Worst Fears Realized
Frequent readers will know that unlike most other libertarian blogs, I have not plastered the site with hopeful articles and endorsements for Ron Paul. I have always been 99% supportive of his work in Congress and was happy to have him there. But I resisted even registering in the Arizona primary to vote for him. Arizona requires that to vote in a primary, I have to register as belonging to that party, and I am just not going to do that.
Part of my reluctance to jump on the bandwagon has been my general disaffection with politics and some ambivalence as to whether my elected overlord is from Coke or Pepsi. The rest, I think, was a subliminal fear of supporting any Libertarian candidate because they always seem to turn out to be wing-nuts. QED.
Update: The excuse that he didn't know what was in a series of ghost-written newsletters is just ridiculous. I will accept that excuse for one issue, a mistake in selecting partners (I am sure there are bloggers out there who regret guest-blogger selections) but a long series of newsletters implies tacit approval or at least acceptance.
Posted on January 8, 2008 at 04:45 PM | Permalink
Or, at the very least, unforgivable stupidity. Neither a sterling recommendation.
Posted by: Hazel Stone | Jan 8, 2008 5:30:08 PM
I'm not a libertarian (though I do believe in many libertarian principles), but I wish that an honest, sane philosophical libertarian (Cato-or-Reason-style) would come along once in a while; this country sorely needs one. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much of a demand, though there is a demand for a pseudo-libertarian (Paul's practically against free trade and globalization) to rally the rest of the crazies.
Posted by: Ari | Jan 8, 2008 5:47:50 PM
Ever since I read Ron Paul's campaign site I knew he was a wingnut who didn't deserve to call himself a libertarian. Everything I learned since then has simply reinforced that first impression.
Posted by: Sameer Parekh | Jan 8, 2008 5:48:00 PM
Early last year (I think) I was fascinated with the Libertarian Reform Caucus after some of the stories that came out of Portland when the Libertarians held a convention there. I joined a reform forum board that talked of the members coming together to create a new party platform. I thought that was a great idea and that it would be fun to participate. Absolute waste of time. The ideologically rigid aren't interested in building constituency or finding issues that can be developed incrementally. It's strict adherence to philosophical purity despite the years of failure that route has produced. While I still support many libertarian ideas I can't become a slave to any philosophy. The ability to adapt serves me too well.
Posted by: Rogue and Poet | Jan 8, 2008 8:33:55 PM
You don't need to worry about his excuses for the newsletters. It gets much worse:
I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.
From a newletter signed by Ron Paul.
He's truly a nutcase, and all the libertarians saying "well, his opposition to Roe vs. Wade isn't so bad" now have no excuse to refrain from dumping him.
Posted by: Josh | Jan 8, 2008 9:58:55 PM
Hold on, wasn’t David Duke cool?
I thought he lived near Ross Perot(and Adm. Grrrrridlock…), waaaay back when? Or was that Chuck Lindbergh?
P.S., excellent use of Ivy League Joke (wink wink).
P.P.S., It'll be ok, especially since Al Gore has been distracted by his shiny new cracker jack peace prize action toy...
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 11:43:04 PM
Rogue and Poet: You have expressed exactly my reasons for leaving the Libertarian Party long ago -- and why I always make sure to identify myself as "small-l". The Big-L people have no interest in accomplishing anything -- all they want is to prove that they are Libertarianer than thou.
The disgusting Dr. Paul turned me off with his failure to disavow the 9/11 Truther crowd. After that, why should we be surprised that he buys into a whole lot of other nutty ideas?
Posted by: BobH | Jan 9, 2008 8:51:17 AM
So along comes a candidate who actually wants to drastically reduce the size of the federal government, and lovers of liberty do everything they can to find fault with him.
Even assuming he has said and believes these things, so what? Yes, I find fault with at least one of Paul's policy positions on libertarian grounds. But I have to acknowledge that he has done more to communicate the principles of liberty than almost anyone else in recent history.
Posted by: atr | Jan 9, 2008 10:50:50 AM
I am not sure that the proper term for an anti-war believer in the "troof of 9/11" is wingnut. I've always heard it as "moonbat."
Posted by: Bearster | Jan 9, 2008 11:07:09 AM
I thought that if you are registered as an independent in Arizona, you could vote for whatever political party you choose when you show up to the polling location.
Posted by: Streaker | Jan 9, 2008 5:16:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.