Sunday, December 9, 2012

On Defending "Libertarian" Politicians

Lifted from the comments. cotterdan321 writes:
It is the fact that Rand clearly wants the ring of power that he will continue to take non-libertarian positions in order to gain enough supporters to get to 50.1%. It is impossible for a hardcore libertarian to ever become president, so he will move as far away from that position as necessary. The problem with this approach is that the further he moves away from libertarianism, the more damage he does to the liberty movement. We will not be able to achieve liberty by tricking people into voting for a libertarian. Not only will TPTB not let a Trojan horse through the door, but the people would riot if he somehow managed to slip through the cracks and started to implement libertarian ideas once he became president. Unless people are convinced that abolishing government is the solution in any particular trouble area, then they will be like the Greeks marching in the streets because they are seeing cutbacks in their "benefits". The only way to achieve liberty is to educate people that it is in their best interest to have it. Any attempt to advocate government solutions to government created problems will only set us back in this regard.
Followed by this comment from Tony:

Agree wholeheartedly.
And once you understand that, you will defend no politician from ANY libertarian criticism. If the politician is a truly principled guy, not only will he easily be able to stand the criticism; he will actually welcome it because he knows libertarians are independent thinkers that question all authority. Libertarians don't have "faith" in any politician.
Unfortunately, a number of commenters here on this blog still don't understand that. They still don't know how to question ALL authority, and lash out at those that do.
Rand-apologists and Amash-apologists are prime examples of that.

BOTTOM LINE: Politics should only be used to promote libertarian ideas. Which means, given the current views of the general public, almost all libertarian candidates will lose. Any "libertarian" that actually wins office should be viewed with suspicion.

32 comments:

  1. Much of the American population knows mostly what they're trained to do. You can fuck them over as long as you make them laugh, or entertain them in some superficial way.

    I do have faith in the human spirit, but it's severely depressing how dumbed-down the American population is. They can become confrontational while in their car, but they always fail to get angry where it counts. They've been butt-raped by the United States Government for so long that it's actually what they prefer. Those who are invested deeply in the system would rather be bought off with the "good life" than have the freedom to be independent and stand on merit. They would rather have fake relationships than be willing to make sacrifices for those who should be most important to them. They're nearly incapable of looking in the mirror and being the change that is so needed at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wholeheartedly agree with both comments. To follow up on the first comment, if we focus on persuading more individuals to become libertarian, then the politicians will be increasingly forced to adopt libertarian ideas in order to represent their constituents, or else they would be replaced by more liberty-oriented politicians. However, if the focus continues on electing liberty-learning politicians without first changing the views of the populace, then the populace is going to react negatively to certain parts of the libertarian agenda because they are not ready for it, even though it's in their best interest in the long run, and liberty-leaning politicians who wish to stay in power end up having to compromise on their libertarian policies.

    A counterargument is that we libertarians should focus on getting the best politicians that we have instead of always demanding perfection from them. They argue that while these politicians are not perfect, they can at least slow down the advances of the state. The problem with this view, however, is that the state has been advancing in power at an alarming rate in recent years. The state is like a big rig that is within ten miles of approaching a cliff, but is driving toward it at 150 mph. It's not going to slow down significantly unless there were an army of liberty-oriented politicians at the wheel, which will not occur until the populace becomes more libertarian. Also, due to the nature of the current environment, these politicians often need to compromise. But each compromise strengthens the state and sometimes threatens to negate some of the gains of those same liberty-oriented politicians.

    The goal should not be to make short-term political gains at the expense of having a more libertarian society in the long run. The goal should be to work toward a libertarian society. Once this goal is met, then the goal of having libertarian politicians, or perhaps even no politicians, will be much easier to meet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A counterargument is that we libertarians should focus on getting the best politicians that we have instead of always demanding perfection from them."

      There are two things that could be said about this.
      First of all, we do not demand "perfection" from them. Ron Paul was great but not perfect. What is important is that he has a spine, consistensy and was reliable. You actually knew his viewpoints because he would express them without fear of being a pariah. That's why i actually respect a Democrat like Dennis Kucinich a lot more than i do Rand Paul.

