I take Ron Paul's strong second-place in the Republican New Hampshire primary last night as a very good thing for people like me who want more government respect for the First Amendment and an end to unconstitutional wars.
Yes, there are positions that Ron Paul holds which I strongly oppose - notably his call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, which is inconsistent with libertarian philosophy and its view that the government should stay out of our lives. And I'm not at all happy about the racist observations that appeared under his name in his newsletter two decades ago.
But there's a lot to commend in Ron Paul. He not only opposes undeclared wars but the NDAA signed into law by Obama and SOPA now under consideration in Congress. He wants an end to the massive Federal anti-drug enforcement, which he correctly sees as an invasion of privacy, and which has especially targeted minority groups.
And his Republican rivals, who share none of his virtues, share all of his serious political defects. No Republican supports a woman's right to have complete control over her own body, and Gingrich and Santorum have both recently made racist statements.
Would I vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama in a general election? Not very likely. But unlike in 2008, when I first supported Ron Paul for the GOP nomination and then withdrew that when I became aware of his 1990s newsletters, I think our country would be much better served by an Obama vs. Ron Paul election than it would by Obama facing any other GOP candidate.
Yes, there are positions that Ron Paul holds which I strongly oppose - notably his call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, which is inconsistent with libertarian philosophy and its view that the government should stay out of our lives. And I'm not at all happy about the racist observations that appeared under his name in his newsletter two decades ago.
But there's a lot to commend in Ron Paul. He not only opposes undeclared wars but the NDAA signed into law by Obama and SOPA now under consideration in Congress. He wants an end to the massive Federal anti-drug enforcement, which he correctly sees as an invasion of privacy, and which has especially targeted minority groups.
And his Republican rivals, who share none of his virtues, share all of his serious political defects. No Republican supports a woman's right to have complete control over her own body, and Gingrich and Santorum have both recently made racist statements.
Would I vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama in a general election? Not very likely. But unlike in 2008, when I first supported Ron Paul for the GOP nomination and then withdrew that when I became aware of his 1990s newsletters, I think our country would be much better served by an Obama vs. Ron Paul election than it would by Obama facing any other GOP candidate.
11 comments:
Paul, I hate comments that only say: "I am 100% in agreement with you", but on the other hand, if I had posted on my blog, I couldn't have said it any better. AND, as Ron Paul said on Morning Joe today, the media continuously distort his views and his message. Even though he holds certain views, that does not necessarily mean those things will come to pass when he gets into office (if he gets into office). Not if people don't want a Constitutional Ban on Abortion for example.
Ron Paul is the only one willing to discuss these issues on the record. The other politicians? They lie, and give you practiced "double talk" and what you expect that does not serve our country. At least to this extent I am a believer.
That is one thing I have never understood about the Libertarian movement. I hear all this talk about "I dun want the guvment tellin me what to do!" But these same people want to ban gay marriage and allow the government to have control over the inside of a woman's utereus. First of all, if you don't like the government, why do you need marriage? Sure, I understand the romanticism of the wedding and all that, but technically, marriage is just a government institution that conservatives believe Jesus invented. They believe one is not truly committed to another unless the government approves. Ridiculous.
If we don't want the government controling our lives, we sure as hell don't want them controlling our relationships and our bodies.
I know a few libertarians, but I am always confused by their ideology. I know libertarians that are atheist and some that are conservative Christians. Exactly what is a libertarian? Their views, to me, appear to be conflicting and hypocritical.
Bottom line: If you want less government, you can't champion conservative causes in the name of government.
I just don't vote. Politicians: I don't trust them. They all work for the government. They all have their agendas.
I think democracy is an illusion. The media controls the winners. Big Corporations are the true rulers of America: they control what we buy, what messages we receive, and what politicians get into office. Illuminati?
I agree with your critique of conservative libertarians - that's why I'm a Progressive Libertarian.
But don't agree with all that democracy is an illusion. First of all, you're talking about representative democracy (elected officials) not direct democracy. But even regarding representative democracy, no corporation controls what you or I think. That's why we're able to have this very discussion..
Hi Paul - great post!
I also feel that Dr. Ron Paul's ideas do not get enough credit in the mass media. In fact, I find that Fox News is generally more hostile towards his views than the so called 'liberal' media.
Do you think that Dr. Paul will run for president as an independent (assuming that he will not win the Republican nomination)? He seems to have more support this time around than ever before. If he does run, do you feel that his foreign policy and personal rights resonates enough with the moderate Democrats to 'steal' enough votes from the Obama camp to make a difference?
I read your post about being a progressive libertarian. Without sounding too harsh, how do your views differ from that of a liberal? I consider myself a liberal which is why Dr. Paul's views on the military and first amendment rights resonates. His stance on health care, to be frank, scares the crap out of me.
