Tuesday, July 24, 2012

It Was Smart for Rand Paul to Get the Hardcore Ron Paulites Out of the Way Quickly

So says Brian Doherty:



23 comments:

  1. Nick Gillespie sure nods in the affirmative alot...

    That's really strange behavior.

    Aside from that I don't know whether to be happy that we have official Paul based "libertarian" commentary or sad that it seems to have very little basis in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How can someone as cool as Brian still be at REASON?
    I mean, in addition to Penn Jillette.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just realized the implications of your headline.
    And yes, I DO feel there's too much "realpolitik" in that statement.
    But Brian is still a pretty good guy and has always been a stout defender of RP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's funny how Doherty thinks we'll somehow forget how Rand endoresed Mitt Romney.

    The whole appeal of Ron Paul is that he doesn't bend the way Romney (or now Rand) does. We're not so casual in following politics to let stuff like this slide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, misleading title, much? He didn't say it was wise to alienate Ron Paul supporters, but rather that it was wise to let Ron Paul supporters know he was going to support Romney quickly.

    You're really over the top with these anti-Rand snippets. When all is said and done, Rand is one of the best politicians around. Not perfect, but I don't think you can find 5 elected federal government level officials who are better than he is. I can only think of one, and he shares half is DNA with Rand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares if Rand Paul is better than a bunch of pygmies? I judge a man in the liberty movement on how well he understands Austrian economics and libertarianism and how effective he is at delivering the message. Rand Paul sucks, in my opinion, at educating people or bringing more people towards libertarianism. If anything, he brings some of the libertarian-lites further away from libertarian philosophy. You're using a pretty lame benchmark if you're comparing him to other politicians. I never had to sell Ron Paul as being better than other politicians. I was able to sell him based on his actions and ideas alone.

      Delete
    2. Well stated Drigan. Rand Paul is great. It's so tilting reading these posts by Wenzel and Rockwell (people I otherwise like.) The hate for Rand Paul is inexplicable. Heck, I'll say it. I like Rand Paul better than Ron Paul. Ron Paul played a critical role in being an intellectual benchmark. Rand Paul is someone who can actually implement Ron Paul's ideals.

      The anti-Rand Paul crowd almost universally has no interest in seeing society changed for the better. Most like being in the "cool" .5% who can whine about how things should be better. They have no plan. Its easier for them to do nothing. They are professional victims wronged by the state and they like it that way.

      Delete
    3. Mark, that is total BS. Virtually every single person in the "anti-Rand Paul crowd wants society changed for the better. There has been so much written about strategy by Rothbardians that it makes your statement comical. Just because others believe there are better strategies than the one you endorse doesn't mean they don't want society changed. It's stupid to say otherwise. Not only do we have a strategy for achieving liberty but it has been clearly the most effective. Whether you look at Ron Paul vs Rand Paul, Mises Institue vs Cato, LRC vs Reason, or Rockwell, Wenzel, Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Molyneux, Block etc. vs Gillespie, Jack Hunter, John Tate, Benton etc. it is clear who is doing a better job growing the movement.

      I maxed out my donations to Ron Paul, not because I thought he would win, but because I thought he would expand the base better than anyone else in the liberty movement. I won't give a penny to Rand because I don't think he will grow the base at all. I'd rather give my money to people who will do a better job at growing the libertarian movement than politicians who I think are ineffective at delivery the message and pushing a strategy I find inadequate at best.

      Delete
    4. Rand Paul went on Sean Hannity to praise Mitt Romney. Think about that.

      Delete
    5. Dan
      The overwhelming majority people are going to shut down immediately hearing the anarcho-capitalist message. IMMEDIATELY. Most people aren't logical. They aren't philosophical. They go with the flow and aren't going to respond to radical change. They aren't even going to listen to some guy talking about how all schools and roads should be privatized.

      It's important to understand what the ideal is and have people who push strongly for it. It's also important to have people that deal with the reality of convincing others. Socialism is intuitive for most people and it isn't something they are going to change quickly.

      The two most influential free market economists of the 20th century were Friedman in the US and Hayek in Britain. The reason for that is they were willing to work within the confines of the system. In my very humble opinion, Mises and Rothbard were much better and I personally have learned much more from Mises and Rothbard, but they didn't have any influence by comparison. But their influence was the influence they had had on Friedman and Hayek not on policy.

      People can hate Friedman all they want. He single handedly kept free market economics alive in the political realm in this country. He legitimized free market ideals. Not Rothbard. Not Mises. Friedman alone. It was his willingness to work with others within the system that did this.

      Rand Paul is the movement's Milton Friedman. Without some transition with someone like Rand Paul the movement isn't going to get more than 10 or 15% in national elections.

      The former people and groups that you mentioned have converted more passionate believers. The latter have reached more people. I know I personally came to read Mises because of watching John Stossel specials in high school and then reading Free to Choose by Friedman.

      Delete
    6. Mark...You are mentally ill. Go see a therapist.

