I never expected that, when Ron Paul for the first time in his career got near enough to the prize to warrant serious background investigation, he would prove to be such a repellent person. Nor that he would be surrounded at all public events by such repellent people. Nor that what we’ve always thought of as “libertarianism” (at least, GOP-factional libertarianism, as distinct from Libertarian-Party libertarianism) would come to be so deeply, inextricably associated with racism and border-hawkishness and paleoconservatism and even, it somehow seems at times, social-religious conservatism! It’s almost like the intellectual-nerd Libertarian Party and the Dumbfuckistani Tea Party turning out to be really the same thing after all! After this, it’s going to take the libertarian movement a long time to live down his campaign and image. Rand Paul had better hide his head from now on, the name is poisoned.
Not for nothing did Paul make the Buffalo Beast’s “50 Most Loathsome Americans of 2011”:
I personally think Ron Paul is a scumbag, but I don’t think his campaign is going to discredit libertarianism. There really isn’t a movement that needs to recover, they have no good name to restore. Most of them will merely say “Tut tut, he wasn’t a real libertarian”, which is similar to their knee jerk reaction whenever one of their arguments gets ripped to shreds.
So Ron Paul goes down in flames. We all knew he would. He got exposed as a racist old coot. We all knew that he was. Some other half-wit will just proclaim himself to be the rightful carrier of the libertarian torch. In the end- who cares? Libertarianism is at best an intellectual curiousity, a fringe movement with zero impact on any policy debate.
This is a “what world do you live in?” OP.
There never was an intellectually respectable libertarian movement, just a fringe of alienated egoists. They have been strengthened and validated by the attention and approval given to the Paul campaign. They will shrug off the accusations of racism just as the entire right-wing has and does, and argue that they are more even-handed in the way they apply their ideology equally to everyone.
The voting patterns so far show that the percentage of votes for Ron Paul go up by an order of magnitude from the 65+ crowd to the under 30 voters. The internet, with its anonymity and tendency toward driving every opinion to an extreme, is a natural home for libertarians. Since the internet will become ever more important in the future, libertarian commentary will increase proportionally.
They will still be a fringe movement for any foreseeable future, because their fundamental premise about government is wrong and most people will always want government to help them, if not anyone else. There doesn’t seem to be any issues that will combine the multitude of libertarian sects into a coherent political movement either.
Even so, libertarianism will emerge from this election immeasurably stronger. Pretty much the opposite of everything you say.
Is Steven Colbert (in character) a libertarian?
No, that’s what it is in the rest of the industrialized democracies – where various forms of socialist and social-democratic ideology, OTOH, are taken quite seriously and represented by electorally relevant parties. But in the U.S., where anything following the “s” word is good for a laugh but only if you like dead-baby jokes, we have actual well-funded libertarian think-tanks, like the Cato Institute, that often get quoted in the mainstream media as if their opinions mattered.
Also, FWIW, the Pew Political Typlogy now considers “Libertarians” numerous enough to warrant their own typology category, comprising 9% of the general public and 10% of registered voters. But I suspect that includes a lot of people who find Paul as embarrassing as anyone else does.
I’m a *. Yeah!
We are all very excited for you.
I think his campaign simply shows that any political movement big enough to have significance is going to have a wide range of people in it, from centrists to extremists. And sometimes the frontmen for those movements are wacky.
But that doesn’t mean that all of the ideas they espouse will disappear. Popular ideas will remain popular despite whoever’s currently pushing them. Ideas, policies, etc don’t remain linked to each other or labels like “libertarian”. Our system of two amorphous party means ideas with any popularity always get absorbed into one or the other. And what “libertarian”, “democratic” and “republican” represent will shift.
So, yes, the “libertarian” label might suffer some, but that doesn’t really matter. Paul is getting enough support that other politicians will pick through his platform and take the ideas they think will get votes. It’s silly to think that his anti-Federal Reserve position can’t be espoused without being racist as well.
It is not silly to think his anti-Federal Reserve position can’t be espoused without being silly.
I’m not.
I’m sure you aren’t, but I appreciate the thought.
Yes, in American politics, black conservatives are a * indeed.
Barack Obama, Christopher Hitchens, and Arianna Huffington are also on the list for killing American enemies, supporting the Iraq War, and for marrying a gay millionaire or something.
And Ron Paul’s extremnism comes from the fact that his support base is ideologically diverse but largely from the extremes of American politics-theonomists, leftist pacifists, paleoconservatives, neo-Nazis, and anarcho capitalists. If Gary Johnson does decently well he might help form a nucleus of a more coherent and less nuttier Libertarian movement.
So, assuming there IS some sort of libertarian movement, they will be totally tainted by the fact that one candidate (who isn’t even running AS a Libertarian, but instead is a Republican candidate) might have racist tendencies? So, if there were Democrats that had or have racist tendencies that will taint all Democrats? Or Republicans who have racist tendencies will taint all Republicans? Or if there were Communists who have or had racist tendencies, that will taint all Communists?
I’d say that if Ron Paul has shown racists tendencies it will taint HIM (or, if you are going to paint with a broad brush, it would taint Republicans, since he’s running as a Republican candidate). Though it seems that folks are eager to jump at yet another ‘let’s bust on the Libertarian movement…eeek, it’s SO scary and threatening we just need to knock it down’ threads.
-XT
If anything, Ron Paul well expand the Libertarian Party. When you only get typically .3% of the vote in presidential elections, it only takes a few people to generate a large increase. If the LP got only 10% or Ron Paul supporters, it would probably triple in size, at least.
It’s when people who hate Andrew Jackson switch message boards, right?
Libertarianism isn’t scary or threatening, it’s just stupid. It’s a pseudo-intellectual skirt for people who really really hate taxes to hide behind. It’s a place for Republicans who don’t want the responsibility for, you know, actually running anything.
IF Ron Paul has shown racist tendencies? He doesn’t taint anything. He’s no more racist than Santorum or Gingrich. The Republican Party teems with racists. Paul is just a bit more overt than say Gingrich, who blows dog whistles such as “food stamp president”.
Will Ron Paul’s candidacy add more constituents to the LP? No. Most of his supporters are misled college students who haven’t researched his despicable history or looked into the folly that is libertarianism. Once he leaves the campaign trail, he’ll fade into the obscurity that he so richly deserves.
This is the best summary analysis of libertarianism I have ever read; just wanted to compliment Exapno Mapcase and highlight this bit in particular.