Wednesday, June 13, 2012

On the Murray Rothbard-Rand Paul Supposed Endorsement Connection

Don't make me laugh.

Jack Hunter is out with a comparison of Murray Rothbard's 1992 endorsement of George H.W. Bush and the current endorsement by Rand Paul of Mitt Romney. Writes Hunter:
...does anyone think that because Murray Rothbard endorsed President George H.W. Bush in ’92, that everything else Rothbard stood for, wrote and believed simply evaporated? Does anyone think Rothbard endorsing Bush represents the be-all-end-all of his political legacy?

That would be absurd. It would be giving too much credence to the mere act of endorsing.
Puhleez. There is a big difference between Rothbard's endorsement and Rand's.

This is how Rothbard started his endorsemnet:
Yes, gulp, I'm down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?

This is how Rothbard ended his endorsement:
A victory for Bush will--at least partly--hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism.

If Rand would have started or ended like this, I would have cheered on his endorsement. He did no such thing. As for Rothbard, as anyone who has studied the man knows, despite being an anarcho-capitalist, he was a political junkie, he couldn't help himself. He loved to take part in the commentary of the game, while always upholding his principles. However, Ron Paul once told me that he did not think Rothbard voted. If this is correct, then I am all for following Rothbard's endorsement and actions. Let's declare that Romney is the least of the two bozos, but let's not vote for either. Jack, Rand, are you guys on board?

21 comments:

  1. Point taken. But the major difference between the two is that Rand will be running VERY soon for POTUS and Rothbard wasn't. So with that said, it's understandable WHY Rand is playing this "cool" with the GOP, for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly. It was annoying me to no end that people were comparing these two endorsements.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So essentially, Rand should have taken all the progress his father made and toss it down the toilet? Do you really not think he consulted with his Dad before he made the endorsement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh! I think that is Wenzel's point there is a difference between Rand's endorsement and Rothbard's and that it is absurd to imply they are similar.

      Delete
  4. Everyone needs to listen to his interview on the Peter Schiff show. I support Rand in his move. He has not lost is prinicples, he just saw how his father wasn't able to do anything in congress and knows to enact change he must play the game. His father changed the minds of Americans allowing those like Rand to get into power. Now individuals like Rand will change the beast in washington from the inside out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Ron Paul was able to change millions of hearts and minds while he was in congress by not playing the game and giving us someone we could believe in. He didn't change DC because it can't be done. Ron knew that this is an intellectual revolution and not a fight for who can control an inherently corrupt institution. Expecting to change DC from the inside is like expecting to change the mafia from the inside. I listened to Rand's interview and I thought he sounded like someone more concerned about his political career than inspiring people to study libertarianism and Austrian economics. I can see why people who believe DC can be changed don't have a problem with Rand, but for the rest of us he seems like a poor choice when there are so many other places we can put our energy to that do a better job at waking up the people. He's great compared to most politicians but he isn't much compared to men like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Robert Wenzel, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Doug French, and on and on.

      Delete
    2. What planet have you been living on?

      Delete
    3. You are worse than clueless.

      Delete
    4. Spot on, Dan!

      Delete
  5. These type of stories are petty and ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ron Paul campaign is putting out silly 'media spin' in order to defend Rand's endorsement and persuade Ron Paul supporters to accept Rand.

      I agree it's petty and ridiculous, but that's Jack Hunter's fault.

      Delete
  6. I kind of think the strategy is: Keep you friends close, and your enemies closer. I don't think for a minute that Rand is selling out. Let's see how he votes, who cares what he says. talk is cheap and so is politics. Actions are what will sway me one way or the other. I will defer to Rand.....for now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rand is without a doubt a net asset for liberty. He has a different approach to politics which may yield more dividends in washington than his father had. He wont inspire people and become some beatified libertarian, but he is definitely on our side and we should support him rather than disparage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hated the endorsement, and it made me feel sick to my stomach. That being said, I don't think Rand has sold out his principles and as long as he votes the same and fights for the same things, the endorsement makes sense in terms of continuing to have influence in the GOP. I hate the timing, I hate that it was on Hannity, I hate all of it. That being said, I get it.

    Of course, the comparison between the Rothbard and Rand endorsements Hunter is making are pretty silly, as they are in completely different contexts and completely different types of endorsements.

