Letters to the Editor
bostonMA
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 22
-
Ron Paul and Libertarianism
[Read the article: Championing mainstream political thought while pretending to oppose it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I welcome Glenn's series on this topic. It is successfully forcing thought leaders among the readership to address the lack of transparency and occasional elements of intellectual dishonesty in the slate of national Democratic candidates. The Democratic leadership has failed to act as an effective check on this administration after their victory in the mid-term elections. The assumption that a shift to any Democratic President would immediately reverse the course of Bush/Cheney policies is just that, an assumption.
The use of Ron Paul's policy positions as a springboard for this debate is an effective one. Like Tancredo's role in raising the immigration debate, Paul has introduced broad philosophical questions about the role of the United States within the world that are typically addressed by other candidates as simply a position for or against continuing the war in Iraq. Beyond this, Paul has spoken to executive power abuses, loss of individual liberties, over-promised and unsustainable domestic spending, and national security risks driven by the economics of unprecedented debt to foreign nations. He has been articulate, outspoken and unexpectedly successful with a sobering tone that the U.S. electorate rarely rewards. Paul has forced issues into the debate that had previously been the province of academics or policy specialists, and in doing so created a motivated coalition of individuals who are increasingly bought into a broader policy package that would severely limit the federal government.
Since libertarianism has come up in regards to Glenn (whom I have not read long enough to have an informed opinion) and Ron Paul himself, I want to make a few comments on Paul's relationship with libertarianism and the Libertarian Party (LP):
- After much consideration I am convinced that Ron Paul is not a libertarian in a philosophical sense, but a libertarian-leaning candidate whose first priority is enforcing the U.S. Constitution as a contract between government and the people
- Paul's failure to recognize abortion rights and his role in assisting the the federal government in regulating gay marriage with the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act are at odds with the LP platform, and outraged many libertarians despite his candidacy in 1988
- Paul's numerous statements supporting a role for Christian thinking in government are at odds with the atheist/agnostic tendencies and absolute church/state separation requirement found in the LP
- Paul would end the "incentives" for illegal immigration while securing the borders, where the LP calls for ending immigration quotas and penalties for hiring undocumented workers with the goal of free immigration to individuals meeting basic requirements
- Paul's refusal to acknowledge (or advance) a right to Privacy within the Constitution is problematic, despite his harsh criticisms of government abuses in this area
Because libertarians haven't seen so much potential in a candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964, it's not surprising that many are willing to overlook these shortcomings to support Paul some forty years later. That Glenn is willing to force his readers to consider which Democrats might be getting unearned latitude simply because they wear the right party name is a fair and proper question to advance the debate.