      The second thing is, that "the best politicians that we have" is basically a misnomer. We don't HAVE any politicians other than Ron Paul (who has quit). The rest of them is simply not libertarian in any sense of the generally accepted term. They believe in aggression. Is it our fault that small government conservatives don't see the difference between themselves and libertarians? People like Rand and Justin Amash, to name two, are simply not "our" politicians. So in that case, the question would be, should we support basic Republicans whom are merely less statist than GOP establishment? What standard is that to have? Lesser of all evils? Then why shouldn't we have voted for Romney because he is marginally better than Obama? You have to draw a line, and libertarians draw the line far. That's why we're libertarians, and not conservatives.

      By the way, one thing i also always wondered about the lashing out against criticism of politicians is this: Aren't the likes of Rand Paul and Justin Amash being PAID - from forcibly extracted money no less - to do the job they promised to do? And then when we call them on sucking up to their party leaders, libertarians get flack for slamming them, as if these politicians were volunteers giving up their precious free time to work for a better world. There's nothing special about going against the grain. It's what they're PAID to do!!! And they aren't even doing that right.

      Delete
  3. I remember Rand Paul's answer to the question of whether he was a libertarian when running for the senate. It was "no". Why would he move in our direction when his goal is power (or at least appears to be)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous 3:08 is correct. "The goal should be to work toward a libertarian society." Politics, i.e. force, is not the solution. Gentle persuasion is the solution if a solution is even possible short of a total collapse of society. If the latter occurs we will see complete totalitarianism first.

    Remember the children of Israel in the Old Testament--they had been slaves so long they didn't know how to live free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but this is utopian nonsense. Gentle persuasion doesn't work against a pack of wolves, i.e. the govnernment worshiping majority of the U.S. population. You gotta get involved in politics or else they'll keep passing laws to make your life worse and worse. The problem is that these guys, Rand and Amash, are crummy representatives and not really on our side. Rothbard was for political activity but like he said libertarian policies should be radical and call for massively slashing the state. Not this minor tinkering around the edges that Rand and Amash talk about. If people would have actually looked into it they would have seen that Gary Johnson's platform actually was quite radical and that he wanted to cut government even farther than Ron Paul's trillion dollar proposed cut.

      Delete
    2. I have to agree with the thrust of Dave's comment above. Politics is no doubt a messy business, but how can you really ignore without effectively surrendering to the statists? Rothbard certainly played the political game (even if he didn't vote himself). What does that tell you?

      I do also understand the apologists (which at points included myself) of Rand and Amash. However flawed these politician maybe as libertarians, they still are much better than anybody else out there and the system works against someone being a principled, hardcore libertarian. Ron Paul did it, but he was deliberately marginalized for it his whole political career. Rand I think saw this, and decided he wasn't going to have the same thing happen to him.

      Delete
    3. Oh please.

      Gary Johnson didn't have anything of worth to say about the FED, he only wanted to legalize marijuana, and he was in favor of military intervention in Africa. In other words, he still supported America the empire. Are taxpayers paying taxes to fight wars for countries on the other side of the globe?
      With such a viewpoint, he would represent libertarians as not being opposed to throwing military weight around in other countries despite them not having attacked the U.S.

      He didn't think Guantanamo Bay needed to close either.

      Gary Johnson was not even a good constitutionalist, let alone a good libertarian.

      Delete
  5. Rand will never win the presidency. The Elite won't have it. They are just holding a carrot in front of him so that he ameliorates his positions. It's working.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand will win the nomination in 2016, and he will likely win the election given the virtual certainty of four more years of a stgnant (at best) economy.

      He is speaking the language of Reagan (less government), and then will govern with the principle of Reagan (more government).

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/06/rand-paul-being-groomed-as-next-reagan.html

      Delete
  6. The only person calling the Republicans you are obsessed with attacking, Justin Amash/Rand Paul, is the EPJ. Yet you are fully aware that they are not libertarian. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/rand-paul-i-am-not-libertarian.html

    If Rand Paul was named Bilbo Baggins and had no relation to Ron Paul the only time you would mention him was to praise him for his good work on certain issues.

