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.
“Bob Barr ... probably will seek and get the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party,” opines George Will. (Conical hat tip to Lew Rockwell; italics mine.)
Is Will right about the “getting” part? Will the delegates in Denver really choose as squishy a libertarian as Barr (who, for example, has been saber-rattling over Latin America and favours banning drugs at the state level) over more consistently libertarian candidates like Ruwart or Kubby? I’m inclined to doubt it; I know that the LP has grown less radical over the years, but it’s not my impression that the corruption has progressed that far.
Of course I could be wrong; I’m not as involved with the LP as I used to be, so maybe I’m out of touch. And certainly one could point to the gutting of the platform as evidence of how far the LP has slid. But it’s my impression that the platform-gutting was put through as something of a stealth measure; moreover, the relative radicalism of the last two nominees, Browne and Badnarik, suggests that radicalism still sells in the Party. (Badnarik was less radical than Browne, but still more than Barr, and at least as much as the other major contenders for the nomination that year.) So although I wouldn’t have been surprised at Ron Paul’s getting the LP nomination if he were to seek it, I’m betting against Barr.
Incidentally, a question for my fellow Rothbardians: Ruwart is clearly the most Rothbardian candidate in the race, so why do I detect so little Rothbardian love for her candidacy? All the talk on LRC, for example, is about Paul and Barr; according to Google, nobody on the LRC blog has so much as mentioned her apart from Anthony Gregory. (The question I asked Walter Block at the end of this post still stands.)
Wow, I'm honored by your memory. Yes, I published Caliber (California Libertarian: clever, eh?) for a few years about a quarter century ago, went out of my way to make it heavily issue-oriented, and included debates on subjects where the LP was conflicted (I was always a radical, but had the only state newsletter to publish LP Defense Caucus articles). I also had fun designing cartoons for each issue that Keith Poletiek drew to order for me. Even though it was the state organ of the LPC, I had a lot of subscribers from outside California.
I avoided Ruwart's book for years because the title (Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression) did make the book sound like New Age silliness, and was quite embarrassed in retrospect when I discovered what a solid primer it was: it is now the book I most often recommend to people interested in market anarchism (she lived in Michigan growing up and knew Morris and Lois Tannehill of THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY). Ron Paul loved the book, commenting on how it was written in a way that would be appealing to Christians, even though it contains quite a few quotes from Ayn Rand. In fact, it is a great resource for quotes, historical data, and real examples to defend libertarianism.
Ruwart is a very special libertarian. She actually reminds me a great deal of the finest libertarian I've never met: a guy who is principled, rational, intellectually generous, respectful of the different parts of the movement, and eager to communicate his views in the manner that will be most effective. By coincidence, he's the guy whose blog post started this thread.
David Miller -
4/18/2008
Less,
I respect your opinion on this. I remember in ages long past when you edited one of the LP publications (was it the LP News or Caliber?) – it was the only time I remember that one of the LP pubs was actually interesting to read.
You wrote:
>I hope the LP realizes that the offensiveness of libertarianism to many people stems not from its extremism but from the harshness of too many of its advocates: the problem is not radicalism but rudeness, and we need to reform party manners rather than the party.
I think that point would have to be unpacked in quite a lot of detail. Some LPers, such as those I mentioned in an earlier post, are the sort of people that very few normal people of any social group, any personality type, or any human culture would wish to be around. There is too much false tolerance in the LP for the real “nut-cases,” and that is a real problem.
Some other LPers have the mannerisms of a brash college sophomore (even though many of these people are twice the age of college sophomores!), and, while this is not evil per se, it is not a good selling point with mature adults.
And, most of the rest of the LP consists of people like me who do indeed lean towards the rational-analytic side rather than the emotional-compassionate side in terms of our personality. People like us are not necessarily anathema to mature adults, but we may not be the best salespeople (think Hillary vs. Obama – I’m more like Hillary, except that I’m honest).
You also wrote of Mary:
> Actually, though, she's more radical than Rothbard, since she is for free banking and against intellectual property.
Murray was, as far as I know, always a bit vague as to whether he really wanted to see fractional-reserve banking outlawed (exactly how do you do that under Rothbardian anarchy?), or whether he merely wanted to see bankers stripped of governmental protections such as “banking holidays” and the “corporate veil” so that, when the inevitable results of their fraud (as he saw it) became obvious, they would face the full consequences of their actions.
