Jan 7, 2008

Ron Paul's Run

by Liberty and Power

Ron Jacobs considers the issue and decides that being against the war isn't enough.

That said, he observes,"What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today's left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right."

Jacobs concludes,"In fact, a vote for Ron Paul is certainly a better use of the franchise than a vote for almost any of the other candidates currently running. For better or worse."

I read his analysis with interest. I suggest that libertarians might usefully consider his reasons for not supporting Ron Paul (and libertarian ideas) and how they would respond to his arguments.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

John Kunze - 1/10/2008

I doubt a racist homophobe would be comfortable as a friend of Kucinich, but that's not a great argument I made.

Better evidence that Ron Paul is not a racist is that when he talks about the drug war and capital punishment he voices sympathy with black victims of misjustice.

It strains credulity that an adult would let his name be used over years without paying attention to the content. "Hit and Run" had a comment that it was over 4 years, not the decade some claim. That's bad enough, but what are the facts?

John Kunze - 1/10/2008

Sheldon Richman - 1/8/2008

Well, Kucinich is neither gay nor black. Why does the age of the charge matter? In the past, one or two quotes have been dug up. The excuse that these were ghost-written and that Ron wasn't paying attention did not strain credulity. But this report finds much more of a pattern over a long period. Now the excuse does strain credulity.

John Kunze - 1/8/2008

TNR gives unfortunate attention to old news. I doubt Ron Paul wrote this crap, but he seems to have been asleep at the wheel.

Would the guy who said nice things about Kuchinch on Leno have had such filth in his heart?

Sheldon Richman - 1/8/2008

Here's the New Republic article link: http://tinyurl.com/3caypg

Sheldon Richman - 1/8/2008

I agree, John. Now let's hope there is nothing to the coming New Republic story that accuses Ron Paul of publishing a racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic newsletter over a long period. It's supposed to be posted today. I saw the author on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday. If the guy has the evidence, it will be troubling indeed.

John Kunze - 1/8/2008

The case for supporting Ron Paul isn't what he will do if elected, its what ideas he gets across in the public debate.

Jacobs recognizes that Paul's anti-war position is uniquely laid out and defended, and is very important. If he doesn't have a better case for another candidate, he should support Paul or stay home.

Paul sould attack the Bush/Cheney power grab more and talk about civil liberties more. I think he could be very effective talking about the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, etc. He rolls all that up into talk about the Constitution and gets the message across some -- as on Leno last night -- but he could do better.

He got a lot of applause on Leno asking politicians to obey the Constitution, so he deserves credit here. But he chould find more ways of getting the point across. That would help enlist the support of Jacobs, others like him, and many other Americans.

We go to the polls with the candidate we have, not the candidate we can ideally imagine. Paul has done far better that we would have expected overall. Let's hope he sticks to his better game and doesn't let immigration or abortion dominate.

But Jacobs has profound differences with libertarians on economic issues. We should address them and distinguish free markets from corporativism. Paul has made this point effectively on occasion, but Jacobs likely carries too much baggage to be persuaded.

Sheldon Richman - 1/8/2008

Of course, Ron Jacobs would say that government intervention on behalf of business is one of the things he has in mind when he refers to the dangers of capitalism. (Kolko's understanding didn't make him pro-free market.) How would we convince him that our favored system would prevent such intervention?

I agree with Mark that Jacobs raises issues we have to respond to. Labor is one. It is bad for the movement to appear anti-labor, even anti-organized labor. Unions came along after the quasi-cartelization of the corporate state. Big-business leaders wanted to include labor as a junior partner in their corporatist plans. (See the Swope Plan of the 1930s or the earlier plans of the National Civic Federation and American Association for Labor Legislation.) Companies made big by intervention seemed to require big unions to counter them. We drop the full context to our peril. Left-libertarianism tries to rectify this.

Steven Horwitz - 1/7/2008

Not sure what there is to say Mark other than he doesn't understand very well how markets work and confuses "free markets" with "state capitalism." If I had him in a room, I'd be talking an awful lot about how the worst excess of "capital" that he's concerned about were mostly the product of capital using the state, not the market itself.

I'd also be talking a lot about the deleterious effects of labor market intervention, especially the fact that minimum wage laws have long been an intentional tool to shut out immigrants and folks of color from labor markets. He wouldn't buy it, but at least it would make the case on terms he would listen to.