    Instead, you keep attacking him for not being libertarian enough, precisely because he is somewhat libertarian on some issues. If you think it is a wise strategy to attack Republicans who are moving towards liberty, I don't know how you ever expect to change people's minds. Maybe the only true libertarians are those who have read Man, Economy, and State in the womb?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do me a favor and google "Rand Paul Libertarian"

      You'll see many articles like this one

      http://www.policymic.com/articles/20298/rand-paul-rising-libertarians-should-follow-ron-paul-example-to-stay-relevant

      "And now Rand Paul, a possible standard bearer for the LP and a Republican senator from Kentucky is filibustering the Senate against his own party in support of libertarian principals."

      Fact is, even though Rand is not a libertarian, there are tons of people holding him up as the next leader of the libertarian movement.

      Delete
    2. @ cotterdan321

      Exactly.
      And it's those people the criticism of Rand Paul is meant for. Who cares what Rand Paul is? Just as long as people stop assuming he's libertarian.

      Delete
  7. I think at this point, real libertarians realize that winning in an election is a losing battle. The real point of playing the electoral game is to educate people and to expose conservatism (both neo and paleo) and liberalism for what authoritarian, statist, bootlickers they really are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Yet you are fully aware that they are not libertarian."

    I'm sure Wenzel is, but a lot of commenters here don't seem to get it. And that's why Rand is focused on so often. Thanks to types like Rand Paul, even people like Mitt Romney are now called "libertarian". Why?
    Because it is not nearly being said often and clearly enough that Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian, and that Rand Paul's views do not represent liberty in the libertarian sense.
    That is also why Justin Amash is mentioned. His name is not "Paul" and it could just as well have been Bilbo Baggins. The point is that as long as a number of self-described libertarians keep claiming that Amash and/or Rand Paul represents the liberty movement, and that they would help the movement in the long run, they need to be analyzed for every move they make or word they say, and called out.


    "If Rand Paul was named Bilbo Baggins and had no relation to Ron Paul the only time you would mention him was to praise him for his good work on certain issues."

    Then why is not doing this for Justin Amash or any of the other Tea Party guys whose last name are not "Paul"?


    "Instead, you keep attacking him for not being libertarian enough, precisely because he is somewhat libertarian on some issues"

    Precisely because he is "libertarian" on some issues, some commenters are treating him like the Great White Hope of liberty, and so it is only logical they get doused with buckets of cold water every time Rand shows he can't be trusted. There is no point in slamming Harry Reid for not being libertarian enough, because nobody in the liberty movement would ever act as an apologist for him. Apparently you fail to see the logic of this.


    "If you think it is a wise strategy to attack Republicans who are moving towards liberty"

    Except that they are moving AWAY from liberty. Which is the whole point of why Rand Paul and Justin Amash are mentioned so often.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, I wish I read our comment before responding to Robert. It could've saved me some time. I agree completely with everything you've said.

      Delete
    2. I am not really sure what to make of Rand. His comments about his political identity are contradictory. Still, I think he sincerely thinks he is advancing the cause of liberty, and I would say the same for Amash. The credibility of both Rand and Amash would really be helped I think if they made their case that they are advancing the cause of liberty to a tough, hardcore libertarian critic like RW. This would clear the air (particularly regarding Rand who is a regular subject of criticism) and you would at least have to respect their balls in facing up to this criticism. As he said himself elsewhere, RW would give them plenty of opportunity to fully answer his questions, and make their cases that they are representing well the cause of liberty.

      Delete
    3. I agree that it would help their cause in the liberty movement if they would allow themselves to be interviewed by Wenzel, but I don't think they ever will because he would force them to explain just how far they away they are from being libertarian. Right now they have the image of being close to Ron Paul, and they can let their deviations come out one at a time. They can sit back and see where deviating will gain them votes and maneuver accordingly like a typical politician.

      If they went on Wenzel's show he could force them to lay all their cards on the table. We might find out they sound closer to Jim DeMint than Ron Paul.

      My guess is that Rand will drift further and further away from Ron Paul the closer we get to the next election as he tries to increase his base. I would also guess that Amash will deviate less than Rand because he won't be making a presidential run, but I think he would go as far away from libertarianism as necessary if he were to ever run. I wouldn't have to guess if they went on his show, but that ain't happening. They won't allow their views to be fleshed out by a hardcore libertarian, and run the risk of being exposed as a liar when they back off of whatever libertarian positions he would bring out of them when it becomes beneficial for them to do so.