    ReplyDelete
  9. West michigan patriot above got it right! HOw can an action be recognized without the analysis of what purpose and via what means. Rothbard (i love him), an anarcho-capitalist, a scholar who could have stuck to his gun instead endorsed the guy albeit in a demeaning way. He obviously had more of an option than Rand does given the (claimed) end Rand wants to achieve and means he has chosen to do it. Question of interest is not how many ways we can bash the guy but instead what may be the means of being principled in politics. Given that we don't live in a fully libertarian society how do we achieve our ends. Perhaps other questions could be about public opinions, how they form and how can they be managed etc etc. Rand bashing without any logical framework is getting a little old. But yes, if he does turn out to be a little snake then many will get to say 'i told you so'. Perhaps Ron Paul's endorsement of Gingrich and John boener needs to be explained as well. Perhaps it was also more lukewarm than Rand's and hence is okay too. Schiff and Tom MUllen interviewed Rand recently - videos on dailypaul.com

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who did Ron Paul vote for as Speaker of the House?

    John Boehner.

    That statist sell out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One should actually read the Rothbard column in question. Rothbard nailed it in his first two points on Bush keeping "his cool and not [getting] American troops or even airmen in a shooting war in the former Yugoslavia" and "Bush has the most even-handed Middle East policy since Jack Kennedy."

    Instead of the more pragmatic Secretary of State James Baker we got Madeleine Albright and a war in Bosnia and more meddling in the Middle East to the tune of half a million dead children due to Iraq sanctions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have to disagree with RW. Jack Hunter is right about the similarity of Rothbard's endorsement. Of course, Bush was not an ideal choice from Rothbard's perspective and he made that quite clear (as Rand did in his Hannity interview as well as in interviews he has done since the endorsement). Nevertheless, the bottom line is he did indeed endorse Bush over Clinton and he explained in detail in his LA Times article his reasons for doing so. His reasons were all serious, and part of a larger argument that Bush would be better than Clinton. It wasn't as RW seems to be implying something that was done on a whim because Rothbard was a "political junkie" (I find it surprising RW who reveres Rothbard would trivialize his politicking like this.) No, Rothbard wasn't simply being a political junkie, he (like Rand) was playing the political game with the larger purpose of advancing the libertarian cause--even if only in a defensive sense. I am sure he found it distasteful, but I believe he felt it necessary. Of course, there is also Rothbard's strong support (and Lew Rockwell's and many other well known libertarian's support) of Pat Buchanan's campaign's in 1992 and 1996. Now, I love PB's stuff in many, many areas, but he wasn't even a libertarian then nor is he now (but he seems to be getting a lot closer of late). Rothbard, Rockwell, and the other libertarians overlooked a lot significant differences because they believed in supporting Buchanan it would advance the cause of liberty overall--and I believe they were right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It reminds me of the leprous old lord from Braveheart, who said that it's noble to compromise and sell out. We don't know for sure that Romney less bad than Obama. He sounds like a horrible war monger. If the left re-elects this monster, then so be it. I live in a blue state anyway so it doesn't even matter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just thought some might enjoy this video of Rothbard, and find some of the follow passages interesting.

    Rothbard on Endorsements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW40TzWcnOA
    “Murray responds to a question regarding his “endorsement” of Johnson over Goldwater in ‘64.

    This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in ‘92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.”

    Also must read section from Lew Rockwell, "Rothbard Vindicated: Idealist and Strategist" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rothbard.html)

    Re: Jack Hunter: “On the one hand, Ron will score points with the GOP establishment if he does; on the other, his legions of fans will be gnashing their teeth.”

    Here I’m reminded on some Ron Paul delegates who went to the RNC in ‘08. They did a deal, and voted for John McCain in an attempt to gain favor with the local GOP, and work with them. I think seeing how that turned out this time round.. makes it clear ‘selling out’ doesn’t “buy much” at all.

    “The effective centrist avoids the pitfalls of “opportunism” by keeping the objective firmly in view, and, in particular, by never acting in a manner, or speaking in a manner, inconsistent with the full libertarian position. In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.”
    ~ Murray N. Rothbard, Confidential Memo to Volker Fund, 1961.

    “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”
    ~ Rand Paul (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1xgs4kDWi)

    ReplyDelete
  15. F... it. I'm voting for Obama. The sooner this house of cards falls down the better. Rand still thinks it can be fixed from within. He's wrong.

    ReplyDelete