Ron Paul was perhaps the most interesting candidate from either party. A libertarian, his positions on the economy, the war in Iraq and the role of the government were refreshingly different from everyone else’s. He advocates a minimal government, abolition of most subsidies, immediate withdrawal from the war, repeal of the Patriot Act and legalization of victimless crimes like drug possession and prostitution, all positions that I strongly support. However, some of his other propositions were baffling. His prescriptions relating to monetary control (he would abolish the Federal reserve and return to the Gold Standard) and foreign policy (he wants the US to withdraw from international organizations and treaties) were isolationist and potentially disastrous. On the important issues of immigration (where he takes a highly nativist stance) and abortion, I was disturbed by his stands, which are a complete anti-thesis of the libertarian philosophy. However, despite these major differences, Ron Paul probably came closer to representing my political and personal ideology than any other presidential contender.
Yet, I never really went crazy over his candidature. Of course, I supported him, but it was a qualified support, not an enthusiastic embrace. Part of it had to do with the policy differences quoted above but the rest had to do with the man. I didn’t think he was the right man for the job. He was simply not presidential enough. He seemed more an angry uncle than a statesman who could convince a country of the value of individual freedom. Besides, some of his supporters and associates were obvious bigots and I wasn’t sure how these associations would play out in the long run. To put it bluntly, I was afraid that his candidature may do the cause of libertarianism more harm than good. I was also disturbed by his strange practice of voting ‘no’ to bills that improved upon the present scenario, but didn’t quite realise his ideals of perfection. That struck me as revealing a certain unreasonable aspect of his personality that was quite incompatible with the demands of the job he was aspiring for. Still, I was willing to overlook these deficiencies … till that fateful day when the newsletter scandal broke in the New Republic. That was the day when he lost the support of most of the sane world.
But this post is not really about Ronald Ernest Paul and his failed presidential bid. It is about his campaign and his support – the effect they had and the truths they revealed. That, to me, was the most uplifting aspect of the entire episode and Ron Paul’s greatest gift to us.
The Ron Paul campaign, while it lasted, wasn’t just a movement, it was a revolution. From Montana to Texas, California to Maine, his supporters were a passionate, galvanised bunch, overwhelming the message boards with their opinions, marching on streets in support of their leader, waving signs that screamed “Ron Paul cured my apathy.” With a few exceptions, they were all young, internet-savvy, and deeply committed to the cause of libertarianism. Occasionally they were loud and boorish – many a blogger has been inundated with hate-mail from passionate Paulites for daring to criticize Paul. But without a doubt, most of them were sincere to the core. This was a grassroots campiagn if there ever was one. Paul’s level of support in the opinion polls never crossed 10% of the general population but it was impossible to realise that by scouring the internet. Unlike the major candidates, Paul had little backing from the mainstream media or big businesses, yet his legions of small supporters raised incredible amounts of money, including $6 million on a single december sunday, an all-time American record.
And that brings me to my point. What could have electrified these young people, ‘cured their apathy’ in their own words? Paul, while intelligent and sincere, wasn’t the most charismatic candidate nor the best speaker around. In fact, as I’ve noted, some of his policy offerings didn’t even make sense. If he could galvanise all these young people who had never before cared about politics, they must have been attracted to the message, not the messager. And Ron Paul’s central message was liberty. Fiscal discipline. Non-encroachment into others’ lives or money without their consent. Live and let live.
In other words, libertarianism is not just alive and well, but in fact strikes a deep chord with those of the facebook generation. It is just waiting to be tapped into by a serious, inspirational candidate with a real chance of winning. That is perhaps the best news that we will learn out of election 2008.
[...] Thoughts on some Presidential contenders II: Ron Paul [...]
Thank you for the comment and glad to make your acquaintance. I did not know of this conversation before, so thank you once again. I have been trying hard to get a copy of Harris’s “The End of Faith” for a long time but it seems I’ll be able to do so only when I shift base to the US.
Karthik
[...] Also read my old post on the Ron Paul campaign. [...]
[...] 22, 2008 by Abhishek I have never been a hardcore Ron Paul fan. Nonetheless, I found the video below touching, not just because it reminded me that I have much [...]
its interesting that libertarians find his stance on monetary policy and foreign interference to be weird.
its kind of hypocritical when you think it through.
monetary policy is the bedrock of economic freedom.one cannot be libertarian and at the same time espouse monetary control in the hands of the govt. ron paul doesnt say that “gold standard” in the historical sense is what he recommends. he says free banking and competing currencies are some of the ways to go forward. take away the fed’s ability to monopolize money supply and you’ll see stable money back .
similarly for a libertarian nation to tell other nations how to lead their lives is absolutely in opposition to the live and let live principles of liberty.the US is hated in most countries because of their big brother bullying presence rather than for their prosperity.nobody attacks or hates canada or switzerland . right?
non interventionist is not isolationist.ron paul wants free trade and friendship with every nation -no tag-teams or lobbies.
monetary policy and foreign policy are the number 1 and 2 items on RP’s agenda ,so if somebody doesnt agree with them, the rest of it is not really the meat
Dsylexic: Ron Paul’s foreign policy does not simply include non-interference in other countries’ affairs (something I broadly agree with) but also an extreme kind of ‘isolationism’ including withdrawing from trade-treaties and global organizations. It is this aspect that I disagree with, particularly in the modern world, where things are extremely ‘connected’. Related to this is Ron Paul’s immigration policy, which is extremely nativist, and non-libertarian.
Regarding monetary policy, I see where he is coming from, but I’d still consider it naive. RP is not an economist, and it shows in some of his utterances.
abshishek:
you have to understand where he is coming from @withdrawin from UN /NATO/NAFTA etc. These are bureaucracies that have mainly served the interests of big corporations while paying lip service to free trade.Free unilateral trade with every nation is what he is advocating to replace them with.