      Delete
    7. Mark, you say that people won't listen to ancap ideas but the facts are against you. The biggest names in the libertarian movement are primarily ancaps. Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Robert Wenzel, Hoppe, Kinsella, Block, Rockwell, Molyneux, and on and on are all ancaps. Stossel and Friedman are nothing compared to these men. Where is the movement of Friedmanites? While Friedman was busing spouting Keynesian monetary policy and capitulating on numerous libertarian principles, Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell were building a remnant.

      People like Rothbard and Rockwell kept the liberty movement alive just like Mises before them. They didn't create major changes politically but they kept the base alive and slowly grew it. They started the Mises Institute together after Rothbard was booted from Cato because they didn't like his strategy and strict libertarianism. While Cato has become more and more irrelevant, the Mises Institute is thriving and LRC is the best read libertarian site in the world. They give people access to the the greatest Austrian economics and libertarian books ever written, for free. It is sites like those and EPJ that are thriving right now. If you think Friedman has been more successful then I have no idea what you base success on.

      I agree with one thing you said though, Rand Paul is this movements Milton Friedman. Just like there is no Friedman movement today there will be no Rand Paul movement into the future. We have numerous fantastic libertarians to lead the way, so why would we waste our time getting behind the guy who considers being called a libertarian an "albatross around his neck"? You go ahead and go the Cato route if you like, but the rest of us are going to stick with the MI route that already proved more successful. Let me know if you ever find a Friedmanite movement. They must be numerous if he was so successful.

      Delete
    8. @ Mark

      Why are you so afraid of people legitimately criticizing Rand Paul for the things he says or does, Mark?

      Surely if he is someone for liberty-minded people to trust, then Rand and his merry band of followers should be able to take it on the chin. What could possibly be criticized about him, besides, you know, the ways in which he sells out liberty principles?
      So here's the deal, the less Rand does that, the less Rand will be criticized. The more he does it, the more he'll be criticized.

      You will be able to tell by the amount of criticism how much Rand is bending to his knees to kiss the feet of the establishment.

      Did you honestly expect libertarians to turn a blind eye to Rand and others for the sake of your misguided belief in the system and the ridiculous notion that Rand will implement the very ideas you yourself claim most people don't even want to listen to, and which the establishment knows is not in their best interest to allow to happen? Apparently you still don't know how it works. You either convert the masses to your way of thinking first, or you don't stand a chance in hell. You would just be forced to tout the party line.

      So that blind eye is not coming.

      Stop wasting your time with us, donate money to Rand, and vote for him. The criticism is not going to stop, because we don't care about politics or politicians. We care about principles and take a look at how much they're sold for the benefit of a career in Washington. Deal with it.

      Delete
    9. Rand needs to take a stronger position on this, he needs to issue a press release and completely disassociate himself from the crazed Lew Rockwell crowd. He should even call for a first amendment exception to neo-confederate websites, even if he does not really mean it, that would do the trick. Sometimes unpleasant things need to be done. The more the crazies attack Rand, the better he will be in the Senate.

      Delete
  6. ...it was stupid for him to lose his grip on the raising wave of populist libertarianism. He traded leading position in the revolution for being obscure nobody with a cushy job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It Was Smart for Rand Paul to Get the Hardcore Ron Paulites Out of the Way Quickly"

    You mean anarchists who want ZERO government and will eventually come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is a sell out for entering the political arena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok you're delusional. Hardcore Paulites are not all anarchist. Please people stop talking out of your asses.

      Delete
    2. Ron Paul has been in the political arena for decades, and a lot of anarchists have supported his run for presidency.

      So what on earth are you talking about?

      If he is a "sell out" it will be because he will sell out principles, and not merely because he is in the political arena.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't even know about anarcho-capitalism if not for Ron Paul. I'll never view him as a sell-out.

      Delete
  8. I was prepared to be very unhappy with Doherty as a result of the post title, but what Doherty said was that since Rand had promised to endorse Romney doing it sooner rather than later was a good strategy, which is something which can probably be argued for.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Ron Paul hardcore" seems to be anarcho-capitalists who don't believe in participating in politics in the first place so I suppose it would be smart disillusion them right up front. After all, they're not going to participate anyway. But why then, are they even for Ron Paul? After all, Ron Paul has been a consistent advocate of working with others where he agrees in principle and this includes Democrats and liberals like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders.

    I suppose people can advocate anarcho-capitalism all they want, but such a position is completely irrelevant even to Ron Paul much less Rand.

    The economy is going to crash. The establishment is going to fall. I don't really want to see it happen, but we can make lemonade from these lemons if we work at it. The issue in 2016 will not be how to improve the economy but how to rebuild it. This is where we will be able to go head to head with the statists, and we have a good chance to win that. But that battle will be fought out in the political arena whether the anarcho-capitalists like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alright, at the risk of alienating all the previous commenters, I'll say it: "You're ALL correct!"
    It's all conjecture, and all your scenarios are feasible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We need to get over it and move on. Safe to say Rand is not as pure as his father is, but he is better than mostly anything that is out there in terms of libertarianism.

    But yeah I don't like this idea of building a "coalition" with the religious right or war mongers. I used to support Bush and the war on Iraq but Ron Paul's consistency and integrity and good arguments changed my opinion. We can do the same without compromising these crucial principles.

    ReplyDelete