Glenn Reynolds reviews Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto:
The main shortcoming in Paul’s book, as with his candidacy, is in the follow through, the transition from critique to action. Although he does include a chapter entitled “The Revolution,” about reducing the size of government, it’s a pretty skimpy plan. Were we to see a Ron […]
Barbara Branden is one of the few people who was part of Ayn Rand’s inner circle during the years that she was writing Atlas Shrugged who is both still alive and willing to speak outside of “official” Objectivist circles. Back in October she spoke at a conference sponsored by The Atlas Society marking the 50th […]
I have been a fan of Ayn Rand since I first read Atlas Shrugged a couple decades ago.
I’m always frustrated when I hear some pedantic fool carelessly dismiss her writing, or others who claim the book is “too long”, or “I’m not really interested in train novels.” Given my own level of frustration, I cannot begin to imagine what it must have been like for her to have so few people of ability and reason respond to her tribute.
When comprehended, Ayn Rand’s philosophy and Libertarian politics share such an optimistic and empowering view on a person’s life, that I still have trouble seeing why those who choose to argue against it want so desperately to focus on human suffering and limitation rather than the best within us. It’s sad choice, but theirs to make.
Thanks for sharing this video. I hadn’t seen it. It’s good to have a sense of the actual history there. I’m impressed with Barbara Branden’s moving comments.
For anyone who has not yet read it, I highly recommend the book.
Comment by Akston — November 14, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
When the 20th Century was still young, things didn’t look good at all for the ideas of individual liberty and self-government that had been the spark that lit the American and French Revolutions. Intellectually and politically, collectivism, of both the right and the left, was on the march. In Europe and most of the rest […]
Why is the 20th century for you only the past 50 years?
Libertarians have arguments and discussions. That is why it is a vibrant political philosophy. Giving up and compromising core principles, as you seem eager to do, is not a vibrant political philosophy.
rho,
The meat of Doherty’s book covers the post World War II era because, effectively, there was no libertarian movement before then.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 9:15 am
“Here at The Liberty Papers, a post questioning the effectiveness of Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, challenging his ideas or pointing out that someone else happens to be in the lead, draws comments that border on personal attacks, which draw comments in response that border on the same…”
Of course, a lot of the venom in those attacks comes from the fact that the author of the great majority of those Liberty Papers posts on Ron Paul tends to nitpick marginal or non-existent issues that seem to be brought up solely because of that irrational pessimism you just mentioned, and many otherwise non-pessimist Ron Paul supporters get tired of hearing him continually bitch for little or no apparent constructive purpose.
Look in the mirror, Doug, or at least go re-read your own Ron Paul archives…I think you’ll find that you’re quite often one of those irrational pessimists you just complained about.
Beyond that, good article. I enjoyed “Radicals for Capitalism” as well. Doherty did a good book. I found the part about the libertarian thinker (whose name currently escapes me) who refused to let his followers spread his arguments without paying him for them really interesting. Definitely a quirky character.
Giving up and compromising core principles, as you seem eager to do, is not a vibrant political philosophy.
Funny, that’s exactly what the arguments always boiled down to in the past too.
Something tells me we’ll never learn.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Crawford,
If there’s an honest disagreement on an issue then I don’t call it nitpicking. I call it a discussion, or at least that’s what I thought it would become.
And I think it’s legitimate to raise concerns when unsavory characters like David Duke and Alex Jones start hitching their stars to ideas that they clearly don’t believe in.
After reading the book, its obvious that the libertarian tendency to demand orthodoxy and loyalty (which is ironic considering we’re supposed to be individuals) is something that still exists.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 9:19 am
If there’s an honest disagreement on an issue then I don’t call it nitpicking. I call it a discussion, or at least that’s what I thought it would become.
Ok, but can you acknowledge that your expectations were wrong for the most part?
Did you ever play organized sports, Doug? Constructive criticism is fine and dandy during pre-season and practices. It helps everyone improve and prepare for the big games. But during the game, you bite your tongue because emotions are too high criticism to be effective. Our opponents are across the field heckling us constantly; we don’t need to hear it from our captain too.
Mistakes will be made. The outlook will be gloomy at times. But if you want to win, you let the minor stuff slide and work your tail off. And even if you’re content to mail this one in, the very least you can do is be nominally supportive of those who are working hard for something we all want.
When the dust settles, then you reflect on the game and teach the lessons.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 10:34 am
After reading the book, its obvious that the libertarian tendency to demand orthodoxy and loyalty (which is ironic considering we’re supposed to be individuals) is something that still exists.
Of course we’re individuals, but an intelligent individual understands that we can’t overcome the challenge we face without teamwork and that involves some compromise.
If the team has already agreed to pursue a certain strategy, and an individual thinks it’s the wrong strategy, what possible good would come from that individual continually arguing with the team? If the individual shares the team’s goal, he should acknowledge that he might be wrong about the strategy and either pitch in or stay out of the way. Any other approach will only reduce everyone’s chances of successfully moving towards our goals.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 10:43 am
“I think it’s legitimate to raise concerns when unsavory characters like David Duke and Alex Jones start hitching their stars to ideas that they clearly don’t believe in.”
That’s when you look at the candidate’s track record, Doug, to determine if there’s something to be worried about. Paul’s never given an indication that he’s a racist or a “truther”, he’s never voted along those lines, and he’s come out against those philosophies repeatedly. Unless you’ve got some evidence to prove he’s been lying to everyone for the last 20 years, your concerns don’t have a lot of validity. Yet you keep bringing this up despite the fact that you have no evidential basis for real concern and despite the fact that this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. That doesn’t make you someone looking for a debate, that makes you a malcontent and a pessimist just looking for something to bitch about. Thus the venom.
