History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Glenn Reynolds and Ron Paul as an Empty Libertarian "Vessel"
by Liberty and Power
Glenn Reynolds gives some very backhanded praise to the Paul campaign, though not to Paul himself:
Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't. Paul's flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas' appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis.
Reynolds is off base if he assumes that Paul's campaign illustrates a new flowering of libertarianism in a generic sense. In my experience, the libertarians who agree with Reynolds on the war are few and far between in Paul's ranks.
Instead, the Paul campaign is better described as the flowering of antiwar libertarianism. I see no reason to believe that the same enthusiasm would have been possible if the"vessel" for libertarian ideas was a pro-war candidate.
I guess that would make Woodrow Wilson a libertarian in his reasoning regarding WWI? He did want to make the world safe for democracy, after all. And that was superior as a goal to strengthening Wilhelmine Germany if we are to believe Mises on its nature.
Or would it not?
He argued for liberal democratic values. His practice was, shall we say, somewhat flawed. But he interpreted his practice in terms of those values.
I think the closer we get to really big picture value reasoning (Peace! Justice! Democracy!) the harder it is to tie it to a specific ideology. Wilson did enormous harm to liberal democratic values even as he thought he supported them. Today a charitable interpretation is that Wilson was very confused.
To me libertarians who support the war are at best like calling Woodrow Wilson a committed liberal democrat. Historically they are tragic and possibly arrogant fools. In the name of serving their values they destroy them.
So for Barnett, it is not that he is or is not a libertarian so much as it is: is he a very discerning and wise one?
Bill Woolsey -
12/1/2007
I agree that being "pro-war" is inconsistent with libertarianism. That is, to be a libertarian, one can only support some war or other as an evil necessary to defend individual liberty.
There are many possible reasons to support some war or other that are inconsistent with libertarianism. We might begin with favoring a war in order to have ones nation improve its standing in the word historical competition of empires. You know, we want the U.S. to have an empire that is bigger and lasts longer than that of the British, or Alexander, or.. whatever. (The ideal, here, is to have your nation create the global eternal empire.)
One can go on and on about rationales for war that are inconsistent with libertarianism. When a self-described "libertarian" begins defending war for providing full-employment or applauding how it makes us all united, leaving behind our petty personal and parochial concerns, focusing our lives on something outside of ourselves....
Well, we can say that such a person is not a libertarian.
I never supported the war in Iraq and favor a rapid withdrawl of U.S. troops. I can't exaggerate how terrible I think this war is, and how foolish and ignorant I find the rationales of supporters.
However, most of the libertarians who support it put together a set of implausible views of fact that justify the war in a way consistent with libertarian values. Generally, I think these views are possible..just highly improbable. For example, the notion that this war is needed to stop a world wide wahabi caliphate. That without this war, such a thing will happen, well, it is possible, but not likely. Or the notion that this war will lead to a middle east full of liberal democratic capitalist societies that are able and willing to stamp out anti-western terrorist minorities. Possible, but the war in Iraq leading to this is very unlikely.
On the other hand, I find it easy to see how stopping the world-wide caliphate or promoting liberal democratic capitalism in the Middle-east is consistent with libertarian values. I know that if I thought these scenarios were likely, I would be much more sympathetic to the war.
Bill Woolsey -
12/1/2007
Ron Paul is a libertarian, and he emphasizes individual libety in his campaign. What is the campaign about, defending and expanding individual liberty. He supports the Constitution because it protects individual liberty. (I am not claiming that he is correct, but rather that it is what he says.)
I have never heard him argue for "states rights," as a key position. He does, of course, advocate what I think can be described as a "states rights" position. What I hear from him is that that on some issue or other, "that is not the Federal governments concern under the Constitution. The Constitution leaves that to the states."
Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but in SC he is claiming to be a real conservative, a Ronald Reagan conservative, a Barry Goldwater conservative. I agree that he isn't running as a "libertarian."
Jeff Riggenbach -
11/30/2007
Steven Horwitz is bitterly "complaining about people who try to do just what Riggenbach has done here: throw out a scholar's whole life's work that demonstrates his/her libertarian credentials because of his/her position on the war."
If the scholar in question - Randy Barnet or anybody else - supports the war in Iraq, then his "whole life's work" demonstrates his confusion, not his "libertarianism."
