Reihan: Is Ron Paul A Bad Libertarian?

Alex Massie leads me to wonder: Should libertarians think Paul is bad for the movement? After all, he comes from an anti-immigration right-populist tradition that sharply contradicts the cosmopolitanism that increasingly defines libertarianism. It's clear that Ron Paul is more Bob Taft or than he is a modern-day hipstertarian, which is part of his charm. David Weigel asked the right questions back in May: if Paul gets more attention in the next few weeks, that will also mean increased scrutiny. Will the resulting "revelations" about his decidedly unconventional views on the gold standard, etc., which Paul has made no effort to hide, undermine libertarians as they attempt to spread their intellectual influence leftward?

Whether or not the "liberaltarian" strategy is embraced by social-democratic liberals (verdict: unlikely), there are obvious reasons for libertarians to emphasize their dovish, culturally liberal side. The increasing willingness of libertarians to embrace tactical interventions (e.g., wage subsidies help shore up the legitimacy of the market economy, so let's use them) means that in theory they could become a free-floating answer to the German Free Democrats in their prime. That is an obviously attractive and not-impossible goal.

I don't know, I figure movement libertarians have in mind a very long-term strategy that only glancingly involves, say, the Republican presidential primary of 2008. The Paul campaign strikes me as a narrow phenomenon that mostly reflects a quirky, populist subculture (or Birchers and Buchananites) meeting an affluent, angry subculture (of anti-war non-movement libertarians). Paul is thus unlikely to do any lasting damage to the libertarian brand, and his candidacy will in all likelihood help the broader movement flourish. (By, among other things, introducing some non-trivial number of young people to new and appealing ideas.)

Comments

Check your facts. Ron Paul is NOT anti-immigration! Anti ILLEGAL immigration yes...as we all should be.

Posted by Paul Supporter | October 9, 2007 5:30 PM

re: FDP, doesn't germany's form of proportional representation basically allow for them to flourish? in contrast in the UK with first-past-the-post the 'liberal' descended party has tacked further to the left of labour to stay viable (and i heard that the tories are going to bounce back and totally marginalize the lib dems in the next cycle).

Posted by razib | October 9, 2007 5:37 PM

Libertarianism is simply belief in individual liberty. Everybody has their own interpretation of that. There is no "libertarian movement" beyond people wanting to be free.

Above all, do not confuse the Libertarian Party with libertarianism. That's just one group's idea of libertarianism.

Posted by Drena | October 9, 2007 5:38 PM

Libertarians don't all think alike. We are split on issues such as immigration, death penalty, and abortion.

Posted by Edward | October 9, 2007 5:45 PM

I would say that RP is for ending illegal immigration until the point that the Federal entitlement state is dismantled. At that point, there will be no need for strict border controls/immigration enforcement as the incentive is gone.

Posted by oilnwater | October 9, 2007 6:12 PM

Ron Paul is a Republican, with libertarian leanings.
It seems that many want to paint him with a broad libertarian brush. He believes in liberty as do many, but is a Republican.

Posted by pcosmar | October 9, 2007 6:13 PM

I think Ron Paul realizes his affinity for the goal standard is a little idealistic in the near term; but nevertheless, represents a healthy goal. Listen to him. He is not as kooky as the MSM likes to make him out to be. He is honest, and he puts real thought into the issues. He writes his own position papers.

The other thing to remember is that there is a difference between liberty and license. That Ron Paul does not perfectly reflect the most licentious wing of libertarianism is a good thing for a president and a country.

Posted by Steve | October 9, 2007 6:30 PM

Paul is a paleolibertarian. This school of thought was founded by Lew Rockwell and is explained as such, "Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is 'paleo' because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of 'policy options.' Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order." Not all libertarians are left-leaning. Yes, they are the most noticed, but the right-libertarian also exists and believes in anarcho-capitalism and has political affiliations with the paleoconservative. In the words of paleolibertarian scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Conservatives today must be antistatist libertarians and, equally important, libertarians must be conservatives."

Posted by Mike | October 9, 2007 6:59 PM

I can't think of a single libertarian who is in favor of any form of wage subsidy.

Posted by Craig | October 9, 2007 7:17 PM

i think the person who wrote this article has no idea of what it means to be a libertarian.

anyway,

GO RON PAUL!

