"Freedom Shall Not Ring Tonight." --Disillusioned Paul Supporters Prepare to Jump Ship

Posted by Damozel | Should a campaign be known by the company it keeps?  Even though he's wrapped himself up tight in the Constitution, Paul hasn't been able to prevent alarm and despondency among his comparatively sane followers after he showed he was prepared to welcome the white supremacists and conspiracy theorists into his little red white and blue tent. 

Why so squeamish, guys?  Isn't the price of giving you your freedom from "big government" giving those whom you view as nutbars and whackjobs theirs?  Can there ever be such a thing as too high a price to pay for freedom from "government aggression" and "collectivist thinking"? 

And even if you look askance at some of your fellow Paulites, isn't it collectivist thinking to hold this against them as a group or---in the words of a Paul supporter I know---"tar Paul with the same feather"?

Nevertheless, some of Paul's freedom-loving followers have "institutionalized group thinking" to the point of deciding that there are some groups with whom they don't wish to make common cause, thank you very much. 

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values discusses the increasing meltdown of support for Paul among supporters who don't appreciate having to share a candidate with "racists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists."

At first the question was whether Paul was sane. Next the question will be whether anyone who supports Paul is totally sane. Of course simply reading the comments from his strongest supporters who spam the blogosphere already provides a clue on that one. The bottom line is that people want to be certain that the person they vote for as president is sane and rational. Paul seems to go out of his way to encourage doubts. .... I expect an increasing number of libertarians, classical liberals, and paleoconservatives who have considered supporting Paul to realize that association with Ron Paul will act to discredit their views and make it difficult to be taken seriously. Paul can be the candidate of libertarian ideas or can be the candidate of right wing extremists and conspiracy theorists. He cannot be both and it is increasingly clear which path Paul has chosen. (Paul Meltdown Accelerates)

Bithead at Bitsblog---who, amusingly, has the same view of liberalism as I do of libertarianism ("adolescent mindset")---points out that Paul has had time enough already to renounce his association   with the country's many entertaining or scary Mad Hatters.  If he's going to, of course.

The question is, repeatedly of late when Ron Paul was going to denounce the tinfoil crowd led by Master Troofer, Alex Jones.  The answer, apparently is “not very soon”.  

Which is approximately the same time he’ll have my support. The screaming about this has been going on for weeks now, and frankly there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for him not to break that association.  On that basis there’s no reason for any sane individual to support of any longer.  Game over.  (Ron Paul on the Tinfoil show today… again)

Meanwhile---as I learned from Chusid's article--- the libertarians and Libertarians are breaking up with him with varying degrees of disillusionment, pettishness, pathos, and heartfelt sorrow: 

The author of The Liberty Papers, like many an angry girlfriend breaking up with a too-undiscriminating beloved, has had enough of Ron Paul's creepy friends: 

For some more pandering to the Troofers and other conspiracy theorist whackjobs. I’ll listen for anything of note, but as of now, I’m done with Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul campaign has unfortunately become a gathering place for 9/11 “Truther” morons, racists, neo-Nazis, Southern secessionists, fascists, conspiracy theorists, wannabe authoritarians, Birchers, and nativists that I do not want to be associated with..... If a candidate thinks its alright to make common cause with these people, especially one who is running a “principled” campaign on restoring liberty, than I have to question his conscience for aligning with these people at best and question his ability to lead at worst. I’ve come to the conclusion that a Ron Paul candidacy unless he repudiates these people who do not share the belief in liberty, will harm the overall freedom movement by giving the impression to the American people that “freedom” and “liberty” are just code words for fascism, racism, and conspiracy mongering like the “New World Order” and the “North American Union”....  Until then, this classical liberal is not a part of the Ron Paul Revolution.  (Ron Paul Makes Thanksgiving Eve Appearance With Alex Jones)

Publius Endures appears to think that Paul is carrying all this freedom business too far by trying to sell it to people who don't know what it means.  In a poignant cri de coeur entitled Why Ron, Why?, Publius mourns Paul's failure to do what's good for libertarianism.

Ron Paul could either be the best or worst thing to happen to libertarianism in decades. In order for him to be good for libertarianism (and for that matter, the country), he has to either win or, more likely, make people think. Continuing to seek out the support of 9/11 Truthers and nutcases is the surest way to ensure that his appeal remains exceedingly limited and to ensure that libertarianism as a philosophy becomes irreparably associated with these nutcases. In other words- actively seeking out the support of these people hurts both the Paul campaign and the libertarian philosophy more generally, (Why Ron, Why?) 

And makes me laugh out loud with this:

Alas, the personality cult of Ron Paul continues to grow, while the core philosophy of libertarianism becomes less and less important to the "netroots." In his interview with Jay Leno, Rep. Paul pointed out....that while he is personally not perfect, freedom is. Well, now that the Ron Paul movement has started to hit the mainstream, making appeals for money to people who have no understanding of the word "freedom" hurts rather than hinders the freedom message (not to mention the campaign more generally)..

