Many in the George Mason University/Cato Institute crowd opposed Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, with Professor Steve Horwitz writing: “Paul’s campaign is…running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism.”
With the benefit of hindsight, and knowing what’s happened since 2008, has Ron Paul damaged libertarian ideas - or has he (as I think) been the most effective spokesman for liberty ever to have lived?
In my personal opinion, which I guess is the only way to answer this question, he is the most effective spokesman for liberty to have ever lived. At least throughout my generation. All of the libertarians I know got involved with the movement because of Ron Paul, and his interviews/videos/etc. are what we recommend to our friends in order to interest them in liberty.
I think if he actually got any considerable power he could do some damage to libertarianism long-term, but as it stands right now, even though I don’t care for him, he seems to be spreading the message pretty well.
Horowitz is a libertinist, and his main concern with Paul seems to be that he is not. The issues he brought up: Abortion, Immigration, and Trade, all stem from misunderstandings judging by his own explanations.
Denying citizenship is anti-libertarian?
I don’t think Paul has had any influence on libertarian ideas. His impact has been exposing a huge number of people to libertarian ideas and, contra Horwitz, I think it was his economic positions that influenced so many and are keeping him relevant, and not his cultural conservatism. Those already against abortion, or at least at the federal level, embraced his rhetoric there; those tolerant of abortion casually ignored it. Ditto, I think, for immigration. True, when browsing progressive sites, I’ll see commenters whine that Paul, “believes in equal rights, except for women!” But such comments are usually followed by similar disdain for his economic policies. Are we to suppose that, if only Paul’s thoughts on abortion and immigration were more progressive, then we would see more leftists checking out mises.org and GMU, reading Cato at Starbucks, etc? Those conservatives convinced by his economic views were glad he agreed with them on abortion and sovereignty and all that, while I think those more to the center/left convinced by his economic views “forgave” him for his other positions.
Regardless, he actually made some people question the wisdom of an interventionist foreign policy, drug prohibition and a Federal Reserve. For me, those are the important things (far more than abortion or immigration), and they’re what people most often associate with Paul.
Uh-huh. An unfortunate prediction by Professor Horwitz.
The article writes: “We were born as a progressive and cosmopolitan movement and we forget our history at our own peril.”
Absolute nonsense. Nobody can just jump in and claim a history and a One True Libertarianism howsoever they want. Neither history nor people’s personal stands are based on such foregone conclusions like “Libertarians should be progressive.”
This is a revival of Buckley-style fusionism of the 1950s. Where Bill Buckley thought that movement conservatism requires conservatives to concede to free marketers and free marketers to concede to conservatives so as to make a coalition, it seems the same thoughts had started coming on the movement progressivism side. Apparently, some free marketers think they must win representation by allegiance and some progressives think they need concessions of other sides towards theirs, just like fusionists of the 1950s.
So-called progressive opposition to war across the world has been scant and shameful, and there are times when in the House, only this “constitutionalist” politician Paul is condemning a US air strike on the other side of the world. As it is, non-progressive Democrats have opposed the CRA 1964 as a means of dividing their country, and even hard Left has seen through many of these egalitarian legislations.
People like Robert Scheer and many hard progressives praise Ron Paul for being the only serious anti-war politician, and when people attacked his position, Scheer fumed, “Just what is it about our bloated federal government that even educated liberal pundits start foaming at the mouth when somebody just reducing it, let alone a libertarian…Clinton did far more to hurt the poor than the Pauls ever did.”
If people want to be morally consistent, they should not worry about all their views neatly falling across party lines.
They must be on heavy drug use, or a serious miscalculation. I’m here as a voluntaryist partly because of paul’s run. He revived my faith in liberty. Ron Paul is a great primer to libertarianism. It’s hard to say Ron Paul damaged libertarianism if he introduced it so many people.