JR
Jeff Riggenbach -
11/30/2007
"Do you mean there's no such thing as pro-THIS-war libertarianism. . ."
Yes.
". . . or that libertarianism is definitionally pacifist?"
Opposition to war as such has nothing to do with pacifism. Try a dictionary.
JR
Steven Horwitz -
11/30/2007
Reynolds is no libertarian. Never was.
I agree with David's "position" on Randy, and that was precisely my point in my comment on the other thread in complaining about people who try to do just what Riggenbach has done here: throw out a scholar's whole life's work that demonstrates his/her libertarian credentials because of his/her position on the war.
Although the supporting the war is a big exception, to use David's term, it can't obliterate the libertarianism of people like Randy, whose track record is so clear.
Aeon J. Skoble -
11/30/2007
Do you mean there's no such thing as pro-THIS-war libertarianism, or that libertarianism is definitionally pacifist? The former is debatable, and the latter is false, so either way I think you're overstating the case. In any event, why are we arguing about Glenn's views? I thought we were discussing RP's views, and he's anti-war, and highly libertarian on pretty much everything. I still don't see why libertarians shy away from supporting him.
David T. Beito -
11/30/2007
I take a middle ground on this. I don't know about Reynolds but would still call Randy Barnett a libertarian.
At the same time, I consider his support for the war as a major exception to his otherwise libertarian views.
Anthony Gregory -
11/30/2007
How is opposing birthright citizenship unlibertarian? I don't agree it's a great campaign issue, and it's not my emphasis, but what's the problem here? I mean, strictly speaking, citizenship itself is not libertarian, and in a free society there'd be no citizenship, nor any difference in the way the government treated the natural rights of non-citizens.
Anthony Gregory -
11/30/2007
I believe in federalism, which is often called "states rights." But I am certainly a libertarian, and an anarchist. Indeed, I think it's impossible to coherently argue that the feds should protect us from the states, while maintaining anarcho-capitalism.
"Reynolds. . .took it as a given that Paul's support reveals the hidden strength of libertarianism in a general sense. In my view, it only reveals the hidden strength of a specific form of anti-war libertarianism."
There is no such thing as pro-war libertarianism. The name for the "specific form of anti-war libertarianism" Ron Paul promotes is "libertarianism."
JR
David T. Beito -
11/30/2007
I disagree with Paul on immigration but I don't see him exploiting the issue in a significant way. He rarely brings up his stand on birthright citizenship unless asked. He doesn't call himself a libertarian but he doesn't go out of his way to deny it either. Every news article calls him the "libertarian" candidate and he pretty much accepts that without correction. It is just a word anyway.
David T. Beito -
11/30/2007
I could have made the point more clearly. I agree that Reynolds wasn't saying that Paul would do better if he supported the war.
My point was that Reynolds was ignoring the importance of the issue. He took it as a given that Paul's support reveals the hidden strength of libertarianism in a general sense. In my view, it only reveals the hidden strength of a specific form of anti-war libertarianism.
A partial illustration is the lack of enthusiasm for Thompson, who might be better than Paul on charisma. On domestic issues, Thompson has probably the most pro-liberty rhetoric of any candidate (other than Paul) yet he has failed to generate enthusiasm. Why? In my view, a good part of the answer stems from Thompson's support of the war.
Russell Hanneken -
11/30/2007
"States' rights" are (Constitutional) claims that state governments have against the federal government usurping their powers. They are not claims that state governments have against individuals.
"Individual rights" are (moral) claims that the individual has against everyone else making decisions that are properly left up to his discretion.
I see no necessary conflict between the two ideas.
It's possible to believe in individual rights without believing the best system for protecting those rights is a strong central government that has the power to force smaller governments to toe the libertarian line. After all, why should we expect a government that powerful to be guided by libertarian principles?
Arguably it's better to hedge our bets by having a system in which political power is distributed among smaller governments, none of which has absolute authority over any of the others. In this approach, the citizens of those smaller governments are responsible for keeping their governments in line. If life becomes intolerable under one government, it's relatively easy to move and be governed by another one (which puts a limit on how far each government can go abrogating the rights of its citizens). Presumably this would lead to varying levels of protection for individual rights, but at least there would be a smaller risk of absolute, inescapable tyranny.
Indeed, if you don't believe in world government, you probably accept the latter approach to some extent.