And I think Jeff’s sports analogy is entirely appropriate.
“…its obvious that the libertarian tendency to demand orthodoxy and loyalty (which is ironic considering we’re supposed to be individuals) is something that still exists.”
Yes, the libertarians demand orthodoxy and loyalty to individual freedom, non-aggression, free markets, etc. We have ethical and philosophical standards that must be met for someone to legitimately claim they’re one of us, or we expect the person to convince us why we should accept their arguments as libertarian. That’s why we’re an ideology and not just a political party, unlike the Democrats or Republicans. This is not a bad thing. This is also why libertarians often go after you when you claim to be someone who shares our views but then advocate statist positions (like your foreign policy positions, which are distinctly neo-conservative). Libertarians go after each other for moral breaches because we expect people who claim similar ideologies to our own to justify their divergence to us and that’s how we maintain the integrity of our ideology. If you want to take neo-conservative positions, that’s fine and that’s your right…but you shouldn’t expect a free pass when you start claiming that your beliefs are something that they’re not. Libertarians are usually combative, I’ve found, because they don’t like being misrepresented.
Todays Smoke Screen Premise to provide cover for Doug’s real purpose of this post is:
Book Review, Blah, Blah.
and now to the real purpose/crafty Doug’s subliminal messages:
“Here at The Liberty Papers, a post questioning the effectiveness of Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, challenging his ideas or pointing out that someone else happens to be in the lead, draws comments that border on personal attacks, which draw comments in response that border on the same — all of which accomplishes nothing.”
Translation-Most have caught on to DD’s game, so it is necessary to backtrack a bit from pressing DD’s primary agenda(neo-con, warhawk,GWOT, AIPAC/scuttling the Ron Paul for POTUS campaign) to perform some faux credibility damage control.
Doug, Orthodoxy? The Big Megaphone Media peddle orthodoxy and you are peddling the same line.
Unsavory? I’ll take someone voicing their unvarnished opinion over someone that trys to game people into accepting their agenda anytime. Who is the most unsavory from a true Liberty perspective, someone who’s voice/ideas vary from the majority message/current majority view or the people that try to convince others that minority voices MUST be silenced lest someone hear and perhaps agree with some of their ideas/opinions?
Doug, unfortunately for you, the days of some twit taking the primary source information and filtering it out/telling us mere mortals what to think about it are nearly gone. Doug, we are perfectly capable of examining those primary sources for ourselves and deciding what it means. We do not need you interpret that information for us.
Comment by gmason — November 2, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Gmason,
Its posts like yours that make me wonder if we libertarians will ever get beyond our differences enough to actually worry about arguing with people who don’t agree with us rather than each other.
There was no ulterior motive to the review bud, except perhaps to point out that history repeats itself.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Gmason,
And if you don’t understand what I mean by unsavory people, then, well, that’s your problem
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
gmason,
I’m sure you had a point in there somewhere but it got completely lost in the gibberish, acronyms, slurs, and meaningless slogans you slapped all over it like so much bad spackling.
I’ve got my gripes with Doug’s positions from time to time, but I don’t go after his Paul pieces because I think you Paulestinians are any kind of brainiacs. Perhaps you should learn to put together paragraphs that don’t read like they were written by someone who’s off his meds before you start sharing your thoughts with us.
Doug,
“…make me wonder if we libertarians will ever get beyond our differences enough to actually worry about arguing with people who don’t agree with us rather than each other.”
This is the sticking point that actually bothers me about your Paul posts. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the small flaws you perceive in Paul’s campaign (the Stormfront donation, the unsavory people who vote for him, the long odds of a win, etc.) and far less time than is merited focusing on the benefits of a Paul presidency versus a Guiliani/Romney/McCain/Thompson presidency. It’s all downside with you and very little upside, and since Paul is the candidate you have the most interest in Paul is the candidate you choose to nitpick or slap at the most, despite the fact that he’s really the only libertarian-friendly candidate in the race. Thus, you end up falling prey to the same syndrome that you decry in other libertarians and create a self-fulfilling prophesy. You focus on the internal problems and the navel gazing and the negativity while ignoring or minimizing the potential for success. This is why I (and, I suspect, some others) keep taking you to task for your more recent prognostications of doom for the Paul campaign in an attempt to get you to see the fruitlessness of this approach. Perhaps this is a poor strategy to use, because the Paulestinians’ more irrational attacking posts seem to have the effect of reinforcing this negativity, but frankly I haven’t seen the people who’ve used a softer approach towards correcting you have much more success.
My basic point is, Doug, if you want to see the libertarians get past the sniping and the complaining and in-fighting to focus on pushing their agenda to others perhaps the first attitude you show evaluate and consider changing is your own…at least as far as Paul’s campaign is concerned.
UC, The point is there, sorry you missed it.
You don’t go after Doug’s Paul pieces, that’s great. Freedom is good. If you change your mind on that or not it is OK with me. You may have noticed I do. Do you support that UC, my personal freedom/Liberty I mean, as I support your freedom not to be critical of Doug’s Paul pieces?
Paulestian? Freudian Slip?
“Perhaps you should learn to put together paragraphs that don’t read like they were written by someone who’s off his meds before you start sharing your thoughts with us.”