On intellectual property, as you know, Murray opposed patents, and his plan for copyrights was sufficiently Rube-Goldbergish that I don’t think too many people advocate it anymore. At least, most of the “young Rothbardians” I know consider “intellectual property” to be an oxymoron.
Anyway, you do make Ruwart sound appealing, and you and Rod have about convinced me that I should actually read her book.
One point that may be relevant to this discussion is that, just as Rod wishes to see a libertarian movement that is “culturally” acceptable to what is sometimes called the “left” (although he is not thinking of the “left” in simply a political sense, I think), I would like to see a libertarianism that is culturally acceptable to bourgeois, churchgoing, middle-class, wage-slave, mom-and-pop America – the sort of people who have a couple kids, a house in the ‘burbs with a mortgage, dad coaching soccer, etc. Incidentally, I’m not entirely a member of either Rod’s target group or my own target group: while I do have kids and am a homeowner, I’m also an atheist, I will never coach a sports team, etc.
However, as a matter of political strategy, I think the demographics I have described are the people libertarians need to win over, just in practical terms because of their numbers. Ron Paul was one of these people in a way many libertarian candidates are not. Bob Barr does have a proven ability to reach out to some of that group (he was elected to Congress, after all). Can Mary Ruwart?
I don’t know, but it seems to me an important question.
Dave
David Miller -
4/18/2008
Rod,
No, I haven’t read her book – that’s why I emphasized so strongly that my impressions about her really were just vague impressions and may well be way off-base. As I explained, my experiences within the LP (I was actually on the local LP public-access TV show for several years, so I did have a lot of contact with local and state LPers) were so unpleasant that I’ve simply given up on the LP and no longer have all that much interest in it.
On the larger issue of libertarianism’s being presented as "Can't we all just get along with each other?", that general approach does happen not to fit my own personality – since I am a theoretical physicist, I rather naturally gravitate to the perspective of “Let’s rigorously prove position X from axiom A.” Fortunately, Rothbard did convince me that logical deduction alone was not enough, and that one actually did have to pay attention to annoying little facts, such as real empirical facts of history. (Of course, we theoretical physicists also have to put up with our experimental colleagues’ arguing that we have to pay attention to actual empirical facts – facts are such annoying little things!) It’s strange that Murray is usually viewed as the extreme example of libertarianism a priorism, since I found him to be personally much more insistent on looking at empirical facts than most libertarians I’ve known.
If we must make a choice between the “sweetness-and-light” vs. the “logical rigor” approach, I do think that it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that “sweetness-and-light” always sells the product better. After all, whether you are talking Jefferson, Paine, Sam Adams, etc., I do not think most of the American Founders tried to take a “sweetness-and-light” approach. On the other hand, perhaps we live in a sufficiently Oprahified society, that today the approach of the Declaration of Independence or “The Federalist Papers” is simply impossible.
Anyway, my earlier comment was just offered to explain the vague impressions that some of us “paleos” may have of Ruwart, which may partly explain the greater paleo interest in Barr compared to Ruwart. I have no strong feelings on this, and am mildly curious to see how it turns out. (I enjoy participating in the little game of voting, just as some people enjoy dressing up on Halloween, and since I certainly would not enjoy voting for McCain or Hillary, I might even vote for the LP candidate this year.)
I do think that, when engaging in political action, libertarians should self-consciously make a choice between the approach you laid out (educating anybody who will listen about the principles of libertarianism) and Bill Woolsey’s approach (focus on concrete issues that might really change public policy). In differing situations, one approach or the other might make sense, but I think too often libertarians think they can simultaneously achieve both goals and end up achieving neither.
Dave
Less Antman -
4/17/2008
Your impression IS off base, although it is not the first time I've heard this comment from people who have never met Dr. Ruwart. It is a natural reaction to her focus on libertarianism as a compassionate philosophy and to the title of her libertarian primer, Healing Our World, but many of us who know her refer to her as The Velvet Hammer.
She has a friendly and non-confrontational style that is quite unlike most political libertarians (someday, I hope the LP realizes that the offensiveness of libertarianism to many people stems not from its extremism but from the harshness of too many of its advocates: the problem is not radicalism but rudeness, and we need to reform party manners rather than the party platform). She does describe the essence of libertarianism as a commitment to cooperation rather than coercion, which IS a "can't we all get along?" point of view, but her command of facts and figures in Q&A and radio interviews is jaw-dropping, and reflects her background as a research scientist.
