Generally, I have pooh poohed the view that electoral politics can successfully"educate" the public in libertarian principles. The Paul campaign is changing my mind. Even if he fails to surge in the polls, he has done more to expose Americans to the libertarian antiwar perspective than any person in decades.

Most significant of all is the positive response coming from people on the political left. Today's example is from a blog by Juan Cole who, in the past, had pretty much ignored antiwar libertarians:

That continental rift is the reason for the great interest in Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's argument with his rival Rudi Guiliani. Paul said in the recent debate that the US was attacked on 9/11 in part because of its prior involvement in Iraq.

Rudi Guiliani interrupted him, claimed he had never heard of that, and misrepresented Paul as justifying the attack.

But Paul was factually correct. In his 1996 fatwa declaring war on the United States, Bin Laden had said" . . .the civil and the military infrastructures of Iraq were savagely destroyed showing the depth of the Zionist-Crusaders' hatred to the Muslims and their children . . ."

David T. Beito - 6/4/2007

That was all too true in the recent debate, hence the "antiwar" Democrats couple their opposition to the Iraq war with support for new adventures in Darfur and possibly Iran.

Tim Sydney - 6/1/2007

Hopefully the Ron Paul example will encourage , at least, some Democrat candidates ...who now at best only play lip service to their antiwar voter base... to grow some backbone.

Unfortunately for non-interventionists, most of the anti-war movement are not fellow non-interventionists, merely and only opposed to this particular intervention. Hence the bizarre demands that the US pull out of Iraq and into Darfur.