UC, if you are the thought sharing monitor, my apologies, I was unaware of that, if true I will start clearing my comments thru you in the future.
Crawford,
The fight for liberty is about a lot more than just Ron Paul’s campaign for the White House.
The one thing that I’ve wondered since this started — and it keeps getting reconfirmed all the time — is that once this campaign is over, it will be just like what happened with Ross Perot and the Reform Party — the movement will wither away or be taken over by one faction or another. Perhaps I’m being pessmisstic, but given the number of Paul supporters who told me that they’ll have nothing to do with the GOP (or politics) if Ron Paul isn’t the nominee, I don’t think I am.
As for the other issues, I’ve talked about disagreements on foreign policy because I think its an issue that, for the most part, libertarians haven’t really development coherent ideas that can be taken seriously. With the exception of guys like Ted Carpenter at Cato, all we usually get are suggestions that bringing the troops home and opening the borders to trade will ensure that every nation loves us, and that’s just naive. It’s an issue that needs to be discussed as are issues like immigration policy (although that seems like an easy one to me — libertarians are for open borders).
And yet when I brought those issues up, I was attacked, not so much for what I was saying, but on a personal level (not by you, but you know who I’m talking about) because I dared to disagree with Ron Paul, or at least that’s the impression certain commentators were giving off.
I could say the same thing about the Stormfront/Alex Jones issue.
Have I been overly aggressive with some of the commentators ? Perhaps, but it’s a two way street and I don’t think I was the first one to cross it.
And I’ll stop there before this comment becomes post-length worthy.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Doug, I know very well what you meant and what you are trying to accomplish when you label someone/some group as unsavory. Your opinion of what is unsavory is merely your opinion. If you find some specific idea unsavory then specify which idea and why you find it unsavory. What you consistently attempt to do, in orthodox opinion molding and divide and conquer fashion, is promote group identity/group thought over individual identity/individual thought. What serves the cause of Liberty better, promoting individual thought or groupthink?
No Ulterior Motive?
My opinion remains exactly as expressed above and in previous threads.
Gmason,
If you don’t think that outright racists like the people at Stormfront or David Duke are unsavory, then I’d love to know what your definition is.
How does being associated with people like that help the cause of freedom ? Not one bit.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
gmason,
Oh I’m sure you had a point, but as I said you buried it in all the bullshit and grammatical errors so nobody’s going to go looking for it.
Actually, I do go after Doug’s Paul pieces (as you’d know if you’ve ever paid attention). What I was saying was that those posters who tend to make long rambling statements where they throw out every libertarian boogeyman in the book (neo-conservatives, AIPAC, warmongers, blah blah blah) aren’t actually discrediting anything Doug says, they’re just making a lot of noise and confusing jargon and sloganeering with making valid arguments. “They” in this case meaning “you”.
“Paulestinians” - supporters of Paul who are incapable of making rational arguments and often punctuate their defenses of Ron Paul with inaccurate assessments of his actual policy platform. Very often “Paulestinians” include “truthers”, populists, racists, anti-capitalists, anti-Semites, and crazy people. Most accurately identified by the pronounced victim mentality that pervades almost every belief system they throw out.
“UC, if you are the thought sharing monitor, my apologies, I was unaware of that, if true I will start clearing my comments thru you in the future.”
No need to have me arbitrate your thoughts, but you apparently need some assistance in the area of proper grammar and sentence and paragraph construction. Having someone else proofread your work would probably do wonders for cutting down on your gibberish factor.
Perhaps I’m being pessmisstic, but given the number of Paul supporters who told me that they’ll have nothing to do with the GOP (or politics) if Ron Paul isn’t the nominee, I don’t think I am.
Your assessment is spot on. There are many that don’t plan on sticking around and the movement may very well experience a hangover.
So what are you going to do about it? I’m not sure what the answer is or even if there is one, but I do know that there’s a very smart man leading the charge right now and it’s silly to think he hasn’t considered it as well. My guess is that if Paul loses, he will anoint a successor(s) that he knows and trusts and then he will campaign hard for him in this and future elections. Can you think of a better plan?
How does being associated with people like that help the cause of freedom ? Not one bit.
Time and money. Many unsavory people kickstarted this campaign, whether you want to admit it or not. We all know Ron Paul’s integrity is unimpeachable, so there’s nothing wrong with accepting their donations and thanking them for foolishly acting against their own interests. It’s a PR problem. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only question is whether severing association at this point reduces the PR problem enough to justify the repercussions. The campaign has chosen to walk the tightrope and you harping on it only complicates their job.
It’s a great academic question and you may very well be right, but now isn’t the time for that. At this point, we must simply hope the saw is already sharp enough to fell the forest.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Damn, UC. You’re on a roll this week. :-)
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Jeff,
Your assessment is spot on. There are many that don’t plan on sticking around and the movement may very well experience a hangover.
So what are you going to do about it? I’m not sure what the answer is or even if there is one, but I do know that there’s a very smart man leading the charge right now and it’s silly to think he hasn’t considered it as well. My guess is that if Paul loses, he will anoint a successor(s) that he knows and trusts and then he will campaign hard for him in this and future elections. Can you think of a better plan?
I didn’t say that I could, but don’t you think someone should ?
Otherwise, this will all just be a memory once the race for the GOP nomination is over.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Doug,
“…all we usually get are suggestions that bringing the troops home and opening the borders to trade will ensure that every nation loves us, and that’s just naive.”