She is an uncompromising Rothbardian in always advocating the plumbline while supporting every smaller move in that direction. Actually, though, she's more radical than Rothbard, since she is for free banking and against intellectual property.
The perception problem can only be overcome by meeting Ruwart or reading her writing (see www.askdrruwart.com and search for her short answer on any question). In a sense, though, that goes along with David Beito's point about the need for the campaign to get more active, especially online. I'm told that this will be addressed within the next several days.
Roderick T. Long -
4/17/2008
sort of “Can’t we all just get along with each other?” rather than solid, professional presentation of libertarian ideas
I would say her approach is "Can't we all just get along with each other?" combined with solid, professional presentation of libertarian ideas. (Have you read her book?)
David Miller -
4/17/2008
Bill,
You suggest that the goal of an LP candidate should be to “promote 3 to 5 specific policies that reduce the size of government (or expand liberty,) that also appeal to a large portion of the voting population that is, in general, skeptical of government intervention.”
Do you realize that practically no one outside of the LP ever hears the positions taken by LP candidates?
When I dropped out of the LP, I kept my eyes out in the mainstream media to see if I ever caught sight of the LP.
Nope – I actually cannot remember a single case.
Now, of course, I know that once in a blue moon the MSM does give a teeny bit of coverage to LP candidates, but if someone like me who was watching for such coverage has seen none in over a decade…
Well, LP candidates are probably not having much effect on the public debate.
On the other hand, LP candidates are listened to by at least some LP members, so educating people (at least the members of the LP itself!) on libertarian ideas can have some value.
Bob Barr might be different – he might get some real media exposure. So, I’m willing to grant your point that supporting Barr might make real sense. But, unless the LP can get a “star” candidate who can get real media exposure, I think the “educational” approach is the only approach that makes much sense for LP candidates. (Unfortunately, I knew quite a few LP candidates who were running because they honestly expected to be elected to a real, partisan office. None of them whom I knew ever were, of course.)
Dave
David Miller -
4/17/2008
Rod,
I gave up on the LP some years before you did, I suppose: the breaking point came when my wife and I realized we really did not want a lot of these people in our house or even to know where we lived! Without going into great detail, the local party chairman who assaulted and injured his own campaign manager and his successor as local chairman who was willing to welcome pedophiles into the party (there was an outspoken pedophile active in the local party) are some examples of what we found intolerable. I knew a number of the leading LP folks in the state and national party, and these too were not people we wished to associate with.
Since I view the LP as hopeless for building up the libertarian movement or educating the public on libertarian ideas, I’m willing to see it used by Bob Barr to damage McCain.
As far as I know, Ruwart is indeed actually a libertarian by your or my standards. What I have read about her over the years suggests that she comes across as a bit flaky personally – sort of “Can’t we all just get along with each other?” rather than solid, professional presentation of libertarian ideas. If my impression is correct (and it may well be wrong), this could be a real problem. People already assume that libertarian ideas are flaky – if they are presented by someone with a starry-eyed, moonbeam, idealist persona, sort of a warmed-over flower child, that will just confirm the initial prejudice. I’ve never met Ruwart, though, and my impression may be way off-base.
I think we can all agree that Bob Barr, whatever his faults, will not impress anyone as a warmed-over flower child!
I don't disagree with that. But it still seems to me that the approach in Ruwart's book, for example, is far more likely to win over liberals and lefties than anything Paul said or wrote. Do you disagree?
Roderick T. Long -
4/16/2008
You make it sound a bit as though Ruwart's style of advocacy is just a matter of deriving conclusions from the nonaggression axiom! Have you read Healing Our World?
Bill Woolsey -
4/16/2008
In the near term, to promote 3 to 5 specific policies that reduce the size of government (or expand liberty,) that also appeal to a large portion of the voting population that is, in general, skeptical of government intervention. These policies should be promoted on the ground that they enhance liberty, prosperity, and security. Never because they can be deduced from libertarian ideology which is correct because.....
The goal should be to receive the votes of as many libertarians as possible, with "libertarian" being understood in the broad sense of being in favor of increased personal and economic liberty. (And, I think, skeptical of foreign intervention.)
