I guess I'd vote for Ralph again, for the third time. Ron Paul, naturally, has no chance whatsoever of being the Republican nominee — whether he'd run as an independent, who knows? (And belatedly thinking about it, the Daily Kos' advice to Michigan Democrats to vote in Tuesday's open primary for Mitt Romney so as to sow confusion in Republican ranks might constructively be amended that instead they vote for Ron Paul.) I'm skeptical, nevertheless, that whatever it is that Ron Paul has tapped into represents a coherent Libertarian movement or, indeed, whether Libertarian ideas ever translate into a method of governance.
To suspend disbelief for just a moment, at one level Ron Paul as president would be much less a threat to progressive policies than commonly believed. On really big issues, like the Global War on Terror, the occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the shredding of the U.S. Constitution in favor of a military dictatorship, even the rampant corruption that now passes for normal politics, he might well be able to bring together enough of a consensus to change course, even reverse course. On other issues, big issues where he's misguided, such as social security, health care, education, energy policy, the economy, trade, immigration, the environment, etc., etc., he could not shape a consensus that deconstructs existing public policy (such as it is). A bi-partisan super-majority would oppose him. Indeed, he's as much as said most of that stuff is off the table. Nor could he, as Karl Rove fantasized for the Republicans, usher in decades of Libertarian rule. For one thing, the infrastructure doesn't exist, for another, there's no agenda. He'd have trouble getting even one additional Libertarian elected to Congress. On balance, few worries.
The question of who supports Ron Paul is complex and deserves serious study. I'd be very interested, for example, to know the breakdown of their educational levels, their past party affiliation (if any), age and gender groupings, and similar data. So far as I know nobody's yet tried to put this all together, but I may be wrong.
The question of what Libertarianism actually means in practical political terms is even more complicated. To my mind the closest analogue to a Libertarian intellectual would be a committed Marxist, both with rich internal lives from having absorbed several shelves' worth of polemical books, running arguments in and out as necessary while taking care not to be pinned down on the wrong side by either facts or logic. But this may not be an entirely bad thing. Both Marxists and Libertarians, looking through a glass wall, often find their way to powerful, apt, critical assessments. They contribute prolifically to public discourse, often setting or helping set frames of reference. And their moral impulses are often (but not always) beyond reproach.
At the heart of it, I cannot understand what Libertarians think about the state. Property rights laws and national defense seem integral to their philosophy, but any and all actions by the state presuppose some sort of communal covenant. To believe that that covenant in nature and in fact limited itself to their concerns is — how shall I say this politely? — delusional. The closest Libertarians come to a coherent statement of their views (and I try somewhat to follow this discussion as it evolves) probably has to do with their admission of an intellectual lineage related to anarchism. If they would then just call themselves anarchists and be done with it I would feel more comfortable, but it's not really for me to say. Anyhow, to be clear, I have nothing whatsoever against anarchists. Intellectual vegans, of a sort...
Living in a nether-world, though, does carry penalties. In Ron Paul's recent interview with Tim Russert, for example, Ron Paul got hung up on the fact that he's added all sorts of earmarks to legislation for spending in his district, yet at the same time voted against the bills. Which is it, Russert asked — fairly enough, though I'm no fan of his — are you against the spending in principle or for it? Ron Paul tried to have it both ways. Sure, it was an amiable enough explanation; the problem is, it just didn't make any sense.
If you pry at other issues you'll find similar inconsistencies.
Setting such things aside as relatively minor complaints, I'm very glad that Ron Paul is running and I wish him the best. Indeed, if ever he were interested in talking with me for the Electric Politics podcast I'd give him a warm welcome. (And, yes, I've been asking for over a year, and at least one member of his staff has recommended doing it, but no luck so far.)
Posted by George Kenney on January 13, 2008 10:41 AM 
« A Quaint Anachronism | Main | Flood Predictions »
Comments
George, I think I know what distinguishes libertarians from progressives like you and me. We have an idealistic view of human nature and what society could achieve. So we believe that a good government is possible, with enough public education and simple good luck. Libertarians may have a darker view of human nature, whereby any government will tend to be corrupt, so the less the better. They definitely have a point.
Libertarians and progressives can agree on foreign policy, since we want our nation to behave itself on the international scene and only respond militarily when attacked. We differ on domestic issues. But this doesn't mean that libertarians are mean-hearted towards the disadvantaged. Ron Paul seems quite sincere when he speaks of a hospital he once worked at which refused nobody. I don't think such a hospital would fly in today's money-driven economy. But the point is that libertarians like Dr. Paul really believe in charity, and I have no doubt that he's done more than his share of pro bono work.
When you add the ignorance of the public to the corruption of those who seek power, I am often inclined to become libertarian. But there's something about the idealism of using good government for a better society that just won't die in me. It's inspiring, and politicians like Obama use or abuse that impulse.
And good things have been achieved before with government. I just can't understand the hatred of libertarians for FDR. He still seems to me like the right thing for the right time (pre-WWII that is), but they insist he's totalitarian. I always thought he was the rich guy who saved capitalism!
Posted by: benjamin777
|
January 13, 2008 4:20 PM
Forgive me, but I want to add one other point. What most fires up my progressive instincts is the obscenity of our distribution of wealth. Per Wikipedia, 'In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.'
Ron Paul, I believe, lives in a small town world with nice country doctors earning more but not obscenely more. But the real world is controlled from the big cities by plutocrats. He just kind of blocks that out of his mind to some extent. Libertarianism only works in a healthy society not polarized into the rich and the rest.
The debate over the distribution of wealth is always muddied by raising the specter of a dreary collectivism, where everybody is the same. What we need is free markets combined with a serious progressive tax without loopholes.
I also accept the view that the ruthlessness of our foreign policy and the greed of those who rule over us is not unrelated. But the public is ignorant and easily manipulated.
Posted by: benjamin777
|
January 13, 2008 4:35 PM
I agree with much of what George and Benjamin have said. On the one hand libertarians have an ideological — really irrational — reaction to government. Government, by definition can only do harm. There's no room to think about it in any way. That's probably the key difference, progressives/liberals do believe, perhaps naively, in at least the possibility that government can smooth out the problems with laissez faire, discrimination and so forth. What I don't understand about them is that in general, in my experience, they don't tend to critique corporate power and it's influence on culture — it's all government that's evil and bad. Very naive.
Then there's the point that Ben makes, but I'll put it in a different way: how much "freedom" does a poor single mom trying to survive on minumum wage have? So, they have a really big blind spot. They naively believe that lack of government automatically translates into freedom. As with typical conservatives, there's a belief that the free market system is inherently just and that everyone has the freedom to succeed and so forth. This is either naive or stupid or just plain ideologically driven or all of the above. Property rights — especially in a country (world) with burgeoning populations and diminishing resources will inevitably lead to injustice and lack of freedom for many. I don't have the solution to all of this — I'm just pointing out the libertarian naivete. I'm guessing there aren't too many poor single moms who are libertarian. If there are they've got to be really delusional or something.
Posted by: swamppuppy | January 14, 2008 10:59 AM