In short, I care more about advancing the liberal social issues (gay rights, health care, etc.), than I do shrinking the size of government overhead which is why I vote Democrat, and will support Obama this election cycle as well. It sounds as though you feel the same way, so I was just curious why the term progressive libertarian.
Thank you for your response!
P.S. I am reading your book New New Media for a course at NDSU and so far find it interesting!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, jbedsaul. I'm glad you liked this post, and are reading New New Media for your course!
In response to your questions (starting with my saying I'm a "progressive libertarian" and not a "liberal") -
1. The terms "progressive" and "liberal" are pretty much interchangeable, so I could have said I'm a "liberal libertarian". But why "libertarian"? That's because I do want to see government limited in many area, not just in the military. For example, I think the Citizens United decision (Supreme Court) is no big problem - I don't think corporations pose a problem in elections (people are usually rational, and can see through deceptive ads) - and the government has no business regulating the media and trying to regulate the Internet (the FCC should be abolished). Liberals usually want the government to protect people from corporations and media.
2. I think if Ron Paul ran in a third party, he would take votes away both from Obama and the Republicans (who, for example, are pro big government when it comes to trying to regulate morality). But most people think he won't - because he doesn't want to ruin his son Ran's chance for running for President in 2016 or 2020).
3. I'll likely vote for Obama, too. I not only don't like Ron Paul's position on health care, I think his call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion is an unacceptable intrusion in women's lives (and contradicts his own libertarian philosophy). But Obama's signing of the NDAA, and his waging undeclared wars, make me not enthusiastic about voting for him. Ron Paul has much better positions on the both. But, at this point, Ron Paul's negatives are worse than Obama's.
Hope that helps clarify my positions on these important, complex issues. Keep up the good work in your studies.
Paul -- another Ron Paul kudo would be his staunch critique of the military-industrial complex, , peace be upon him. the US comprises 40% of total global defense spending … to put that in perspective, if you take the next top 14 nations in defense spending and total their $$$ that DOES NOT match our ill-conceived gov't stimulus package to our "friends in the war business." yet again we are #1 in the wrong category. but for all of Ron Paul's pluses he still harbors quirky views that I cannot support the Paul Klan. to sum up his negatives ala a dig at Hermey Cain: Ron Paul doesn't sexually harass women because he believes in a free market where the women just harass themselves. enjoy,,,
Hello! I was really happy to see that you have mentioned Paul, the NDAA, and SOPA in your blog. Have you considered doing an AMA on Reddit? I think Redditors would be really interested to hear your opinions regarding the influences of SOPA and PIPA on "new new media" and democracy in general.
On Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
You can also see his strict adherence to his views on the Constitution with his record.
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm
Even his Sanctity of Life Act was to remove the Supreme Court from being able to decide what he viewed as a state decision. The act upset both liberals who hated anything anti-abortion who believed it was a stepping stone to a full abortion ban and many conservatives who were purely pro-life and believed it didn't go far enough and would still allow for most abortions across the country to continue.
So basically, he has a habit of pissing everyone off on these issues because he always seem to be the one trying to find a balance based on a mix of his faith in the Constitution and his personal beliefs on life.
From what I can tell, he has voted "no" on anything federal law or funding in relation to abortion, like voting no on restricting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions and forbidding human cloning for research purposes.
All libertarians aren't pro-choice, but I agree that more often than not they are. However, I don't think there's a contradiction with Paul because his attitude and argument has been that the protection of life comes before the protection liberty...and, typically, that the protection of state's rights comes before both.
I think it's possible that, if elected, he would push for an amendment on all abortions, but since state's would have to approve and he always seems to adhere strictly to the Constitution, it would more than likely go nowhere.
Thanks for your comments, James, Hannah, and Adam.
Good points, James; thanks, Hannah, I'll look into that; and James -
I agree with your analysis. Indeed, I think that defense of life is more important than defense of liberty. A person deprived of liberty can work/fight to get it back; a dead person can't do anything.
But, in the case of abortion, we're dealing, sadly, with an ambiguous situation, in which the life of a fetus is not a complete human life, and can't survive without the mother. That means that the mother's life has a central role in this, and libertarians should support the government in no way interfering with what the mother wants to do in such an intensely private, personal situation.
I agree the situation is ambiguous and complicated, I was just stating that outside of Paul's moral qualms, he seems consistent in preventing abortion from being illegal by federal law and his record tends to show, unlike other politicians, he's consistently tried to do what he says he will and not more or less.
Also, and I'm basing this off your other blog, but you also go away from the official libertarian "hands-off" government in regards to healthcare, because for the most part they still argue that the private market will outdo any government interference (despite the fact every other major country has some form of a guarantee of healthcare for its citizens and costs less than here).
I've had to recently have debates with people about it, and that's their official view on their website, so your healthcare views are also at least appear to be inconsistent with overall libertarian philosophy in this country. But I think that's for the best, because nobody should follow one party philosophy to a T.
"are also at least appear to be"
Editing fail.
Post a Comment