I’m surprised anyone actually found my last blog posting and obviously a few of you did including at least one gentleman with a very different point of view. This posting is more observational and less personal and judgemental than the one I wrote the other day. I will say that Steve Kubby is now a personal hero of mine and I’m sorry he is not Bob Barr’s running mate. He is man of great courage and conviction. I guess I should have known that already but I continue to be impressed by this fine gentleman. He truly is a warrior for liberty and I wish him the very best.
The last few days I have seen a great deal of discontent with the results of the convention and, most pointedly, the nomination of Bob Barr. I’m not just talking about the likes of Christine Smith (who I always kind of liked) and her decision to leave the party but about personal friends who feel betrayed by what took place. Many of these people were enthusiastic supporters of the Ron Paul Revolution and clearly do not see Bob Barr as someone who will carry forward his message. I think much of that has to do with how personal the commitment to Ron Paul is and the sense that it is as much the man as the message that is at play. Whatever one’s feelings about Ron Paul’s message, there have been very few criticisms (though some) of his integrity and political courage. One of his greatest assets as a candidate was that he both talked the talk and walked the walk. Even though Bob Barr may agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says, his record is one that makes one shudder. As I mentioned the other day, not only was he wrong but he was wrong on some of the “hot button” issues for most libertarians. If nothing else, we can all usually agree that the drug war is insane, that legislation like the DOMA is the worst sort of meddling by the federal government and that the Patriot Act is a gross violation of everything the Constitution is supposed to represent. And yet Congressman Barr was closely involved in each of these very offensive abuses of government power and that is awfully hard for a lot of people to swallow.
It is certainly a bit odd to listen to Libertarians talking about voting for the “lesser evil” in this campaign and I’ve heard quite a bit of that lately. I suspect many will simply stay home but others may write in Dr. Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin or even Obama. I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with the Constitution party folks even though I believe some of them are about 90% right on the issues. That said, I can understand the appeal. Part of Paul’s appeal was the anti-establishment tone to much of his message that one might even call populism: Anti-Fed, Anti-UN, Anti-NAFTA, Anti-War. There is a convergence between the left and right on these issues and you can see that in the fact that many of Paul’s supporters also had a soft spot for Dennis Kucinich who shared most of those populist views.
That, to me, is part of the appeal of a renewed Constitutionalism. It has the potential to appeal to a broad coalition of the left, right and center. Our increasingly centralized government leaves little room for dissent and diversity anywhere on the political spectrum. I may disagree with someone on the role of government in general but I may be able to form a coalition with them if we can both agree that, whatever that role, it should be defined at the state and local level and that the federal government should be empowered with only a small set of enumerated powers. In a nation as diverse as ours, the idea that “one size fits all” will only create a more oppressive nation-state and lead to a more and more bitter brand of political discourse.
That being the case, there are still many libertarians who would like to fight it out on national stage with Democrats and Republicans in our “winner-take-all” electoral system. They imagine that one day they can convert a majority of people to their point of view and then we can “impose libertarianism” on the nation as a whole. I have to say that I can’t see that ever coming to pass, at least not in my lifetime. I think many of the apolitical libertarians out there may have a more realistic vision of what it will take to achieve liberty than these well-meaning but misguided folks.
I’ll close for now. More thoughts as they occur to me. Your comments (even negative) are welcome.
July 17, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I came here looking for a bit more substance on the Libertarian view, realizing there might be no coherent or congruent view to find, and find what I’ve read here to be thoughtful. Thanks.
I have long felt a kinship with Libertarians, but never claimed to be one. I, too, value the constitution and deplore the long trend (steeply turned down in the past 8 years) of degradation of our rights and destruction of so much that is key to the success of the American system of government – balance of powers, checks and balances, etc., etc.
What put me off from Ron Paul, though, was hearing a radio ad in which he (after putting forth a number of ideas I thought were very good) said that there is a conspiracy?/plan?/movement? to combine the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into one large country … I think NAFTA was bad, but believe many people blame it for things that would have occurred anyway as transportation and communications infrastructures became cheaper and cheaper (globalization). To me, suddenly Ron Paul sounded like a real crackpot … very disappointing. I know a few professed Libertarians, but nobody ever said anything like that. For me to accept such an idea would require a lot of evidence be presented, and a radio ad just can’t do that.
Since then I have had to accept that I would vote for the more populist candidate, and the one I think is more likely to have at least some good principles. That plus the long anti-populist, corruption-rife history of the Republican Party combined with their pandering to the religious right has left me an Obama supporter this time. At least he sounds like he has principles, and he seems to have been perhaps more consistent in his message than any candidate I’ve seen in a long time (and that can’t be easy). Sorry to ramble, but I’m trying to figure out where the LP is going after one accepts the basic tenets of individual rights and less government intrusion. Thanks again – Tim http://www.timprosserfuturing.wordpress.com
July 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I think the problem with the anti-globalization message is that it tends to be a “knee-jerk” reaction and is as often rather xenophobic as opposed to a thoughtful criticism. There is also a tendency to conflate opposition to economic globalization (which I regard as inevitable and largely a good thing) and political globalization. I believe very strongly that what government exists ought to operate at the smallest geographic/population level that is reasonable/possible. NAFTA, GATT, etc. may provide some liberalization of trade but also tend to weaken national sovereignty.
There is certainly a “conspiracy theory” element to the freedom movement out there and it is rarely subtle and often downright paranoid. But to reject the possibility of conspiracy out of hand is not much different than accepting it uncritically. There are clearly elements of the power elite in this country, whether they be in government, business, education or whatever who favor a “New World Order” which would decrease our sovereignty in favor of an EU type arrangement. Now, whether those individuals are dominant or are behind what might otherwise appear to be rather harmless steps towards cooperation is a very different question. That is debatable and I am neither convinced that it is true nor willing to rule it out. I tend to agree that emphasizing those issues in a national campaign often attracts “crackpots” and repels more mainstream voters. It is one of the many errors the Ron Paul campaign made and they made a lot. On the other hand, any true “political revolution” in this country is going to come from the fringe first, whether that be the left or the right. Ron Paul tended to alienate the mainstream and, while that might be bad politics, I’m not sure it isn’t one of his best qualities.
Well, I’ll avoid any further rambling as well. Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I’ll try to write more on here and hopefully it can help you think through libertarian ideas and understand more where some of us are coming from.