Gary McGath -
11/30/2007
Paul no longer even claims to be libertarian. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, even opposing birthright citizenship. He's abandoned individual rights for "states' rights." His appeal is to old-style conservatives, not to libertarians.
Bill Woolsey -
11/30/2007
I have been active in the Ron Paul campaign in South Carolina since the spring. The people active in the campaign are not single-issue anti-war voters. I can't think of any pro-war Ron Paul activists.
Frankly, I cannot think of any "immigration liberals" involved either (other than my immediate family.)
I have met people who are pro-choice, but plenty who are strongly pro-life.
Many are self-described libertarians. The student volunteers I have spoken too are libertarians.
There are people who believe as gospel everything in the Russo film, "Freedom to Fascism." The JBS people that I have met over the years are all supporting Ron Paul to the hilt.
It is a mixture.
Of course, the most recent polls in South Carolna were 8% and 6% of likely Republican voters. That is 50,000 people or so, and clearly, I haven't met anything like that many people.
Yesterday, I received two direct mailings from the campaign. Glossy, fold out, postcard things. One about how Paul is strong on defense. (It barely mentioned getting out of Iraq, really. The emphasis was defending our borders against terrorists and getting Bin Ladin. It did say, "get out of a dead end civil war." The other was on immigration. I received my first about a month ago. It covered all the basic issues more briefly--pro-life, immigration, the war, taxes, spending...
We received two automated calls from the campaign.
And when I turn my radio dial away from NPR and listen to one of the "classic rock" stations, I often hear an ad for Ron Paul. It starts with, I don't trust any politicians. They say one thing and do another, etc. Then another person says, have you heard about Ron Paul. It is all pretty general, though it makes the point about Ron Paul having been right about Iraq.
Those of you who are used to Libertarian Party campaigns where bumper stickers and yard signs are sold to supporters... well, it is different here in SC. There is a campaign headquarters for Ron Paul. (In a converted auto repair shop.) And signs and bumper stickers are freely available. Abd a huge selection of literature.
No TV ads yet.
The phone script that volunteers use at the phone bank, (I have made about 100 calls) basically states that Ron Paul is another Ronald Reagan. "Strong Republicans" are being called. These are people who have voted in many past Republican primaries.
There are many different types of literature. The basic one looks aimed that a JBS member on the issue side, though the reverse is things like, Paul never voted to raise taxes, etc. And there is a picture of Ron Paul with Ronald Reagan.
There is another "youth" one that focuses on the war, the draft, freeing young people from social security taxes.
There has been some door-to-door canvasing. (I have done about 50 so far.)
We have about 150 in our meetup, but only about 100 live in the area. There are a good number more who have identified themselves to the national campaign as supporters. I think there are maybe 30 real volunteers.
Yard signs are put up on the side of the road, and pulled down by city workers.
We will see who things develop.
Mike R Bobbick -
11/30/2007
Whatever you want to say about Glenn Reynolds, I think he's right about Dr. Paul. After I watched the first debate, I thought that Ron Paul's campaign had ended shortly after it begun.
Regardless, Reynolds refuses to give any positive press to Ron Paul unless he breaks one day fund-raising records, in which case he starts talking about "An Army of Davids." Meanwhile, Reynolds claims to have libertarian sympathies, but heaps praise only on charismatic candidates regardless of their credentials. In this case, the fact that he's not suggesting that the GOP kick Paul out of the debates is the best press one can hope for from the Instapundit.
Prof. Beito's comment makes me wonder though. I think the anti-war message is what makes Paul's campaign so accessible to the masses. If some of the other candidates started their campaigns with an anti-war message, would the majority of these new libertarians be voting for Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee and calling Ron Paul a moonbat? Would Dr. Paul's position on fiscal policy and smaller government appeal to these voters, or would they complain about Paul steering the debate away from important issues? Is this really a flowering of the libertarian philosophy, or just a group of disenfranchised voters giving the middle finger to the establishment?
Bill Woolsey -
11/30/2007
I thought Reynolds was criticizing Paul's speaking ability, including the sound of his voice.
Suppose it were Romney or Huckabee promoting the message of Ron Paul. How much better would such a candidate do?
That is why he said he thinks Ron Paul would agree with him.
He wasn't claiming that Paul would do better if he supported the war.