Posted by eric m. | October 9, 2007 8:06 PM

Other than having once been forced to share a barracks-room with a loud-mouthed Objectivist, I don't have much exposure to 'libertarians'. But it doesn't take much candle-power to notice that there is nothing, NOTHING that they have to offer the real Republican Party. Maybe the Repubs of myth--but DEFINITELY not the Repub party as it actually exists.

What Ron Paul is doing on that stage is mystifying. Entertaining. But totally bizarre.

Posted by JohnMcC | October 9, 2007 8:40 PM

"[Libertarians] have nothing to offer the real Republican Party?"

JohnMcC: At least one 'real Republican' disagrees with you:

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -Ronald Reagan

It seems that Rep. Paul may seem totally bizarre to anyone who has no clue about our Founders or the governing documents they handed down to us. What is truly odd is that it seems only Paul recognizes any limitations of Presidential power. Other candidates seem to think they are being elected to an office that allows them to go to war without proper declaration by Congress, arbitrarily split-up Iraq into 3 'states', torture anyone at will, and God knows what else.

I ask that anyone who thinks Dr. Paul merely 'entertaining' to mix some books into their social calendar, specifically American History, with a touch of political philosophy. You may still disagree with his beliefs, but at least you'll understand their genesis.

Peace be with you.

Posted by cfountain72 | October 9, 2007 9:21 PM

How can we possibly get Dr. Paul into the presidency? He stands for what America should, but few in Congress care about America. No other candidate is for peace. We do not need to be mortgaging our country to fight a war which we should never have entered. We need to get out of most every country and begin to mind our own shop. I am a Korea vet, a conservative and a patriot. Why are our people in DC against everything America stands for? Tom Doyle

Posted by Thomas E. Doyle | October 9, 2007 9:31 PM

Re: if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

How do you figure on the latter? Today's liberals are certainly not in favor of monarchy, aristocracy, and an established church (!).

Posted by JonF | October 9, 2007 9:49 PM

Americans are just sick of party politics - period. I say nice try to the writer trying to box Ron Paul in as a Libertarian, but no chance.

Paul is different, he doesn't across as Republican, Libertarian or Democrat and thats his appeal. He comes across as truthful, straight forward and intelligent leader. Thats really what Americans want, the political parties have lost membership in large chunks every year since Reagan left office. So I would say Ron Paul is a bad "party man" for any of the parties, but a great leader for the American People.

Posted by Joe Lawson | October 9, 2007 10:24 PM

Ron Paul is decidedly NOT a Libertarian. A true Libertarian hates nationalism and borders. Borders are simply another government control mechanism to reduce freedom and support statist government intervention and violent, forced monopoly. Nationalism is another barrier to freedom as thinly-disguised racism to again, control the freedom of movement of free people. A true Libertarian also hates the second US Constitution because all it does is define government, which in 'pure' libertarian theory should be abolished and replaced solely by contracts. Alexander Hamilton should be burned daily in effigy.
Having said that, Ron Paul is electable. I understand why I'm not.

Posted by John Skillman | October 9, 2007 10:44 PM

So, John McC,

you, somewhat indiotically wrote:"Other than having once been forced to share a barracks-room with a loud-mouthed Objectivist, I don't have much exposure to 'libertarians'. But it doesn't take much candle-power to notice that there is nothing, NOTHING that they have to offer the real Republican Party. Maybe the Repubs of myth--but DEFINITELY not the Repub party as it actually exists.

What Ron Paul is doing on that stage is mystifying. Entertaining. But totally bizarre."

What is the Repubs of myth?

Are these people, the others on the stage, actual Republicans, presiding in the GOP "as it actually exists"?

How can you explain the spending...first Reagan set new records for federal spending (he did spend more dollars, inflation adjusted, than all other previous presidents combined); then came Bush 1, who made second place on the list, cause we kicked his ass out after only one term, but he accelerated the pace of government spending.

The current Bushment already have spent, in Iraq alone, more money than was spent to rebuild Japan after World War 2 (again, adjusting for inflation---remember, that nation had been leveled not only by 2 nuclear blasts, but also by more than 4 years of heavy combat and the resulting deprivations.

How come? Is that your version of Republican? Or, can you even read this?