I don't think the problem, "Publius" (if that is your name), is that these people don't understand the word "freedom."   I think they understand it perfectly.  They want to be free to pursue their individual agendas---no matter how looney or dangerous to the community these may be---without hindrance from either the government or a lot earnest libertarians, tax protesters, and free market advocates with golden dollar signs in their eyes.  And anyway, what the hell does it even mean to say that freedom is "perfect"?  The statement doesn't even make sense.  Perfect for whom and in what context?  Perfect when weighed against what other potentially conflicting values?  Perfect under what specific circumstances?

I can't help laughing at the dismay of L/libertarians confronted with the real-world consequences of  their political philosophy.  The author of The Liberty Papers is mightily upset to find himself/herself in the company of  "“Truther” morons, racists, neo-Nazis, Southern secessionists, fascists, conspiracy theorists, wannabe authoritarians, Birchers, and nativists."   Why is that?   After all: Have not morons/racists/neo-Nazis/secessionists/fascists/authoritarians/Birchers/nativists eyes?  Have they not organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?  If you prick them do they not bleed?  If you tickle them do they not laugh?  If you crave freedom, do they not likewise? If you elevate freedom far above any other value (including social justice and the good of the community), you need to accept that you're unleashing the Tinfoil Hatters along with the free market advocates and tax protesters.  If you are fighting for freedom for all, you can't pick and choose who gets to use it.

I remember the days before the ugly intervention of the Democratic party and the Warren Courts unleashed liberalism on everyone and made taxpayers pay to keep a roof over the head of the children of unskilled laborers and ensure they'd have something to eat even if their parents didn't make enough to feed them, unless of course concerned citizens realized that it was in the community's best interests not to create a hungry underclass and tossed them a few charitable crumbs. 

The government stayed out of people's lives then.  There was glorious freedom everywhere.

Allie May, who worked for my parents, was free to leave her children with her sister in her tiny, shack-like house (no one had thought of housing projects, of course) and spend her days babysitting me.  My parents were free to pay her a pittance for her labor (which was still much more generous than most) because the free market prevailed and she was unskilled and if she didn't want the job at those prices, she was free to quit her job and try to find another.  The white taxpayers were free to send their children to excellent well-equipped schools in their own neighborhoods while the black taxpayers---who didn't pay nearly as much----were free to send their children to run-down, barely equipped schools in theirs.

There was no such thing as political correctness or sexual harassment.  People were free not only to be as racist or unhinged as they liked but to apply those views to others in government, in the workplace, in the educational system, or in various positions of responsibility.  There were no, or minimal, repercussions.  A lady in a position of significant responsibility was free to tell a group of six year old children children that Jews (having killed Christ) deserved what Hitler gave them.  The kids who rode my school bus were free to squirt packets of ketchup and mustard on two trembling little black girls who tried to ride it to school one day. The man down the street was free to beat up his stepson every night without repercussions because that was a private family matter in which the state was loth to intervene.  When I was ten, one of my teachers was free to become furious with me and send a note home to my parents when I said that I didn't see anything very wrong about Captain Kirk (I think) kissing Lt. Uhura on Star Trek.

Yep, it was a halcyon time, free of "government aggression" and the excessive and unfair expectation that people within a community owe something to the other people who have to put up with them. Nobody expected society to take care of the poor, sick, homeless, or indigent.  Furthermore, those people knew their place.  They didn't expect to share in the consumerist values of the wealthiest country in the world.  They took whatever charity they got and liked it, or they went without. 

I saw for myself (because I was there) that it was the so-called "Liberals" who mitigated at least some of these injustices by restricting the freedom of some citizens to oppress others and by requiring wealthy Americans to share a small portion of their wealth with people less fortunate.  It is their devotion to social justice which remains the last best hope for the families of those who for whatever reason (including---yes---sheer idleness or indolence) can't rise to the level of industry and productiveness required to survive in our particular type of society.   The system they created is far from perfect; it is clumsy; corrupt, and often unjust; and everything else that any system operated by human beings inevitably becomes.  But is it worse than the alternative?  I assure you, it is not.   

I've seen what the world looked like before the much-reviled "Welfare State" and if these little John Galts think there was any but the most theoretical sort of freedom for certain classes of society, I've got a free market economist to sell them.

In the meantime, since it's Thanksgiving, I'd just like to say:  "Thank you, Jesus, for NOT letting me grow up to be a libertarian nor yet a Libertarian."

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS

Ron Paul On Racism (You Couldn't Make this Stuff Up)

Update:  A Plague of John Galts?  More on "The Ron Paul Wars...."

Ron Paul Wins Maryland Straw Poll -- and Major Media Covered it

GOP Debate: Thompson Skips it, Some Candidates Take Swipes, and Ron Paul Wins it

What liberal media?

Comments

[Mark]

I appreciate the link, and I'll take your criticism like a man.

But the reason I say these people don't understand the word "freedom" is that "freedom" involves not attempting to impose your will on others. Of course, these people want to be free to pursue their own agendas- but so does everyone, yourself included.