Actually, that’s not what Paul’s been saying. Paul’s pointed out (as have Jeff and I) that withdrawing the troops is a transitional strategy meant to eventually minimize the rage and frustration caused by our interventionist foreign policy (which he has stated he realizes won’t disappear soon). I’m well aware of the fact that we have enemies in the world, which is why I’m also a proponent of having a strong military and intelligence apparatus to defend our country against imminent threats and to wage defensive (but not aggressive) wars. I just don’t think we need to be aggressively planting those into every country that doesn’t like us and interfering in their internal affairs in the futile hope that we’ll somehow eliminate all threats…since that usually increases the chances that such an attack will occur in the future because of the blowback. From what I’ve read, Paul’s platform is pretty much identical to this. If it weren’t, and he was one of those idiot pacifists, I’d never vote for the guy.
As for your aggressiveness with the “truthers” and most of the others I mentioned, it never really bothered me. Frankly, I’m not all that interested in being diplomatic with them either, considering the overwhelming majority of them are either fools, liars or mentally ill, with no interest in objectively analyzing their beliefs. Insulting them isn’t going to accomplish any less than trying to talk to them rationally.
Yes, we should, but you forgot the “if we lose” part.
Look, I’ve only been in the movement for a couple years now, so I respect your experience and perspective, but you’re shooting yourself in the foot on a regular basis. You’re not going to influence people by repeatedly making it obvious that you think their efforts are wasted and misguided. It’s not going to happen.
How do I know? Because you even did it me. I am an incredibly patient and optimistic man. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time and went out of my way to show you the fallacies in your arguments. You were just trying to temper what you saw as irrational exuberance; I understand and respect that now. But your execution that you were as intellectually dishonest as the MSM, if not more. You were steadily pursuing an agenda and everyone could tell. It doesn’t matter that your agenda was altruistic because your dishonesty trashed your credibility.
Like I said, I don’t have any magical ideas and I don’t fault you for making an effort, but it didn’t work and here we are today.
All I want to know, is how do we move forward?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
*”But your execution was so bad that you were…”
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Jeff,
Not everyone at TLP agrees with me, but I’ve been of the opinion that the Paul campaign, while it can accomplish things, is ultimately doomed when it comes to winning the nomination for reasons that have less to do with RP than they do with the Republican Party and the way politics works.
While there’s been a lot to be encouraged about recently, I haven’t changed my mind on that point. And, as you can probably tell, I’ve been less optimistic that this campaign will result in a rebirth of a libertarian tradition with the Republican Party, which, for the moment, is the only viable avenue that we’ve got.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
So you want to hedge the bet; that’s fine. Go ahead and prepare to mitigate the hangover. Just make sure you do it in a way that doesn’t make your prophecy self-fulfilling.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Doug,
The short answer. Silencing or restricting voices is a very dangerous path to go down. Let all people(individuals and institutions, i.e. groups of people ostensibly having a common goal) voice their exact thoughts, let all be free to agree/disagree/somewhere in between with a clear and full knowledge of those thoughts. Are we currently well served by watered down/evasive expressions of opinion by politicos afraid to speak their minds/intentions?
Encourage complete freedom of expression in the marketplace of ideas(Yes, that is an ideal and there will be some, very slight, limitations). Creating artificial boundaries for speech does not place boundaries on thoughts. Better to find out what the true range of thoughts are by keeping limits on speech to the barest reasonable minimum. Allow the full range of thought to compete in a free market of ideas. The freer the idea market the ideas emerging/surviving will be of higher quality. Impose needlessly tight restrictions/attempt to restrict flawed ideas from reaching the market only breeds suspicion about market fairness/breeds further flawed ideas and encourages pulled punches on thoughts and a skewed(inaccurate) perception regarding the true range of opinion.
I will not go into the flaws of making blanket assumptions about ALL of an individuals views based on that individuals view on one discrete issue.
Gmason,
Stormfront and Duke have every right to say whatever they want.
I, however, have the right to say that I don’t ever want to be part of a movement that has them as members.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
You would leave the movement because they were too dumb to realize they were standing in the wrong line?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Doug,
“…but I’ve been of the opinion that the Paul campaign, while it can accomplish things, is ultimately doomed…”
While optimism and persistence are no guarantors of success, defeatism is a guarantor of failure. I can understand the skepticism to a degree, the pessimism is absolutely unfounded. When you get to the point where you’re convinced that nothing’s going to change and that things will always persist as they have…well, then you’re not that much different from the “truthers” or the nutjobs who think Paul’s going to get assassinated, are you? I’m not one of the delusionals who thinks that a Paul presidency would change the world overnight, but it would make things better and even if he doesn’t win the resilience of the campaign is definitely a step in the right direction. Why undercut that by continually telling the pro-freedom crowd that it won’t work? What purpose could that possibly serve other than to tell them that their beliefs are stupid and childish and will never actually work in the real world?
Frankly, I’ve got more faith in the libertarian ideology than that. And defeatism is nothing more than settling for mediocrity and failure. Is that really what you want to be pushing?
gmason,
Now that was a well-worded argument that got rid of the rubbish. Well put.
Doug,
Sorry, but I take gmason’s side with it. And frankly, just because Stormfront or whoever vote for Paul doesn’t mean he’s actually one of them, nor does it mean that you’re one of them just because you’re voting for the same candidate.
The challenge in courting the libertarian voter is that the same qualities that make them value libertarian ideals also tend to effectively inoculate them from becoming sheep. They actually enjoy being the captains of their own lives.