Posted by John P Slevin | October 9, 2007 10:50 PM

As for immigration, Paul is definitely not leading with the "immigration is really good" line. If the welfare state was fully dismantled (which with things like the Medicare drug benefit is becoming increasingly difficult), anti-free-marketers would still complain about "cheap labor" coming in over the border.

I'm still agnostic on the Gold Standard - it is unclear to me that giving up the flexibility of fiat currency to mitigate the business cycle it is really in the best interest of long-term economic growth. In a way, it is like insurance. One could argue that if you want a gold standard, buy gold with your dollars, no one is stopping you.

That said, fiat currency is dangerous because it is very easy to screw up badly. But "gold standards" can be screwed up as well through debasement by government. Should government be trusted with money at all? Well you can always opt-out, and indeed most normal people do move their spare dollars into stocks, bonds, and gold.

I think the best thing Ron Paul has to say is about ending the Drug War, which is the one clear policy to reduce government spending, crime, and cut off a lot of terrorist funding at the same time.

Posted by Mr. Econotarian | October 9, 2007 11:01 PM

I think Paul will hurt the Libertarian label with his Right-wing ideology. And he is most certainly anti-immigration having voted to reduce legal immigration as well. He is anti-libertarian on numerous issues other than immigration such as abortion and using earmarks. Add in the bizarre fantasy about a North American Union and it gets rather strange.

But it is not the just the label issue that is the problem. If Paul recruits a lot of Right-wing nationalist types into thinking they are libertarians their presence in the libertarian movement will be a cancer for years to come. They ought to stay in the Republican Party where they belong.

Posted by cls | October 9, 2007 11:30 PM

I felt the need to repeat what Drena said.

"Libertarianism is simply belief in individual liberty. Everybody has their own interpretation of that. There is no "libertarian movement" beyond people wanting to be free."

Posted by Patrick | October 10, 2007 12:57 AM

I have been a Libertarian Party Member for eleven years now and this article is a perfect example of the typical misconceptions I've encountered on a regular basis. Of all the functions, meetings and get togethers all accross the country I've been to, I can't say that I've met one party member who believed in "open borders" or wasn't against the ongoing massive illegal immigrant problem. I volunteered in many campaigns for people running on the Libertarian ticket whose platform included REDUCING illegal immigration and securing our borders. I was also part of the (successful) movement to change the National Party Platform to change the plank on open borders to having sensible immigration law. That change came into effect in 2006.

Posted by Billy | October 10, 2007 3:08 AM

The gold standard is fundamental to libertarianism. Read a book.

Posted by Patrick | October 10, 2007 3:39 AM

Folks just love to call Ron Paul a Libertarian, a paleolibertarian, a Republican, etc. Actually, Paul is a true Conservative.

Posted by Sam | October 10, 2007 9:04 AM

John Skillman, what you stated as libertarianism seems to be more anarchism where we have no borders, no nation, and contracts instead of government. Libertarianism allows for government to, at the very least, protect the rights of individuals from being infringed upon by others. For there to be such a government, there must be an area and/or group of people to be governed, ergo libertarians, as opposed to anarchists or anarcho-capitalists, allow for those boundaries. Now, whether or not they may be crossed freely is another issue. I would agree most libertarians would not wall the border, but would allow for the government to uphold the laws of the region that the invisible border defines. I don't know that libertarians also hate nationalism. Being proud of or pleased with one's country does not make them inherently racist. Be wary of absolutes. They tend to divide us, much like racism does.

Posted by Bones | October 10, 2007 10:52 AM

We all need to stop thinking in terms of "isms" -- Republicanism, Libertairianism, and so on. Defining a person's political views rigidly by some pre-conceived set of absolutes always fails to take in the entire spectrum of that person's values and attitudes. And while I may disagree with some of Dr. Paul's opinions, he is still the only candidate I would be willing to vote for in the upcoming presidential election.

Posted by Randall Anderson | October 10, 2007 12:30 PM

Check your facts. Ron Paul does not support the gold standard. Even said so when asked in one of the debates. Probably understands it's unrealistic as we sold all of our gold to foreigners. A life changing experience that helps put everything in place is to watch The Money Masters.

Posted by vintagehotdog | October 10, 2007 12:39 PM

"How do you figure on the latter? Today's liberals are certainly not in favor of monarchy, aristocracy, and an established church (!). "
mon·ar·chy
–noun, plural -chies.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
Emergency and War-time government is when the government claims exclusive power over the entire continental United States as well as over the District of Columbia, territories, and possessions.
President Wilson was the first President to declare a national emergency in 1917. FDR, Truman, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George Walker Bush have all issued national emergency declarations.

With NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 which make no reference to Congress, the president now as almost dictatorial powers.The two main parties are just repetitions of each other. When in power neither seems to undo the damage of previous administrations, but rather adds a new twist to how they can have more power than the previous administration did. Research executive orders and their progressions...
monarch
noun
1. a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right [syn: sovereign]
The Clinton Clan
ar·is·toc·ra·cy (ăr'ĭ-stŏk'rə-sē)
n., pl. -cies.
A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
The Clinton clan...Okay I would not call them nobility, but would she get this much publicity were it not for her spouse?
As for an established church...well we can all pretend that religious views don't affect politics but that is a lie. No matter what side of religion you are on you are going to use power guided by your spiritual beliefs. Those who hold similar beliefs will gain special priviledege. This effectively makes it government established.

FWIW this state really can be said of both mainstream parties...aristocracy,monarchy, government instituted church.
Have a blessed day!!!

Posted by MomtoSeven | October 10, 2007 12:46 PM

There is no such thing as an "interventionist" libertarian.

Posted by Ryan | October 10, 2007 4:26 PM

"By, among other things, introducing some non-trivial number of young people to new and appealing ideas". This article only shows you how far our county's education system has fallen when Ron Paul's ideals of preserving freedom are considered new.

Posted by Savetherepublic | October 10, 2007 5:52 PM

Right or wrong, Dr. Ron Paul has helped the Libertarian movement more so than anyone in recent history. He is constantly mentioned as a Libertarian and the Libertarian has been plastered all over the media in regardless to his name.

Personally I consider him to be a constitutionalist and correct on the issues.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually honors his oath of office and desires to return true governmental accountability. To not vote for him is to condem the nation to more of the same old same old.

Posted by PAFreedom | October 10, 2007 6:34 PM

Please graduate from high school before you begin writing articles about adults. You're insulting my intelligence, but your article would provide a great writing sample for an eighty-five year-old high school English teacher. So submit it to him! Only the most provincial of little girls would use the word "quirky" in connection with Paul, Birch, and Buchanan. So why are you talking about "cosmopolitan?" You are referring to the reading material that are using to learn to satisfy your boyfriend. I can't help you if you haven't any experience. The libertarians who refuse to support Ron Paul and reject politics are not the people who embrace Keynesian economics or as you call it "tactical interventions." They are the consistent libertarians, some of whom would rather die than lend support to a politcian who would advocate that the government abridge civil liberties under the aegis of a war on immigration and war on abortion. This advocacy of consistent laissez-faire can lead one as far as to the advocacy of anarcho-capitalism; this isn't hip, so strike the term "hipstertarian" from your high school "vocab" list, you little piece of shit charlatan. Libertarians who advocate the type of consistent libertarianism that rejects politics and Ron Paul require the services of organizations such as the Institute For Justice to defend themselves against all of you little hipsters, your police officers, and your judges who are working together using violence to fine tune the economy. Here's my advice: for your high school science project, please look into the effects of "wage subsidies" on the economy. If you have extra time, look into the effects of farm subsidies.

Posted by Restore Our Freedom | October 10, 2007 6:48 PM

RE:
"1. a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right [syn: sovereign]
The Clinton Clan"

Just thought I'd add a name.
The Bush's... H.W, G.W, and G.W. himself said Jeb would be a good candidate.

Keeping the Bush legacy alive.

Posted by Barnaby | October 10, 2007 7:58 PM

He believes more in what you supposedly believe in, than any other candidate out there. Why the hate, dude?

Posted by greg | October 11, 2007 10:33 PM

Neolibertarians to libertarians as neocons are to conservatives: Use political activism to subvert then gut and indeed reverse the core values of their party.

National sovereignty is simply a form of property right; specifically a land trust the executors for which include men selected by the beneficiaries of the trust. This is clearly stated in the preamble to the US Constitution when it describes "our posterity" as the beneficiaries.

Neolibertarians, like neocons, are violating fiduciary responsibility and thereby committing fraud against the posterity of the Founders of the US.

Posted by James Bowery | October 14, 2007 5:05 PM