I agree. Horowitz seems to fail to understand that most of the “special interest groups” he mentions do not want to be treated as equals but want to be treated as specials, meaning reserved quotas, ad hoc tax breaks etc.
I personally believe Ron Paul has done more than any other living personality to further the cause of Libertarianism and not only in the US. Dr Paul is well known and respected in such diverse countries as Finland and Turkey because he appeals not only to people of Libertarian leanings but to everyone with a bit of common sense.
Saying Ron Paul has damaged libertarianism is like saying…
Mises damaged economics.
Continue…
Although I agree that Ron Paul’s unlibertarian stances on immigration and abortion are unfortunate and mean more and more people associate libertarianism with conservatism, overall Ron Paul has done good. More people are libertarian than ever before, and a great deal of the new libertarians discover Austrian economics and market anarchism.
I think we’d be able to gather supporters from both left and right if we were for totally free markets, but also progressive socially. Libertarians are too often associated with the Republican party and the “tea parties”. Most Democrats think we’re just Republicans.
Azure,
“Horowitz is a libertinist”
<= This is obviously a miscomprehension from what Horwitz is saying. One can argue that Horwitz is too cosmpolitan and that this isn’t strictly libertarian per se, but that’s not the same as a libertine.
Sukrit,
“With the benefit of hindsight, and knowing what’s happened since 2008, has Ron Paul damaged libertarian ideas - or has he (as I think) been the most effective spokesman for liberty ever to have lived?”
<= These two are not mutually exclusive, obviously. One can be the most effective spokesman for liberty and be damaging for the cause in the long run at the same time. That’s the point that Horwitz is making - or at least, as I read him. So I would say this is based on a false dichotomy.
I would say that based on Horwitz his own arguments, he shouldn’t be as skeptic, but there is nothing wrong with calling out a few questionable things that surround Ron Paul. Again; this is not a ‘cato/gmu-conspiracy versus Ron Paul’; just some critical remarks. I’m sure we can all agree that criticisms are fine - even if they are a little bit harsh - without calling the next libertarian war.
I must say I’m also a bit biased, because I share the cosmopolitan feelings from the ‘libertarian left’; I do think there is something silly that some people want to enforce certain values on others - even if it were completely legitimate and thus I wouldn’t advocate coercive action agains it, in any society. BUt I don’t read that as being the major criticism; the point Horwitz makes, I think, is that this might attract people who aren’t libertarians, just cultural conservatives. I do believe that this isn’t that big of a problem, in general. As noted; I think most people who are attracted to Ron Paul do put liberty first, but it might become a problem if that isn’t the case anymore. If anything; that’s a legitimate concern ‘we’ have to be wary about.
Horwitz loses credibility when he pretends like it matters if racists donated to Paul’s campaign (this is known as a cheap rhetorical potshot). I don’t care if the KKK, Osama bin Laden and every nut in the history of the world decides to donate to Ron Paul. It makes no difference, as I know those people are far outnumbered by the good, normal people involved in his campaign.
Plus, Ron Paul has shown he’s no sell-out, having voted consistently in favor of upholding non-racist libertarian ideas during his time in Congress.
Sukrit,
" It makes no difference"
<= well; that’s something that you have to argue for. You have, but I don’t find the argument - ‘those people are far outnumbered by the good’- all that persuasive. I don’t mind being cautious because of this fact. I’m not sure it has the impact that Horwitz (maybe) implies, but I don’t think it’s something that we should dismiss out of hand. It means that there is something in the Ron Paul campaign that those kind of people like; I would say that should case some alarmbells to go of. It doesn’t necessarily follow - and I’m certainly NOT making that conclusion - that Ron Paul should be avoided or is bad for libertarianism. But I would say that it does make a difference; I would rather have a candidate that doesn’t get support from those kind of groups than one who does. Again; cautious remarks are in order, I would argue.
The plus you added is - as far as I know - true and should be emphasized in this discussion. But still; a little bit cautiousness about KKK people supporting Ron Paul is in order.