      Delete
  9. Has any Senator submitted a more libertarian budget proposal than this one?
    http://www.freedomworks.org/files/Top10PlatformtoRevitalizeAmerica_0.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/12/05/libertarian-michigan-rep-justin-amash-destroys-gop-leadership-over-budget-committee-purge/

    Robert Fellner, let me know when posts like this one stop calling Amash a libertarian and instead call him a pro-life conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Or maybe you should tell Reason magazine to stop calling him a libertarian and the next Ron Paul.

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/30/justin-amashs-first-reelection-fight

    ReplyDelete
  12. So in a nutshell the problem is more with the non-libertarian people who offend you by calling themselves libertarian and supporting the most libertarian-like Republicans such as Amash/Paul.

    I don't subscribe to the collectivist view that libertarians are 1 group, with a defining website that represents the "liberty movement", or a need to agitate for the next libertarian movement leader to replace Ron Paul.

    As an aside we can easily criticize Ron Paul for his non-libertarian positions, but most people aren't that counter-productive as they recognize his enormous libertarian strengths vastly outweighed his non-libertarian credentials.

    I don't think politics can ever be the answer. I think libertarianism wins when people embrace the ideas and economics behind it. Having said that, if certain people choose to partake in the non-libertarian process that is politics, I don't see any value in libertarians attacking those politicians who are significantly more libertarian than their political peers.

    Yes they are all failures as libertarians, I don't see how any politician could not be. I believe the battle for liberty is fought outside the realm of politics, for many, many reasons. One of which is that the political process requires non-libertarian actions to succeed.

    As such, I do not see the harm if the political world moves from a Republican Party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to one filled with Rand Paul and Justin Amash's. I don't see how that can be considered as moving away from liberty. Only if you make the false collectivist assumptions outlined above, could that be the case. Further, I'd certainly be quietly rooting for such a change in politics, while not necessarily supporting any of them.

    While politics is unable to ever realize the goal of libertarians, it would be a great step forward in the right direction if the US government was filled with all Rand Pauls. I don't think anyone disputes that?

    Not subscribing to the worldview that there is a specific "liberty movement" that is being diluted by supporting non-libertarians, I don't share the fears most of you here do.

    I genuinely believe in spontaneous order and individualism. There are a variety of different modes one can take in spreading the ideas of liberty. I will continue to agitate for a stateless society in the way I best see fit. I think you undersell the power of libertarianism when you view a mildly positive change (pro-life Conservatives now including people like Paul/Amash) as a grave threat that may destroy the "liberty movement."

    My understanding of libertarianism is there is no leader, no group, no central plan. That's the message I'll focus all my resources on spreading. If I ever do spend time on the political realm, I don't see the benefit of attacking the best members of Congress. Even if they fall woefully short of my ideal politician, Walter Block :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, I think I got it. It is wrong for us to point out non-libertarian positions that Rand and Amash believe in, and we should shut our mouth when they support statist policies. But it is perfectly fine for you to criticize fellow Rothbardians because we think you are wrong, and we believe we are helping to move people to Rothbard rather than Rand Paul.

      It seems weird that you believe libertarianism has no leaders, but you get mad at us for laying out all the reasons nobody should view Rand or Amash as a leader of libertarianism. You remind me of all the people who complain about how Rothbard used to take fellow libertarians to task for their deviations from the NAP.

      Delete
    2. "So the problem is more with the non-libertarian people who offend you by calling themselves libertarian and supporting the most libertarian-like Republicans such as Amash/Paul."

      Wrong. The problem is with Amash/Paul being called libertarian.


      "I don't subscribe to the collectivist view that libertarians are 1 group."

      Libertarianism has a definition. It doesn't just mean whatever you want it to mean. Collectivism has nothing to do with it.


      "As an aside we can easily criticize Ron Paul for his non-libertarian positions"

      Ron Paul has a LOT LESS of them than any other politician. And you could actually predict what would be coming out of his mouth. He would NEVER be open to tax-increases or sanctions against Iran. And if he would, it would be justified to call him to task.


      "if certain people choose to partake in the non-libertarian process that is politics, I don't see any value in libertarians attacking those politicians who are significantly more libertarian than their political peers."

