Lens of Liberty

As the campaign for the GOP nomination moves from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul has confounded the expectations of the mainstream punditry and likely many of his own supporters. Despite his continued success, there are several issues which continue to dog his campaign. The racist and homophobic statements made in newsletters that were published under his name have been a problem for Paul for almost two decades and he has yet to effectively deal with them. There is also the tendency of his campaign to draw support from unsavory fringe elements and then fail to disassociate himself from them.

I personally find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Whatever may have been written in those newsletters, as disgusting as some of it may have been, I have never heard him say anything racist, nor does he support any policies which could be reasonably categorized as racist. If he isn’t a racist, how do we explain the offensive, racist things published under his name? There are really only two explanations. Either he is a grossly negligent manager or he is willing to tolerate racism from others if it advances his agenda. Neither is an admirable trait in someone seeking the Presidency. The latter is especially damning.

Paul’s tendency to look the other way when those supporting him or even speaking for him make hateful statements or propose repulsive policies is not a easy thing to overlook. It doesn’t comport with Paul’s espousal of a belief in individual liberty to ignore such vile rhetoric. You have to ask how it is that Ron Paul can take on the monetary elites, speak out against the military-industrial complex, often as a lone voice against powerful entrenched interests yet he never finds a way to denounce two-bit cranks who are too often drawn into his sphere. When making a decision to support any political candidate, let alone someone seeking the Presidency, these are not questions that can be easily dismissed, if at all. What must be asked is this; in this election, given the alternatives, are these fatal flaws?

What are the alternatives? Realistically, it’s Romney and Obama, but to my mind it doesn’t much matter, all the candidates represent the status quo. On the issues that matter, the issues that will define the direction of the country, they are nearly identical. Mitt Romney is a Republican Bill Clinton without the philandering. He has no real core beliefs that I can see, at least none that can’t be changed when expediency demands. President Obama has proven over the last three years that anything he claims to stand for is ephemeral. Neither man can be counted on to restrain the growth of the State, or to protect individual liberty.

Consider the parallel ironies of 2012 Presidential race. Obama was elected by those who were angry at the excesses of the Bush administration only to find that, in nearly every meaningful way, Obama continued Bush’s agenda. The base of the Republican Party who were so outraged by the bailouts of the banks and of Wall St and by the passage of Obamacare, has somehow managed to propel a Wall St insider who pioneered the individual mandate to a commanding lead for the GOP nomination. The absurdity is almost too great to be believed.

So, knowing that the two realistic alternatives represent the same doomed course, with more war, more debt, and more attacks on civil liberties; can one overlook Ron Paul’s flaws? I have turned this question over and over in my mind. I cannot simply dismiss these troubling tendencies; I cannot pretend they don’t exist or that they are merely a creation of the establishment out to destroy him. In order to support Ron Paul, you have to accept that these flaws are part of it. It must never be condoned or defended or excused, simply accepted.

I believe that Ron Paul will sincerely attempt to do what he proposes; restore individual liberty, devolve power from Washington, bring an end to the wars in the Middle-East. Actually implementing those things will be exceeding difficult, if not impossible given the makeup of Congress but at least the effort will be made, and that is a step in the right direction. Given the gravity of the problems we face, is there any choice but to live with Ron Paul’s flaws?

The newsletters are offensive, but are they more offensive than the thousands of deaths caused by the wars we are waging? I abhor the sickening bigotry of some fringe Ron Paul supporters, but is it worth giving up on our most basic liberties because of them?

When it is all said and done, after all the wrestling and soul searching, the only answer I can come up with is NO.

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Ralph Nader discuss the Judge’s new book “Lies the Government Told You”

A sobering and poignant video posted at Liberty Papers:

Why? because government, at its heart, is an organization that uses force to get its way. It is incapable of limiting its violence to socially beneficial causes like apprehending murderers. At some point, it points a gun at a group of people and demands they submit, and anyone who refuses gets a bullet.

This is government. Over there or over here, it is the same; the few exploit the many, and they are ready to use beatings, kidnappings and murder to get their way.

America needs to wake up to this sad truth.

Two late night videos:

-It simply does not matter which political party happens to be in control, government can be relied on to do only one thing well, relieve you of your liberty. Politicians have become skilled at selling you on the idea that they can provide you with that which you lack and most fail to notice that any largesse provided is at the price of our freedom. The price is too high.

-The Republican party, if their campaigns are to be any indication, believes that lower taxes should be the focus of economic policy. It’s not surprising that they continued to be successfully portrayed as the party of the wealthy. Since those at the top pay the overwhelming portion of taxes they will see the most immediate benefit from lower taxes. What the GOP needs to learn is that lower taxes are not the definition of, but the result of good policy. A government properly limited to its constitutional role would not need to confiscate nearly one third of all the wealth produced in the country.

The crew from Motorhome Diaries stopped at the Branch Davidian compound where a 51 day siege by the federal government ended in with death of 76 people in 1993. It is a sober reminder of the power our government has over us.

If you aren’t familiar with Motorhome Diaries, please take the time to go to their site and see what they’re doing.

In an article posted at Cato, Will Wilkinson critiques Glenn Beck and his 9/12 movement by claiming that Beck’s professed love for individualism is inconsistent with his nationalism. While the article also takes on David Brooks and his “collectivist conservatism”, I would like to focus on the points raised about Beck. I think there is merit to the criticism, or at least some interesting areas for discussion, but wonder if deriding a sympathetic voice in a largely hostile media environment for ideological impurity is a wise strategy.

Mr. Wilkinson points to Beck’s “jingoist tropes” as an example of his underlying collectivist leanings. Speaking of Becks 9 principles of his 9/12 project:

The first principle is “America is Good.” What is that if not a recklessly unconditional commitment to the national collective?

It’s a reasonable point that patriotism is allegiance to the collective of the United States and that the principle Beck asks us to accept is vague at best. I wonder if Mr. Wilkinson would be more comfortable if the stated principle was “The ideas upon which America was founded are good”. However, having heard this explained by Beck when he announced it on his radio show, I know he means that, on balance, America has been a force for good in the world. I suppose from the pure individualist perspective, that isn’t really an improvement, having moved from the national collective to the world. The real question is can you be an individualist and patriotic? Does belief in individual liberty preclude pride in any nation? Or is the problem that America today is so far removed from the concept of liberty that such pride is incompatible with individualism? The topic has been discussed by those smarter than me, I only raise it now to question whether patriotism and individualism are mutual exclusive. Does individualism negate the idea of national identity?

I do agree with Wilkinson’s statement about conservatives and individual liberty:

For too many conservatives, “individual rights” is code for their right to remain unburdened by whatever exercises of state power they happen to dislike.

If state power is used to prohibit legal arrangements between gay couples or to continue a failed prohibition policy then individual rights don’t seem so paramount.

Glenn Beck is not be a pure libertarian, but in a time when free markets and individual liberty are under relentless attack by a behemoth government, it is foolish to deride someone who exposes the ideas of libertarians to such a wide audience. What other major media program has devoted as much airtime to Ron Paul, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the like. He devoted a full hour, at least once, to interview Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, far more than any other network or cable program. My point isn’t that the criticism is unfair, or even inaccurate, just that if you’re looking for targets I would start elsewhere. Sean Hannity, anyone?

Judge Andrew Napolitano on natural law:

Whatever else the government does, no matter what it claims the goal is and no matter the stated justification, because it curtails human freedom it should be suspect and presumed to be unlawful and unconstitutional. If these libertarian principles had been accepted throughout history, then slavery-an obvious violation of natural rights-and all the evils it has spawned would never have existed here.