If Ron Paul doesn’t win, will his voting block leave the GOP? I know I will. Why would I vote for 3 magical initials G-O-P no matter what they espouse? How many blank checks like that would you write? I’ll vote for Ron Paul because I trust him to work towards the policies I want addressed in the White House.
To me, all the other choices look like votes for big-government domestic tyranny (socialism) or big-government international tyranny (pre-emptive intervention).
But if Paul fails to get the nod and you can propose an alternate libertarian candidate to carry the torch, I’m all ears.
Comment by Akston — November 2, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
If Ron Paul doesn’t win, will his voting block leave the GOP? I know I will. Why would I vote for 3 magical initials G-O-P no matter what they espouse?
The key is to recognize the difference between voting for the GOP nominee and staying in the party. No one will ever know what you do with your general election, so do whatever you believe is right.
The key to correcting the party, though, is to stay involved. Be a delegate, go to those monthly meeting, and develop a rapport with the insiders and gain influence.
Then, the next time the movement peaks, we won’t be on the outside looking in.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
The key to correcting the party, though, is to stay involved. Be a delegate, go to those monthly meeting, and develop a rapport with the insiders and gain influence.
Then, the next time the movement peaks, we won’t be on the outside looking in.
Valid point.
Comment by Akston — November 2, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
In reference to Stormfront, the KKK, et al, it gives me a chance to trot out one of my favorite quotes:
“Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.”
– Anna Quindlen
There are idiots and sages in most groups. Denying an idiot the mic only insulates us from his idiocy. And whether misguided idiot or insightful sage, I welcome their resources to further the campaign of a man who’s free speech has worked for him in my eyes.
Comment by Akston — November 2, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
And that’s really the crux of Doug’s efforts, misguided as they may have been. He’s been through this enough times to see the bigger picture.
However, in his pessimism, he forgets that there are key structural differences between this wave and the previous ones.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Jeff,
Good points. I’ve actually talked to a local GOP member about getting involved here, since the Wichita area Republicans are pretty libertarian friendly. The guys leading the GOP up in the KC area are a bunch of neoconservative trolls, but fortunately they’re also old, they’ve got a lot of people who aren’t happy with what they’re doing and they’re on the way out if the Republicans lose next year. Besides, I gave the Libertarian Party a look-see during my disillusionment, and I’m telling you there’s nothing there worth spending a significant amount of time on. They aren’t going to turn into anything more than a protest vote…they just don’t have the tools to pull it off.
Jeff’s right, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election regardless of your party affiliation. But if you want to have a hand in who the Republicans put up for office you need to stay involved with the party and not just walk away in disgust no matter how unhappy you are with the neocons. The GOP is the most open to our ideology of capitalist economics and small government, it’s just that they’ve lost their way lately. Plus, it’s not like the Democrats are ever going to embrace a pro-free market agenda…if the Bush administration hasn’t convinced them to budge off their socialist platform to steal the libertarian voters the Republicans are alienating, nothing will.
Akston,
And sometimes, there are idiots who it is necessary to disassociate from.
When it comes to racists, they’re at top of my list.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Jeff,
Differences ? Maybe, maybe not. We shall see and maybe I’ll be proven wrong.
But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 2, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Differences ? Maybe, maybe not. We shall see and maybe I’ll be proven wrong.
Thank you. All I’ve ever really wanted from you was a little humility.
But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.
If they’re not intelligent enough to understand that A can associate with B without B reciprocating, well they’re just not intelligent enough to understand and embrace the freedom philosophy anyways.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 2, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.
If they’re not intelligent enough to understand that A can associate with B without B reciprocating, well they’re just not intelligent enough to understand and embrace the freedom philosophy anyways.
Ron Paul can turn support from unpopular groups from a liability into an asset by once again speaking the truth.
One of the primary founding principles of this country is Freedom of Speech. It’s in the First Amendment, and tends to get support from a wide variety of crowds. I can see Frank Luntz polling: “How many here oppose free speech?”
When anyone brings up these unpopular supporters, Ron Paul can remind the questioner that liberty and free speech are the kinds of American values he’s fighting for.
If he were to try to decide whose speech is “unacceptable”, he’d spend all the campaign’s resources hunting down unpopular supporters in order to refund their money and denounce their support. That’s all Dr. Paul’s meager staff would be doing, day and night. It also gives a gigantic free weapon to any detractors by validating their un-American demands and letting them decide who will support Dr. Paul’s campaign.
Comment by Akston — November 2, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Jeff, Doug has said many times that he may well be proven wrong.
Someone, Jeff or gmason, or both, accused Doug of espousing a neo-con foreign policy without, obviously, having read his posts on foreign policy and military issues. Try checking those posts before making accusations.
And these are the reasons why I cannot claim to be a libertarian. Doug tries to point out that libertarians make accusations and denunciations around orthodoxy and you promptly denounce him for it and accuse him of being a neo-con.
Good job!
Comment by Eric — November 3, 2007 @ 10:17 am
First, as he points out in the concluding chapter of his book, there is tendency among libertarians to believe in the worst of all possible outcomes, and a failure to recognize just how much progress toward human liberty has been made in the past 50 years or so. Before the libertarian movement came into it’s own, American males were drafted into the armed forces when the turned 18, marginal tax rates exceeded 70 percent, Americans were legally forbidden from owning gold in any form other than jewelry, airline travel was heavily regulated by the FAA to the point where consumer choice was virtually non-existent, and socialism in one form or another was on the march throughout the world.