      Personally, i don't LIKE being associated with people open to tax increases or sanctions against Iran, and people are still calling them libertarians. So everyone should call them conservatives and the problem is solved. Still wouldn't stop us from criticizing them, though. Because if we pay the grocer and he gives us rotten fruit, we'd criticize him. And Amash/Paul are being paid, so if they give us rotten ideas or votes, we criticize them. Deal with it. If politics is not the answer, why would it be "strategically wrong" to criticize politicians?


      "As such, I do not see the harm if the political world moves from a Republican Party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to one filled with Rand Paul and Justin Amash's."

      You've missed the part where they are moving more towards Bush and Cheney already.


      "it would be a great step forward in the right direction if the US government was filled with all Rand Pauls."

      Which Rand Paul? The one riding the coattails of his dad, or the one he is becoming?


      "Not subscribing to the worldview that there is a specific "liberty movement" that is being diluted by supporting non-libertarians, I don't share the fears most of you here do."

      Liberty is liberty. You either believe in it or you don't. If you support the opposite of it, just to get some scraps that may or may not be coming, then you don't.
      All this apologism. 500000 children died as a result of sanctions against Iraq. Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran. Do you think that half a million dead children is a price worth paying for whatever scraps Rand is willing to throw you? If the answer is yes, stop pretending you're a libertarian.


      "There are a variety of different modes one can take in spreading the ideas of liberty."

      Amash/Paul are co-opting a large chunk of this "movement", and are associating it with things like sanctions and endorsements of warmongers like Romney, and by being open to raising taxes. What does it tell you that Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Rand Paul's vote for the military spending bill? Stop associating these clowns with us. Supporting statism is NOT a "mode" to spread ideas of liberty.


      "My understanding of libertarianism is there is no leader, no group, no central plan. That's the message I'll focus all my resources on spreading."

      You forgot the most important part. That it does have a central principle. Why don't you focus on that message instead? Kind of weird that in spreading that principle, you support modes of aggression to achieve non-aggression.

      Delete
    3. You guys hopefully realize how flawed your argument is by needing to continually lie in every response to my posts.

      I painstakingly laid out why I don't find it efficient to attack the least bad politicians.


      It's really like I'm arguing with a computer program that only recognizes either attack or if/not attack then = supporting!

      Instead of actually addressing my points, and agreeing or disagreeing, responding with the various forms of the lie that I "support modes of aggression to achieve non-aggression."

      demonstrates to me that you are either unable, or unwilling, to actually address what I am saying.

      What a waste of time.


      Delete
    4. Stop playing games. If you were revolted by their openness to state aggression as much as we are, you wouldn't be saying these things. Obviously you think they are more "our kind".

      You don't support "modes of aggression" as a means to more freedom? Then stop complaining about us taking Rand Paul and Justin Amash to the woodshed for using precisely those means, or being open to them. Why are you here complaining about us pointing out their flaws if you are most definitely not open to their "modes"? Why would you want us all to be silent about them using those "modes"?
      Libertarian silence on these jokers is what leads to people believing libertarianism is open to them and their "modes".

      We're not lying about you. We respond to the words you use. Its not our fault if you come across like a hypocrite in cutting them slack while taking us to task. After all, if you are against collectivism and in favor of different modes, why are you in an uproar over OUR mode? Why do you want us to conform to your way of thinking?

      You don't think it is "strategically" wise to point out where the likes of Rand/Amash promote state violence as a possible solution?
      That's your problem because WE DO.

      I should also note that while you claim we are not addressing your points, it is you who is stubbornly not getting ours.

      You don't believe in politics? Then maybe you should spend just as much energy on convincing Paul/Amash apologists that they are not the answer, as you are spending on getting us to shut up about it.

      Delete
    5. I should also note for clarity's sake that i hardly see you address any of my points. Pot and kettle and such.
      You just skip right over them making assertions that i'm "lying" even though you spend a lot of time telling us not to criticize their statist positions.

      Let us take one point to focus on:
      You claim not to think politics is the answer, correct?
      Then why do you believe the following?

      "I painstakingly laid out why I don't find it efficient to attack the least bad politicians."

      If you don't think politics is the answer, what in gods name do you think would be achieved by cutting them slack, pray tell? Either you DO believe politics will help, or you don't.

      You didn't lay anything out painstakingly. Your arguments are poor logically, contradictory (see above) or simply aren't arguments at all, merely opinions.