Mark Brady -
4/15/2008
Bill Woolsey writes, "I don't care for candidates like Ruwart. Teaching people about the radical libertarian philosophy is not the role of a libertarian political candidate."
What then is the role of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate?
Bill Woolsey -
4/15/2008
I support Barr for the LP nomination.
I don't care for candidates like Ruwart. Teaching people about the radical libertarian philosophy is not the role of a libertarian political candidate.
I don't think it is useful to have a political party that fulfills the purpose that Long emphasizes.
I don't find his remarks about Latin America very troubling. He didn't call for a U.S. invasion of Venezuela. He didn't explicitly say that the U.S. should defend Columbia against an invasion from Venezuela. And, since that isn't going to happen, I am not too worried that he will take the wrong position on the campaign trail.
Taking a strong stand against preventative war, nation building, etc., is good enough for me.
I would like to see some kind of more or less explicit plan for a withdrawl from Iraq.
He is proposing that the size of the Federal government be cut. That is good.
I have no trouble with his flirtation with the fair tax. Especially if it is modified--a lower rate and smaller goverment is the key.
He is currently doing a speaking tour with the ACLU on privacy, torture, imperial presidency, etc. Great.
I have no problem with his new found federalism on the social issues. (It is better than enforcing traditional values at the national level, anyway.) I think it is a good idea to downplay his personal views about what policies states should have on these matters.
I suspect that I may be in the minority. I think Ruwart is the favorite.
Anthony Gregory -
4/15/2008
Roderick, I think you somewhat underestimate the radicalism of Paul's conservative libertarianism. It was about as leftist a conservative libertarian gets, in many ways. The priority was cutting the warfare state and police state and not throwing anyone on the street – that, for example, illustrates a very non-vulgar understanding of what the true problem with statism is. It was not Republican at all. The fact that even more liberals didn't flock to a campaign that promised to end the war and smash the surveillance and torture states, without even getting around to abolishing welfare, says at least as much about the supposed liberalism on the left as it does about Ron's conservative rhetoric, I think.
David T. Beito -
4/15/2008
I agree....but her views will mean nothing unless she can get at least some media coverage.
Roderick T. Long -
4/15/2008
Fair enough; however, my interest in LP campaigns is less with maximising quantity of Libertarian votes in the immediately upcoming election than with the campaign's contribution to the longterm prospects of the libertarian movement. And within the latter goal I'm concerned not just with how fast it grows the libertarian movement but also with what kind of libertarian movement it helps to build and shape. I'd rather help to build a radical libertarianism a la Ruwart than a conservative libertarianism a la Paul. (Which is not to deny that a conservative libertarianism a la Paul would be a lot better than what we have now.)
Another crucial advantage Ruwart has over many other libertarian candidates is her ability to bring out the pro-common-people, anti-corporate-elite aspect of libertarian economic ideas. I remember wincing during the Badnarik/Cobb debate at Badnarik's inability to fend off Cobb's charge that markets benefit the rich at the expense of the poor; in fact, I wrote at the time that I wished his approach were more like Ruwart's. The association of libertarianism with shafting the poor has been absolutely disastrous for the movement. Seems to me a Ruwart campaign would do better job of improving libertarianism's popular reputation than Paul has.
David T. Beito -
4/14/2008
The ideal combination, of course, is someone who pushes a solid antiwar/civil liberties/free market agenda but, at the same time, can get media attention. Despite his faults, Paul was far better at that than just about anyone in recent history.
Like Roderick, one of my favorites among those running is Mary Ruwart. She has a pleasing personality and pushes all the right policy buttons. The downside is enormous.
Nobody outside of LP circles has heard of her and, just as fatally, she doesn't seem to be running a very energetic campaign.
I'd still rather have Barr than Root but Root, to his credit, is fighting effectively for media attention. I'd probably take Gary Johnson over all of them but that appears to be a pipedream at this point.
Anthony Gregory -
4/14/2008
At least some of the interest in Barr, especially on the part of Lew Rockwell, seems to center on the prospect of Barr hurting McCain in the election. I must admit, this possibility is an attractive one. But it underscores one quirk in third-party politics: Should the candidate run a radical campaign, or should the candidate sound more like the worse major party candidate, so as to swing the election? Perhaps it is possible to do both, but there seems to be some tension there.