How about the fact that blacks were second-class citizens in a number of states and now have much more equal rights than they did? That’s the most promising liberty development of the past 50 years, and that was thanks to liberals, not libertarians.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — November 3, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Actually Joshua, it was not thanks to “liberals” in the sense you mean it. In actual fact, the Republican Party did far more from 1860 to 1960 to bring about liberty and freedom for people who were not white anglo-saxons than other political institution. It was a WASP Republican (Barry Goldwater) who first champi
RSS 2.0 Feed
Umm, its a bit too dismissive when it shouldn’t be. For example:
But given the unlikelihood of a Paul Administration, and the even greater unlikelihood of a Paul Congress, his policy prescriptions aren’t likely to bear fruit
Nonsense. Paul’s policy prescriptions should still be pursued in many areas, regardless of how much support they receive and how many congressman would vote in favor of them.
The only thing that might be said is that donating millions towards a Ron Paul presidential campaign hasn’t borne much fruit, and hasn’t brought about a libertarian revolution.
Comment by Jono — May 12, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Doug, this is officially your favorite strawman. You bat it around (sometimes by proxy) way too often for someone I’m sure fancies himself as intellectually honest.
There always has been and there always will be some country or group that wants to do us harm. That is true of practically every other nation throughout history.
No one is foolish enough to think that an entirely passive approach to national security will result in puppy dogs and brotherhood for all.
The difference between proactive and reactive defense isn’t binary; it’s a simple spectrum and our goal should be to find the optimal spot on it. There are obvious tradeoffs in either direction with various risks increasing or decreasing in one direction or the other.
One need only take an honest look at the opportunity cost of all the money we’ve spent on Iraq to realize that we are not currently at the optimal spot. That doesn’t even factor in the moral arguments in favor of reactivity.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 12, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Why, why, why do people quote Rand to justify aggressive national foreign policy? She wrote over over and over about the insanity of war and torture. Reynolds has no business quoting her to justify his fantasy that Iraq is a front in the war on al Qaeda. And remember, Jefferson had a giant grudge against Britain. When the Barbary Pirates attacked, he sent the military to the Barbary Coast… not Canada to settle a personal vendetta. That’s a libertarian foreign policy, not foreign adventurism. Reynolds really does need to actually know what he’s talking about already. But what do you expect from somebody whose most insightful commentary is “Heh”?
Comment by Sean — May 13, 2008 @ 5:36 am
Jeff,
That’s not my sentence, that’s Professor Reynolds.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 5:46 am
I understand what a blockquote looks like, Doug. However, you did choose to quote that particular paragraph and you immediately followed it with an affirmation and made no attempt to point out that he had blatantly mischaracterized Paul’s position. I’ve also been around long enough to hear you say pretty much the same thing on multiple occasions.
Do you now acknowledge that it was a mischaracterization?
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Jeff,
I choose it to point out that, while Reynolds admits that he and Paul disagree on some things, they agree on far more.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Do you now acknowledge that it was a mischaracterization?
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Jeff,
Now you want me to apologize for something someone else said ?
One, I won’t do it.
Two, I think he fairly characterized what Ron Paul’s foreign policy position is.
If you disagree, please cite evidence.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 8:57 am
I didn’t ask for an apology. I wanted clarification of whether or not you agreed with Mr. Reynolds.
Now that you acknowledge that you do, it begs the question: why did you try to distance yourself from the statement just a few hours ago by responding that you weren’t the one that said it?
I couldn’t quickly find a direct statement because I don’t know which terms to search for, but this statement, pulled from his National Defense Issues page, clearly implies that there will still be people that want to kill us.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Jeff,
You’re creating your own straw man here. Doug simply cited a review of Ron Paul’s book that has been cited in several other places…there wasn’t a dig at Ron Paul, he didn’t mischaracterize Paul’s position, he just noted that the book came out and quoted the most widely-referenced review. This wasn’t a hatchet piece by any stretch of the imagination and Doug doesn’t bear responsibility for Reynolds’ work simply because he quoted it.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Jeff,
And to weigh in on your other argument…
I have heard Ron Paul specifically state that if we pull out of foreign countries, nobody will want to attack us (I believe it was in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, not 100% certain of the source but I have heard him make those remarks). Perhaps this was a misstatement on Paul’s part, but it certainly didn’t come off that way. You know that I whole-heartedly agree with Paul’s foreign policy suggestions, being a non-interventionist, but I have found Paul’s stated expectations of many of the policies he advocates to be rather naive and utopian, often overlooking or minimizing the fact that even the best policies will still have downsides. That doesn’t mean his policies are wrong (because they certainly aren’t, but there are negative consequences no matter what course of action you choose) but I think that it does bring up concerns on the depth of Paul’s analysis on specifics. I believe that’s what Reynolds was questioning in his review…the feeling that Paul is giving rather vague and shallow suggestions of where we should go without discussing the nuts and bolts of how to get there.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Jeff,
Perhaps you didn’t see this part of my post:
even though I probably agree more with Reynolds on foreign policy than I do with Paul.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Doug,
And in Jeff’s defense, you have mischaracterized Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions in the past, we’ve pointed out your inaccuracies to you and cited evidence of how it differed from what Ron Paul was actually saying and how you were confusing “isolationism” with “non-interventionism”.
So while Jeff is incorrect in this particular instance, his accusations aren’t completely baseless…just to be fair.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 10:00 am
No, it wasn’t a hatchet piece, but it did contain one very tired strawman.
