Patrick Ruffini writes that Ron Paul has won, even if there is no chance he can win the Republican nomination:
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a “libertarian Democrat,” though he’s never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Maybe libertarianism has won, but the word has become increasingly meaningless, as I recently discussed. In Ron Paul we already have a pro-life libertarian. I assume Ruffini is being sarcastic in signing up as a “pro-wiretapping libertarian” but the word is used in so many ways that this isn’t as absurd as it should be. Eric Dondero and I have disagreed over his support of the war and the Patriot Act for quite a while, but he does call himself a libertarian.
With the Republican Party dominated by neoconservatives and social conservatives a resurgence by its libertarian faction would be a welcome improvement. Unfortunately what we see with Ron Paul’s form of libertarianism isn’t so much libertarianism enlightening the GOP as far right conservative views corrupting libertarianism, and Ruffini wants to take this even further:
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
In other words, libertarianism under Paul has already adopted many of the views of social conservatives and Ruffini only really sees room for libertarianism in the GOP if Paul abandons his positions on the “war on terror.” Paul grants victory to the social conservatives who oppose abortion rights, deny the importance of separation of church and state, and claim that the founding fathers intended to form a Christian nation. The main thing Paul has going for him is seeing the dangers to our liberties in supporting a state of perpetual warfare against terrorism in the form promoted by the neoconservatives. If libertarians compromise on this there will be little difference between libertarianism and mainstream conservativism.
It sounds like libertarians are welcome in the Republican Party as long as they continue to drop all those libertarian ideas. John Cole agrees that there is not much of a home for libertarianism in the Republican Party:
The rise of Paul is not going to cause a surge in libertarianism in the Republican party. The rise of Ron Paul is due to his filling the void in a party filled with moralists, in-your-face social cons, warmongerers, and authoritarians. The only libertarians currently in the GOP are folks who are either too stupid or too cowardly to admit they are Bush dead-enders and think ‘libertarian’ sounds cool, or those hoping sometime the party will regain its sanity. Actual libertarians find their home in places that actually embrace libertarian ideals- the Libertarian party, as registered Independents, or as conservative Democrats.
Some of the Paul supporters who have enough grasp of reality to realize Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination see Paul as the Barry Goldwater for their generation. Just as Goldwater lost in a landslide only to see many of his ideas become victorious under Ronald Reagan, some Paul supporters think that Paul’s views will come to dominate the Republican Party in the future leading to a libertarian president.
There are two important differences between Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. First of all, Goldwater was able to win a major party nomination and pick up a significant amount of the national vote, even if losing in a landslide. Paul remains stuck at around 5% in the polls without a serious chance of even winning the nomination as Goldwater did. Secondly, while Paul has adopted many of the views of the social conservatives, Goldwater rejected the religious right and even considered himself a liberal in his later years when he saw the Republicans become dominated by social conservatives. If even the libertarian challenge to the Republican mainstream has adopted the ideas of the social conservatives this looks far more like a victory for social conservatism than for libertarianism.
The problem is that Paul doesn’t preach Ayn Rand. He’s not in the running for truest Libertarian. He’s preaching State’s Rights: Kansas would get Intelligent Design and Oregon would get Marijuana. Why should we pretend that what is good for Alabama is good for California?
Paul is not Goldwater. Paul is not Reagan. He shares some similarities but, Paul is Paul. There’s a much broader message available.
This type of “victory” for libertarianism is a hollow one. Ron Paul is already compromising on social issues; selecting federalism and states rights over individual rights. To back down on foreign policy would reduce him to little more than Steve Forbes: an economic conservatism who wants to cut spending and cut taxes. It’s interesting that his support of the gold standard will probably be more acceptable to the Republican establishment than his opposition to the Iraq War.
All Ron Paul ever talks about these days is foreign policy. Give me the 1990s version of Ron Paul when he was running as a Bush Conservative and was the “Taxpayer’s Best Friend.”
Today he’s nothing less than Mr. Leftwing America-bashing Surrender-tarian.
I know Ron is non-interventionist and personally a pacifist. But I suspect there’s much more to his hard leftist turn than just his personal views.
With most things in life, follow the money. Paul is getting a great share of his donations from hardcore Leftists loving the fact that he’s now bashing Bush and the War in Iraq.
Additionally, to paraphrase, follow the media. Paul is a smart cookie. He knows that if he runs left, the liberal media will love him. And that’s precisely what has happened.