The problem is that pursuit of an agenda along the lines of the anti-Semitic Alex Jones is pursuit of an agenda that would make others less free to pursue their agendas is not pursuit of freedom. That's not libertarianism in any way, shape, or form. I would personally have no problem with the Paul campaign if these idiots were just along for the ride; but now that it's clear he is actively pandering to them, it's a different story.

[Bithead]

I think I ought to point out, in all fairness, that I was never one of Ron Paul's supporters. (Someone reading your piece might get the impression that I was. )

[Damozel]

Thanks, Bithead---I'll revise to make this clear.

Mark:

I do see what you mean and I appreciate your point. But I think Paul is right: if you're going to be a true libertarian, you can't interfere with those people until they start actively DOING something to take away freedom from others. You shouldn't reject them because they have views different from your own. You have to affirm the dignity of their status as citizens of a free republic and deal with them as individuals. You have to take them at their own estimate.

After all---till they actually get up to something that inhibits the freedom of someone else----their beliefs are just beliefs. Shouldn't a libertarian maintain that bad beliefs get rooted out in the marketplace of ideas? This is the argument I hear over and over again against so-called "political correctness."

And Paul is right that even extremists are just people like you and me. He probably agrees with them that they shouldn't be compelled by the government to keep their views to themselves. He may even think that in his ideal society, they'd be less dangerous or maybe even see the error of their ways.

I don't believe it. Growing up in a charming and not even all that racist Southern milltown, I never EVER heard anyone admit that he or she was a racist. For example: They weren't racist; they just wanted to be free to have their own children educated with their own kind. I hear that argument even today. In my childhood, it stretched a lot further, to things like not having to sit in the same waiting room while waiting for a doctor. I well remember the consternation of a rural family I once encountered when someone proposed that they use a black funeral home (which was cheaper and the only one they could afford) to prepare the body of their recently deceased father for burial. Evidently they could stomach letting black people bring up their babies, but not letting them handle a corpse. None of it made any sense because it doesn't make any sense. It's not rational and therefore it isn't reachable by reason.

Libertarianism would be the best political philosophy in the world if it worked the way it was supposed to. But it assumes that human error eventually gets corrected by reason. Direct experience has taught me that this is not so.

[Mark]

I don't have a problem with these whackos coming along from the ride. My problem is more that the Paul campaign seems intent on making them the ride. They can support whoever they wish, but when Paul panders to this group of people, it creates a guilt-by-association linkage not only with him, but with small "l" libertarians who support him. As such, people like me are left to disavow any connection with these people and, in the process, the Paul campaign.

I'd say your criticism of libertarianism more generally is fair. I do think that it slightly (and unintentionally) misstates the case for libertarianism (or at least the brand to which I ascribe). I'd love to give a long response, but I'm freaking tired from the brouhaha this whole incident has caused with my ex-"fellow travelers" (well, that and turkey). So, short, short answer: free markets are- on average- more responsive to change than government.

As for your example, I'll say this: the couple's irrational racism is something that libertarianism would accept. In the long run, that couple will wind up paying a steep price for their irrationality because they will (in the long run) be significantly limiting their choices.

My own personal form of libertarianism would hold that racism exists, but is something that cannot be stamped out by force. Instead, the best response to racism is to make racists face the true economic consequences of their decisions. This may or may not eventually eliminate racism, but it will result in the institution of a "racism penalty" for irrational actions. For example, limiting one's choices to white-only businesses will ultimately result in either paying higher prices or getting lower quality goods. In support of this, I would say that it's no coincidence that the most virulently racist areas of this country are, on average, also the areas where you will find the poorest white people.

[Rich Paul]

--- "Of course, these people want to be free to pursue their own agendas- but so does everyone, yourself included."

The difference is that Libertarians want to be able to pursue their agenda, but we do not feel we have a right to impose our agenda on others. Therefore, we may want to see a piece of land preserved ... but feel we do not have the right to force you at gunpoint to pay for it. What can we do? We can buy it ourselves, and preserve it. If we are short on cash, we might turn it into a private park, and let those who benefit from the land pay for it. What we would not do is force people who do not care for this piece of land to pay for it's preservation.

--- "Libertarianism would be the best political philosophy in the world if it worked the way it was supposed to. But it assumes that human error eventually gets corrected by reason. Direct experience has taught me that this is not so."

In the market, human error is corrected by experience, or by lack of resources. Those who make good decisions gain resources. Those who make bad decisions lose resources. The criterion for good or bad decisions is "is this what the public is willing to pay for".

There is no more direct and honest statement of your values than an actual willingness to pull the money out of your own pocket, which you could spend on anything, and spend it on that which you claim to value. This is called putting your money where your mouth is.

My problem with Liberals and Conservatives is that they do not want to put their money where their mouths are. They want to force me, at gunpoint, to put my money where their mouths are. Even if the thing they want to do is a good idea, as soon as they start forcing others to pay for it against their will, it becomes a bad idea.