Right, but he bears responsibility because he implied that he agreed with it in the post and then confirmed his agreement an hour ago. Not to mention the numerous times he’s stated it himself over the past year.
I remember him specifically clarifying his position on numerous occasions, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he had oversimplified things at times. That’s par for the course in American politics these days and he definitely showed that he was willing to engage in such less-than-honest tactics.
But seriously, now. Separate the product from the sales pitch. Do any of you actually believe that he’s so stupid as to create a foreign policy dependent on the assumption that no one would want to kill us? If so, why didn’t he advocate the wholesale disbanding of the military?
C’mon.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Jeff,
Tell me, specifically, where Reynolds is wrong in his statement about Paul’s foreign policy views.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Reynolds on Paul:
Correct characterization:
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Amended “correct characterization”:
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Jeff,
I would submit that this is a distinction without a different. Reynolds correctly characterized something that Ron Paul said in more than one Republican Presidential debate that I watched.
In the context of a relatively positive book review, I would say that the characterization was entirely fair.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Jeff,
Your “correct characterization” is the accurate assessment of non-interventionism’s results. I have, however, heard Paul specifically state that if we engage in non-interventionism then no one will want to kill us. Thus my argument about his utopian outlook on the results of his policies. But you are correct in that Reynolds is incorrectly smearing non-interventionism because of his disagreements with Ron Paul.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Jeff,
Actually, he does it quite often. His little diatribe about the Civil War being illegitimate and avoidable was full of such oversimplifications, as are his policy arguments about how to downsize government. That’s the gripe Reynolds has and I tend to agree with it…mainly because I see it in his issues (especially in regards to immigration reform).
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 11:02 am
I believe that he’s got enough of a tin ear (particularly in regards to the quality of his staff) that he’ll take an ill-advised course of action without considering the consequences or weighing how the negatives will affect the long-term achievement of his goals. That’s why I consider him a better gadfly than a politician.
To quote his own national defense page that you linked to…
I agreed with his vote, but if he seriously didn’t seriously consider the possibility that the mission would eventually change into nation-building or that the president would exceed his mandate, then he was very foolish and simply hasn’t been a very good student of history. Almost every single time we’ve invaded or intervened in a foreign country, we’ve ended up engaging in some sort of nation-building (Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, Bosnia, Somalia). Failing to recognize that quite obvious fact is the sign of a man who doesn’t consider the possible consequences of his actions before he acts.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 11:10 am
UCrawford,
For me, it also boiled down to the idea that I had no confidence that he’d appoint advisers (i.e., Sec. of State, National Security Adviser) who had any idea what the heck they were doing.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 11:15 am
then does this put Barr? from his campaign website http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/ :
“For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.
Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world’s police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.
The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.”
he’s basically Ron Paul, without having yet been seriously asked where he stands regarding national defense. i wonder what Barr will say when it’s brought up.
Comment by oilnwater — May 13, 2008 @ 11:18 am
I have already acknowledged that Paul has oversold non-interventionism; he engaged in the same kind of exaggerated rhetoric as virtually all politicians.
Having said that, I’ll repeat two questions that I haven’t received direct answers to.
Every one on this site is very capable separating rhetoric from policy for every other politician out there, why the resistance to do it with Paul? Yes, he his rhetoric is exaggerated and disprovable. His actual policy is more realistic and arguably good. You should be able to acknowledge that even if you would argue against him.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 11:23 am
You’re probably right on that, but still you’re talking about execution, not policy.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 11:29 am
how does is that rectified in Barr’s case. from his campaign http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/
* For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.
* Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world’s police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.
* The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.
so basically he is Ron Paul, without yet having been asked specifically what he’d do with the GWOT, given this philosophy. considering how dodgy Barr was on Hannity/Colmes when asked specifically about the drug war, i wouldnt be too surprised if he caved on this one either.
Comment by oilnwater — May 13, 2008 @ 11:38 am
but i guess for the “national defense libertarians,” if Barr does cave in when he’s called on this philosophy, that would be a good thing for you.
Comment by oilnwater — May 13, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Jeff,
I don’t have any confidence in his managerial abilities to believe that he would have appointed the right people to implement whatever policy he advocated.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
oilnwater.
Except for the fact that Barr has said, rightly in my opinion, that it would be idiotic to set a withdrawal date for troops in Iraq (or, presumably, anywhere else).
Ron Paul has already said differently.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Jeff,
Policy is meaningless without the ability to implement or execute it competently. If stated policy was all that mattered we might as well be voting for whoever promises to “eliminate poverty” or “give everyone health care” because none of the politicians who promise that have the ability to implement either.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
oilnwater,
I actually agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy…I just didn’t trust him to implement it (meaning I don’t trust him to put someone capable in charge, not that I think he’s lying about his intentions). I consider the fact that Barr shares Paul’s foreign policy to be a plus, and I have more faith in Barr’s management ability and judgment than I do Paul’s. That’s why I’ll vote for Barr.
Now if Barr were to cave on that position (or go back to being a drug warrior), I’d certainly condemn him for it. But at this point I don’t think there’s any serious indication that he’s being less than sincere in what he’s espousing.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
I never meant to imply that policy was all that mattered when deciding for whom to vote. I have no problem with you for abandoning Paul when it became obvious he was bad at executing things. Likewise for Doug below.
But this whole conversation started with a (mis)characterization of policy, so for the purposes of this conversation about that characterization, yes, policy is all that matters.