Whatever. Another one who values his culture war beyond freedom. A 1200 word post about how he actually has no real argument to raise against Ron Paul, but he is stil “not all that enthusiastic” about him because he wears plaid I guess.
No that is not true. He is afraid that new libertarians will not be exactly like him in his pet culture war issues, or that they will value freedom above such issues.
No there isn’t. There is zero to be concerned about racists sending him money. If you know anything about freedom you understand this.
“No that is not true. He is afraid that new libertarians will not be exactly like him in his pet culture war issues, or that they will value freedom above such issues.”
<= Why do you make it a personal issue? Why ignore the principle of charitable interpretation in what he says? Let me say it like this: if there were a genuine problem that Ron Paul attracts a lot of cultural conservatives who advocate unlibertarian means for their ends; would you consider that to be a problem? If so; then you understand what Horwitz is pointing too; the fact that there are some who aren’t libertarians, but do support Ron Paul. This is something to be cautious about.
“No there isn’t. There is zero to be concerned about racists sending him money. If you know anything about freedom you understand this.”
<= I really don’t think ‘if you only knew anything about x, you would understand this!’ is genuinely a good argument. I take it you are saying something like: ‘racism is perfectly legitimate in a free society, so therefore we shouldn’t care about racists!’ I agree with your premisse; I don’t agree with the conclusion because it doesn’t follow logically. Just because racisms is legitimate, it doesn’t follow that all racists only use justified means in advocating or spreading their racism. I don’t have to lecture you on the fact that the KKK isn’t exactly the most libertarian group in history, now do I? When a libertarian gets support from a group who has a history of rights violations; I’m a little bit cautious about it.
If it were the case that they were ‘just racists’; then it wouldn’t be that big of a problem. But that’s not the case. The KKK aren’t just racists; they have a famous history of rights violations.
Besides; it’s also interesting wether it’s likely that a libertarian order can be sustained if feelings of racism and all are far and wide spread. It’s not logically impossible, but I think there are some arguments that a more cosmopolitan libertarian order is more sustainable then a racist one. But that’s outside the realm of praxeology and more in the realms of sociology.
No, Dr. Paul has only done good for the libertarian movement. He introduced me to it until the day I die.
I also agree that NAFTA and the WTO do damage to free trade; one thing I don’t like about Gary Johnson is that he supported NAFTA. I would say that supporting NAFTA is being against free trade.
You don’t need a treaty to trade. Treaties just increase the power of centralized government.
Also, a decentralized policy on abortion is the best, because some people say it takes away liberty, while others believe that abortion is liberty. I personally believe the former like Dr. Paul does.
What are you talking about?
It is a blog post not poetry. I don’t interpret, I read what is written.
LOL, and why would they be attracted to Ron Paul? They might sooner be attracted to Steven Horwitz.
Don’t just pull out claims. Illustrate with examples. What non-libertarians support Ron Paul. How do they support him. And why is that a problem.
It is not an argument. It is a claim. You made no argument, only claims so I wasn’t compelled to make one either. But it was suitable to post a strong claim to show just how far off I think you are.
What I am saying is what I said. It is not poetry. I said racists sending money to Ron Paul is not a problem. Sending money is not an illegitimate act. Therefore it is not a problem. If Adolf Hitler sent me money I would spend it. I wouldn’t write posts about how concerned I am about myself and less enthusiastic than I used to be.
Aside from racists I am sure Ron Paul was sent money from all mannner of jerks. So what? Just because Steven Horwitz has been conditioned to squeak like a little girl at the mention of one particular type of jerks, does not mean the rest of us have to share his attitudes. We are no more afraid of and alarmed about racists than we are of and about numerous other types of jerks. Because we are adults and men. So sue us.
The bottom line is that you either have to claim that Paul caters to racists and illibertarian conservatives. Or you have nothing.
Oke, fine. Be that way. 