      Delete
    6. Oh STFU. All you did was painstakingly write a bunch of nonsense without offering a valid reason why we shouldn't point out when people, who Reason magazine calls the next Ron Paul, take positions that go against the NAP. And don't give me this false self-righteousness, either. You want to talk about lies or mischaracterizations, then look at one of your first posts.

      "The only person calling the Republicans you are obsessed with attacking, Justin Amash/Rand Paul, is the EPJ. Yet you are fully aware that they are not libertarian. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/rand-paul-i-am-not-libertarian.html

      If Rand Paul was named Bilbo Baggins and had no relation to Ron Paul the only time you would mention him was to praise him for his good work on certain issues."

      We know that first line is complete and utter BS. It made me think you live in a bubble where you have no idea what is being said about Rand and Amash, and how often they are linked to libertarianism. Effing Reason magazine called Amash a libertarian and the next Ron Paul.

      Then your second sentence is beyond stupid. Unless I'm missing something, doesn't Amash have no relation to Ron Paul?

      I don't give two shits how you go about promoting libertarianism. Do whatever the hell you like. But I see a problem when a lot of the people who supported Ron Paul are now turning against his philosophy, and favoring things like sanctions, $600 billion "defense" spending bills, phony privatization of the TSA, raising taxes, etc.

      You may not see this happening, but I do because I go to sites like the daily Paul to get a feel for what direction the people are heading that have been following Ron Paul. So I'm going to pounce on anybody who is associated with libertarianism, whether that label is correct or not, every single time they deviate from libertarian principles. I'm not afraid of calling non-libertarian positions, non-libertarian. If that ruffles your delicate feathers, good.

      Delete
  13. Robert,

    You keep repeating the same, erroneous "bottom line."

    Your words: "BOTTOM LINE: Politics should only be used to promote libertarian ideas."

    Perhaps you didn't have a chance to hear Ron Paul's interview on NPR about a week ago? The host asked about precisely this question. (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/04/166503624/two-political-mavericks-reflect-on-careers)

    Ron Paul's response to whether libertarian politicians can both promote their philosophy AND get elected to office:

    "PAUL: Absolutely. Because people - even my friends and some of our supporters are sort of split. They say, well, Ron Paul, I love him and, you know, he has a good philosophy and all of this, and we want him to do well, but he doesn't even really want to be president. He wants to just spread ideas. Well, why can't you do both? I mean, the whole thing is, is my measurement of my success and support for these views is, you know, is to get as many votes as possible. So it's not like I was overly principled and didn't care about the votes."

    As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Paul expressly rejects the position you (and many other commenters) have taken on this issue. It's an idea that I've expressed in the comment section on this website. That is, if libertarian politicians are at all effective at communicating their ideas, won't they necessarily get elected at some point? And if so, what's wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your example is Ron Paul, whom did precisely what Robert claims he should have been doing: use politics to promote libertarianism.


      "That is, if libertarian politicians are at all effective at communicating their ideas, won't they necessarily get elected at some point?"

      No. Because the majority have already been thoroughly brainwashed and made dependent. For them, it is easier to let the state fix their issues than to work hard at doing it themselves.
      That's why education and proper upbringing is more important than politics. With politics, you have to appeal to the reptile part of the brain of brainwashed and dependent voters in order to get into the white house.

      The vote Ron Paul got, i think, is as good as it was ever going to get with the current population.

      Delete
  14. Tony,

    I just want to make sure you're disagreeing with Ron Paul's statement. He did NOT use politics just to promote libertarianism. Re-read what he had to say. He said he measured his success, in part, by the number of votes he received. And I say he did a pretty good job at it, what with his 20+ years in Congress.

    I'd love to hear Robert's response to Ron Paul's statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy, you don't seem to get my point.
      He got his votes by promoting libertarianism. His voting record is such that you could legitimately call him a consistent libertarian, with maybe just a few deviations here and there, over the course of a few decades. Being a virtually consistent libertarian is the same as promoting libertarianism in my book. And this is what got him his votes. Not playing "politics", but by being "Dr. No". By being a libertarian. By being anti-war in a club consisting mostly of neocon warmongers. Texas sure seemed to like that. Unfortunately, America as a whole didn't.

      Delete