You can bash him for his lack of ethics and you can bash him for his poor leadership skills, but we should all be able to agree that his policy is defensible whereas Mr. Reynolds’ characterization of Paul’s policy is laughably easy to disprove.
Paul failed and he failed miserably. It is very important to be precise about why he failed.
That’s not an answer to either question. I’ve already addressed why I draw a distinction between policy and execution.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Jeff,
Fair enough. My point was, though, that Doug isn’t responsible for what Reynolds wrote…and all he said was that he tended to agree with Reynolds version of foreign policy. To claim that remark is a shot at Ron Paul’s foreign policy is a stretch at best and I think you’ve overreacted a bit because the point of the article was that there was a Ron Paul book out, not a dissection of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. All Doug did was blockquote the most commonly cited portions of Reynolds’ review.
Comment by UCrawford — May 13, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
I did give him a chance to disavow Reynolds’ “mistake” and for awhile it looked like he was going to do so, but then he embraced the characterization at 8:57. I should have asked for clarification with my first comment instead of my second, but as it turned out, my assumption was right anyways.
But that’s how Doug takes most of his shots, especially on this particular topic.
He could have disavowed the comment and this whole conversation would have been over before it even started, but he didn’t presumably because then he would have had to weigh the pros and cons of the two foreign policies instead of simply dismissing non-interventionism as wishful thinking.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Jeff,
Why would I disavow a comment that I agree with ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
You wouldn’t; the problem is that you agree with it. The comment is demonstrably wrong, notwithstanding your insistence that it is a “distinction without a differen[ce].”
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 13, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Jeff,
If it’s demonstrably wrong, then demonstrate it.
I’ve heard Ron Paul say basically the same thing more than once.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 6:26 am
oh cool, then Barr’s already caved. no wonder you’re such a fan, doug :P
Comment by oilnwater — May 14, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Where has Barr caved ?
The only thing he’s said about foreign policy differently from Paul that I’m aware of is his suggestion that it probably isn’t a good idea to set deadlines for withdrawing troops under the general principle that you don’t tell your enemies what you’re doing.
Makes sense to me.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 7:32 am
I have already acknowledged that Paul has oversold non-interventionism; he engaged in the same kind of exaggerated rhetoric as virtually all politicians.
Having said that, I’ll repeat two questions that I still haven’t received direct answers to.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 14, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Jeff,
What I believe, based on what I’ve heard him say, is that he believes that most threats to the United States are little more than reactions our own allegedly bad actions. Therefore, he goes on to conclude, withdrawing our military to within our borders and closing every overseas military base, will eliminate those threats.
It’s a policy based on incredibly naive assumptions, and I simply can’t trust a person who believes stuff like that to make the right decisions.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 9:10 am
OBL himself has stated the same motivations for 911 as the 911 Commission has stated. RP only pointed that out, and is supported by both the 911 Commission and the CIA. all you’re doing right now is false extrapolation.
Comment by oilnwater — May 14, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Because, you know, what motivates a fascist Islamic mass murderer should be the only thing that we base our foreign policy on.
Yea, I don’t think so.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 10:42 am
There, now was that so hard? You’ve spent the last two days defending someone who said “all” instead of “most”.
That’s fine. I don’t care that you disagree. Just make sure you describe his position accurately.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 14, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Jeff,
I still don’t think that Reynolds’ sentence was a mis characterization.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
This statement could be taken two ways. It could be taken to mean that “some people and countries” or “all people and countries”. If Reynolds intended the latter, it was a blatant mischaracterization. If he intended the former, he’s pretty stupid for disagreeing with what is obviously true. I’m sure there is at least on person somewhere that hates us because of something we did to him, his family, his country, ethnicity, etc.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 14, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Jeff,
Well,yes, on that much you’re right. And when Paul made that argument and Rudy Giuliani objected to it last year at one of the first GOP debates, I defended him (links available upon request).
At the same time, though, I think it’s incredibly naive and stupid to base American foreign policy on the idea that “we better not offend anybody.” (In that regard, you’re talking to a guy who was pissed off to high heaven when he found out that American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia were being forced to comply with that countries barabaric gender laws).
The radical Islamists are motivated by far more than what we may or may not have done to offend them. And if they didn’t have our presence in the Middle East to complain about, they’d be complaining about (as they do) the “corrupting influence” of Western culture.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 14, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
That’s all I was ever trying to say. Hopefully we can arrive at this point a little quicker in the future.
You’re right, that would be pretty stupid. Luckily, that’s not the basis of non-interventionism. There are many people offended by our decision not to intervene in Darfur and Burma. So be it.
Non-interventionism is simply a recognition of the dangers of unintended consequence. Interventionism is bad policy if the cost of the intervention plus the risk of unintended consequences is greater than the risk of non-intervention. Likewise, Non-interventionism is bad policy if the reverse is true.
Unfortunately we don’t have simulators powerful enough to figure out which is true, so we just have to agree to follow our own intuition.
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 14, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Jeff,
I think that sums up the subtlety of non-intervention beautifully…distinguishing between non-interventionism and isolationism by pointing out that non-interventionism is a pragmatic approach, not a ideological one. That’s why I did think Ron Paul was fairly sharp on his foreign policy, because most of the critics who try to label him an isolationist conveniently ignore the fact that he voted to intervene in Afghanistan. Of course, his vote ended up getting subverted because he completely misjudged Bush, but then just because he’s a crappy judge of character and competence doesn’t mean he’s not right on quite a few issues.
Comment by UCrawford — May 15, 2008 @ 9:06 am