Ron Paul's Lapses Give Libertarianism a Bad Rap

American Thinker ^

[mnehring]

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, now officially seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, says that the raid which killed Osama bin Laden "was absolutely not necessary." In the same radio interview, Paul conjectured that the United States could have convinced Pakistan to turn over bin Laden. The congressman added a bizarre non-sequitur.

What if [bin Laden] had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the... helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out?

Can Ron Paul not distinguish between steadfast ally Britain and a Pakistani regime poisoned by duplicitous people? The London scenario seems to have sprung from a mind unable to discern the difference between close friends and shifty acquaintances that cozy up close just often enough to collect handouts.

In answer to Paul's two questions, if bin Laden had been in London, British Special Forces would have popped the scoundrel as a favor to a close friend. That the congressman offered the implausible London ploy presents voters with a scary view into the "thought process" of an aspiring President of the United States.

The bin Laden raid condemnation gives clear-thinking Americans a reason to turn away from Ron Paul. And there is another, less-noticed reason. On a recent episode of Fox Business Network's Stossel, self-declared "man of the left" and history Professor Thaddeus Russell stated that "if we're going to end the wars, if we're going to end the American empire, the only thing that will do that is a coalition between the left and people like Ron Paul. And in fact, he knows that he's talked with Ralph Nader in public and with Bernie Sanders and other very leftwing people in American political discourse about doing just that. And so I know that Ron Paul agrees with me in this project of working with the left."

"Do you?" host John Stossel asked Congressman Paul.

Paul responded, "I have certainly worked with those on the left and with the progressives. I think our problem that we face is..."

Stossel interrupted, "And just to back that up. I mean, you're right about Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank. You've co-authored bills with Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich."

Paul replied, "Right. I worked with coalitions. People talk about our solution comes from compromise and I don't like the word compromise. That's why you give up half your beliefs and I don't believe that."

So while Paul clearly declares no intention to compromise his values, the man is unclear as to what those values may be with respect to working "with those on the left and with the progressives." Absent from the exchange between "man of the left" Russell and libertarian Paul, was any retort to Russell's observation that the Congressman has "talked with Ralph Nader... and with Bernie Sanders and other very left wing people" to determine how to "end the American empire." From a libertarian point of view, drastically reducing America's involvement in foreign countries would be a good thing. But hatching plans with "very leftwing people" seems like a horrific way to achieve said reductions. That Paul offered no response to Russell's exhortation leaves Americans wondering how liberal the "libertarian" may be.

Ron Paul's bin Laden comments and his willingness to "work with the progressives" provide Americans with reasons to be skeptical of libertarian ideas. The two lapses in judgment are unfortunate, because America's core principles are indeed libertarian. Those principles are as right for America today as when set forth more than 230 years ago: free markets, low taxes, small and non-invasive government, no special interest influence on government, maximum personal freedom, and overseas involvement only in the interest of commerce and self-defense. When a libertarian Presidential candidate shows a tad too much love for big-government-loving progressives and shies away from bringing an enemy to justice, libertarianism gets a bad name.
 

A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to sign up to receive his "Clear Thinking" blog posts by email at http://www.chuckroger.com/. Contact Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

[mnehring]

Let's see, voting for Pelosi's tax hike bill, co-sponsoring a T-Boone Picken's boondogle, his Bin Ladin comments... Now Libertarians questioning him. This should be a fun year for the Paulie camp.

[mnehring]

ping

[svcw]

But but but he's the only on who can win, just look at the polls.

[joe fonebone]

this guy is just a crackpot...always has been, always will be...

[Migraine]

Peripheral libertarianism looks a lot like the Constitution, and has some appeal for me.

Core libertarianism, however, gets aggressively anti-Christian, pro-drug, and ultra-isolationist. That’s where it loses me.

[faucetman]

The answer to your STUPID question is

HE WASNT IN LONDON

[TCH]

Ron Paul... A-hole extrordinare... once again demonstrates why he, and all his brain-dead zombie followers deserve no more than the one-fingered salute, and a backhand across the face.

[humblegunner]

This should be a fun year for the Paulie camp.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The thing about Ron Paul is that one minute he making perfect sense and then all of sudden he comes out with some real looney Tune idea. Like Dr. Paul and Mr. Hyde. LOL!!

[sigzero]

I agree with the OBL kill but to play devil’s advocate:

We intentionally violated another nations sovereignty by not including Pakistan in the mission. How would the US react if another nation did the same to us?

[lormand]

...piling on here....

Ron Paul actually has a position on abortion, where the official position on abortion for true libertarians, is NO POSITION on abortion, just like their twins, the anarchists.

Ron Paul's support may be winding down to just the neo-confederates...they still have lots in common with Ron Paul.

[wagglebee]

I would be more inclined to say that Ron Paul exposes just how far left libertarianism actually is.

I think Libertarians are starting to worry that Paul has let the cat out of the bag.

[dools0007world]

I’ve been fascinated with the intensity, persistance and loyalty of those who zealously push him as a viable pres. candidate. Where does he find hese people?

Frankly, he and his followers always appear to be a cult to me. Not too different than Jones, Manson and Moon. I’m always uncomfortable with the people Paul attracts. They are relentless in their attempts to coopt FR and conservatism. If they are conservatives, in the Tea Party sense, then I’m Donald Duck.

[Redleg Duke]

"Ron Paul's Lapses Give Libertarianism a Bad Rap"

Yeah, like 99.99999% of lawyers make all lawyers look bad!

[lormand]

I have another Devil's advocate question:

If the mission was to kill Osama, why are we so intent on questioning his wives? Are they going to ask the wives about things they could have at the very least cross examined from Osama? Maybe 0'Zero knew that if by capturing Osama, Erik Holder would find a way to screw it up politically for 0'Zero?

[wbill]

I like some of Paul’s idea. Too bad he’s a complete nutjob.

[Captain Kirk]

Let's see, voting for Pelosi's tax hike bill,

You lie!!! If you can't refute Paul without lying about it, you obviously don't have a case.

[joe fonebone]

I consider myself a small “l” libertarian. I agree with a strict adherance to the constitution, but a decent into anarchy just does not appeal to me...I took a test once to see where you fall on the wheel of politics...I fell right on the line between conservative and libertarian...I think that in order to be conservative you have to have some libertarian leanings, but, this guy and his big “L” libertarians are nutjobs....

[Captain Kirk]

Ron Paul refuses to pander. He says what he believes come hell or high water unlike the rest of the Republican field.

[Captain Kirk]

Descent into anarchy? Ron Paul is against anarchism. You are setting up a straw man....but heh don’t let stop you if it makes your world simplier to understand.