Ron Paul is an absolutely brillant Machiavellian political strategist. I worked for the guy for 12 years. I know him better than just about anyone. I can tell you straight out, none of this is by accident.
Cascadian,
That’s exactly it. Paul’s message isn’t really a libertarian message as much as one of state’s rights. In some cases it is good, such as in ending the DEA raids on medical marijuana (which the Democratic candidates would also end). In many cases the results would not be good as it would simply enable the majority to suppress the rights of the minority.
The example of Kansas actually doesn’t apply as that was a state decision. The voters of Kansas ultimately voted out those who wanted to teach intelligent design.
Eric,
I don’t think Paul is following the media. Instead he became fortunate that the war is an issue this year and he is on the right side of that issue. In that regard, the media is following Paul. I don’t think Paul changed compared to the 1990s. What changed is that Iraq wasn’t the big issue it is right now.
I posted about this yesterday, but I think this quote says it all:
“Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.”
While this misrepresents somewhat Paul’s position on gay rights, if Paul’s candidacy results in a loss of positions on things like gay rights within the libertarian movement, then libertarianism will cease to be a coherent or valuable political philosophy. Also, when positions on gay rights can be safely described as “libertine”, then we’ve already lost a good amount of our core philosophy.
Ron Paul maybe completing his transformation to the left in front of our very eyes.
Today there’s a YouTube video released from “Latinos for Ron Paul” praising Paul for supporting Socialized Health Care.
I’ve got it up on my blog with a translation at:
http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
(Ron, not meant to be a shameless plug. It’s just super interesting.)
Mark,
The use of the word libertine was one of many problems with the post I didn’t mention in my comment. It is obviously a values judgment which implies that both abortion and homosexuality are considered immoral. Having libertarians accept such beliefs would be a clear victory for the religious right and not for libertarianism.
Eric,
It is common to project one’s beliefs onto candidates, and candidates often encourage this by being vague. This case is absurd as they make assumptions about what Paul will support as he is a doctor apparently without having any idea as to what Paul believes.
Today, there’s article after article in the media about how the War in Iraq is now essentially won. I even read one piece that headlined everything that Bush said he was going to do for the War on Terror 4 years ago has come to pass. Essentially, “Mission has been accomplished.”
I really wonder how Ron Paul and his followers are going to respond now? Are they still going to claim that the “War is a dissaster?” Are they still going to cry “Bring the Troops Home, Bring the Troops Home!!!”
Ironically, the first Battallion from the Surge, about 5,000 Troops, is already packed up and waiting in Kuwait to be brought back home. By Christmas tens of thousands of other Troops will be coming home as Glorious Victors in the War on Islamo-Fascism.
And the Ron Paulists, will be left holding their rain-drenched little signs with the runny ink, on some lonely little street corner in Nashua or Concord, chanting, “Bush lied, Bush lied, the War is Lost, Bring the Troops home now!”
Can’t wait for the day that one of those Army Reservists coming home from Iraq, walks over to one of the Ron Paul Kool-Aid drinkers and rips up their little sign and throws it in their face.
Eric,
If you really believe the war is essentially won, you are deluding yourself. Also take a look at how things are going in Afghanistan.
You sure have a strange view of dissent for a libertarian–something we’ve gone over in the past.
It’s not me who’s saying the War is won. It’s the major media. I’m just relaying it.
I know it’s embarrassing news for some. But so be it.
What “major media,” Fox News?
The real reports continue to show that the war was a disaster, regardless of simplistic news stories of slight improvement in some parameters. A temporary decrease in violence in some areas was predicted by many opponents of the war before the surge began. This does not mean we are any closer to success.
NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, CNN, pick one.
We’ve already succeeded. We got Saddam Hussein.
This is just the aftermath. Kind of like Post-WWII Germany. Sure, there are difficulties here and there. But pretty much a cake walk compared to Post-WWII.
Getting Saddam was hardly enough. A lull in violence does not mean victory.
Sorry Eric Dondero, but I know several military personell who are adamantly against the Iraq War. Also, Paul has more contributions from military personell than any other candidate…doesn’t quite jive with your foolish notions.
How cute – Eric Dondero pretending to have some sort of history with the Ron Paul camp – apparently this authenticates his message. But he incorporates such lovely use of metaphor.
“Ron Paul is an absolutely brillant Machiavellian political strategist. I worked for the guy for 12 years. I know him better than just about anyone. I can tell you straight out, none of this is by accident.”
One wonders if little Eric has actually read Machiavelli – Ron Paul is hardly Machiavellian…