Guest Post by Morbo
For a few years in my misspent youth, I was enamored with the philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarians claims to advocate a consistent political philosophy — free markets and free minds — and thus insist their party is one of true principle. But these days it looks like the libertarian emphasis is mostly on low taxes and deregulation. The other half of the equation is usually ignored.
Consider the current infatuation with Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee and is much feted by party members today. According to The Washington Post, Paul is a huge hit on the web. The paper reports, “Republican strategists point out that libertarians, who make up a small but vocal portion of the Republican base, intrinsically gravitate toward the Web’s anything-goes, leave-me-alone nature.”
That’s nice. It’s too bad Paul isn’t really a libertarian because he doesn’t advocate the government leaving people alone. He is, in fact, just another paleocon more at home in the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP. Big deal.
Paul holds caveman views on most social issues. He elevates state power over liberty in most cases. Consider:
* Libertarians say that a person’s reproductive rights should be sacrosanct. No decision could be more personal, more private. So Paul supports legal abortion, right? Wrong. Paul’s Web site says, “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” It goes on to list the numerous bills Paul has introduced designed to curb or outlaw legal abortion.
* Libertarians believe in open borders. They support no curbs on immigration and condemn fence-building as a solution. This is Paul’s view, correct? Nope. From Paul’s Web site: “The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all.” His six-point plan calls for ending “birthright citizenship” – a move that would require a constitutional amendment.
* Libertarians assert that what you believe about religion is your own business and say government should not meddle in theological matters. Where does Paul stand? He has repeatedly co-sponsored moronic constitutional amendments pushed by the Religious Right that would give government officials the right to impose religious worship on children through the public schools and on adults through the display of religious iconography in courthouses, city halls, state assemblies and other public facilities.
* Libertarians maintain that an individual’s sex life should be of no concern of the government. They oppose laws that seek to reduce gays to second-class citizenship. Paul’s view? He says he does not support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but he has backed legislation that would strip federal courts of the ability to hear challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In 1999, Paul voted for a mean-spirited provision designed to deny same-sex couples in the Washington, D.C., the right to adopt children.
Paul’s frequent support for “court stripping” as a remedy to perceived social ills should give libertarians pause. A central tenet of libertarianism is that a citizen should have some recourse when his rights are violated by the state. Paul would take that away by denying courts the right to hear entire classes of cases. Does anyone in the Libertarian Party care?
One of the reasons I grew weary of libertarianism (aside from the fact that its economic policy is cruel and simplistic) was the smug arrogance of so many of its adherents. They were forever blathering on about how unprincipled the two main parties are and derided anyone who supports them as foolish. Libertarian support for Paul — an old-fashioned paleocon from the Buchanan school who is hostile to half of the libertarian agenda — proves that the “party of principle” has a hypocrisy problem as well.
It’s always nice to see another conservative oppose the war in Iraq. I suppose that accounts for some of Paul’s popularity right now. But at the end of the day, most of Paul’s ideas aren’t interesting, worthwhile or ground-breaking. He does not deserve all of this attention.