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.

[kalee]

I have a family member who is a big Ron Paul supporter. His Facebook avatar is the anarchists symbol. Love the cousin, but recognize he is a Looney Tune on politics.

Quite frankly I agree with Paul on some issues but his nutty followers are a real turn-off.

[mnehring]

Your blind allegiance makes you ignore facts? Paul was one of 3 Republicans to vote for it.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/02/dems-screw-the-wealth-producers-bill-passes-pelosi-gloats/

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/12/02/three-republicans-vote-for-pelosis-chicken-crap-tax-bill/

Even 33 Dems voted against this tax hike stunt by Pelosi but Paul and two others joined with the majority of Dems on this.

[lormand]

"Descent into anarchy? Ron Paul is against anarchism"

I call bullshit on this one.

They guys who sits next to me typifies Paulhroids. He loves Ron Paul and Alex Jones. He relentlessly proselytizes both. I went off on him Friday after he pushed too far. Like your local liberal, Paulhriods cannot help themselves by echoing their wacked out views to everyone, even at work. Worse is the fact that Ron Paul's Paulhriods are dangerous. I would not want anyone of them behind me, anywhere. When you start questioning Paulhroids on their core non-beliefs, you realize that they ARE anarchists. I cannot repeat some of the things this Paulhroid next to me has said about Gabby Giffords, the Obamas and others.

Paulhroids are dangerous both mentally and physically.

[svcw]

You assume that Pakistan didn’t know.

[svcw]

NRO:
Final tally: 234-188.
20 Democrats voted no.
3 Republicans voted yes.
The three Republicans were Ron Paul, Walter Jones, and Jimmy Duncan.

[svcw]

I guess this is not really pandering:
Political Grapevine:
Pet Projects
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul’s office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

[sigzero]

No...I was playing the advocate. They have said they didn’t know and we have said we didn’t tell them.

[svcw]

Second source:
Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul:
...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

[lormand]

The rationale that Paulhroids have for why Ron Paul accepts pork money is so convoluted, I will not try to explain.

[mnehring]

Their rationale for pork is similar to the rationale they used when he co-sponsored T-Boone’s ‘green car’ boondogle recently- it is just returning money to the taxpayer...

Yea right.. like welfare is returning money to the taxpayer..

It is just another redistribution scheme giving more power to the government for whatever social engineering program they are trying at the time. “Reward”(sic) people for government approved behavior.

[dools0007world]

Titles can be confusing and/or deceiving. I think it's my choice to wear or not wear helmets and seat belts. Ditto, what I eat. I also think I'm capable of observing a rural intersection is clear at 2 AM and can cautiously proceed against a red light. That does not make me libertarian. As you pointed out, believing a large complex population--or even a small group-- can exist without government (structure) is pure nonsense. Anarchy would be the inevitable result. Then, guess what, a "government" would form within the competing factions. A few people always emerge in a vacuum to guide the follower majority. That's the way it is and must be to have an orderly society. I've always looked on doctrinaire libertarians as sly Marxists. You just know the brightest and sliest of the type will wind up governing the libertarian mob. Just as Marxism preaches equality, the leaders are always more equal.

[DangerZone]

So how do you explain LRon’s unwillingness to take out bin Laden as well as his recent pro amnesty comments?

[lormand]

sigh.....these Ron Paul threads are not as busy as they used to be. We are victims of our own success I suppose.