The UN has no particular achievement in the promotion of liberty or justice. It is a big thundering bureaucracy -a puppet to powers that be. It had no role in dismantling the cold war.It has helped foster corruption in asia and african nations in the name of aid.There have been ofcourse some successes,but the world would be better of without big bureaucrats- a basic premise of libertarianism. Trade treaties are not free trade,but “managed trade” for big oil,big auto,big pharma .If they were really about free trade ,there would be one sentence agreement” we agree to free trade”,instead there are thousands of pages of bureaucratic give and take.it is rigged trade.
RP may not be an economist,but his economic arguments are a thousand times more robust than any congressman or politician in the US today.Economics isnt just about exotic hypothetical discussions in the rarefied atmosphere of Princeton or Chicago.- real life austrian business cycle theorists and practitioners like peter schiff,marc faber,jim rogers have been wildly successful and their predictions have invariably been on the money.there is ofcourse professional jealousy amongst the friedmanites,keynesians towards the austrian school .matter of fact neither of these 2 schools had any prediction made towards the current credit crisis.austrians clearly won that round.
and friedmanites like bernanke are handling the situation in true helicopter dollar dropping style.austrian conclusion is that this will only prolong the pain.friedmanites say that this will alleviate the crisis.we shall see.
immigration: ron paul is for true immigration reform.he is against there being stupid quotas for immigrants. he wants immigration rules to be enforce currently since lots of illegal immigrants migrate to the US mainly for the welfare state measures which are funded by taxpayers.this is obviously unacceptable. as a libertarian,he wants to end the welfare state and then allow free immigration -since the perverse incentives of immigration would then be nonexistent.
Dsylexic: I disagree. First off, most institutions are not perfect, however the decision of whether or not to continue with them must be weighed against the alternative. To simply refuse to support something because it is not perfect, when the alternative is even worse, is irrational.
Consider the free trade treaties from a historical perspective. The global economy was mostly closed earlier, free trade was virtually non-existent. These treaties have made possible the globalization we see today and are to a great extent responsible for the improvement of living standards in much of the world. You are right that these treaties often favor corporations. You are right that there are better alternatives. However, getting rid of these treaties will not result in the libertopia you seem to vision. If Ron Paul’s plans of withdrawing from these treaties come to fruitition, what’s goonna happen is a retreat to the closed economies of the past. It will result in less freedom, not more.
Regarding the gold standard and monetary policy, let me say that I have a lot of respect for the Austrian school of economics. However, the fact that the Fed has bungled is not proof that getting rid of it and returning to the gold standard would be better. Once again it is a problem of alternatives; simply pointing out the flaws in a particular institution does not imply that the absence of the instituion will make things better. Many economists, including libertarian leaning ones from the Chicago school, have studied the issue of money, and I do not think that this present crisis discredits all their work. Economics is a complicated science and while I agree a lot of things need to change, especially in the direction of less regulation, I am not convinced that Ron Paul’s prescriptions will bring about the desired results.
Lastly, let me deal with immigration. Here is where Ron Paul is on weakest ground and where no argument can justify his blatantly anti-liberty policy. My views on the matter are best expressed by Ilya Somin in this post, where he writes:
Ron Paul’s policies are not true immigration reform. They are the very opposite — the essence of the worst of the right on this issue.
I dont know who Ilya Simon is and how could he/she speak for Ron Paul. My own views are from Ron Paul’s website -and his congressional website. I would rather believe what I read in his own words.
“The global economy was mostly closed earlier, free trade was virtually non-existent. ”
Are you sure?.Free trade flourished in the ancient world.India used to be the hub of trade -Indian gems,silk,ideas flew freely from India to Arabia to Europe.Technology makes it easier.
The UN didnt create railroads or the internet -innovation did.You are giving credit to the wrong entity.
There is nothing libertarian abou the Chicago school -they want the fed to do the redistribution of wealth -instead of using the govt to do so like the Keynesians.
Like Hayek said to Friedman ‘ Dr Friedman should first decide whether he wants to plan”. and we are seeing his acolytes @the Fed carrying out his plans.
economics is not a science.it is a social science.using math to model human action is absurd.
in anycase,time will tell if bernanke’s credit inflation will solve the credit crisis.austrians predict the end of all credit inflation to be the debasement and final death of the currency. ie end of dollar .we’ll have to wait and see why the austrians are gonna be wrong given that they have been proven correct so far.
its incorrect to say that they merely point out flaws. advocating competing currencies in the true libertarian tradition is a viable and proven alternative.
classical liberals have too many false friends,thats for sure
Dsylexic:
My disagreements with RP on monetary policy are not ideological, simply pragmatic. He does not understand economics well enough and his prescriptions are not going to work. I disagreee completely with your characterisation of economics and its use of math. Nonetheless, I am not claiming that RP’s position on this issue is anti-liberty (as I do claim on immigration, for instance) but that it is simply naive.
On free trade, it is not true that the ancient world was a hub of free trade. Governments (and kings) exercised tremendous control (and taxes) on the matter, at least whenever they had power. More importantly, much of the world wasn’t a part of this trade. As centuries passed and governments gained power, the situation worsened. By the middle of the last millenia, most countries subscribed to mercantilist views that domestic industries should be protected from import competition. The situation started changing with the publication of Adam Smith’s “The wealth of nations”. Nonetheless, nativist and protectionist views prevented free trade from truly becoming a global phenomenon.The free trade treaties have done a lot to alleviate that. Ron Paul’s views on this matter is that these gains be overturned for a hypothetical perfection. But that is not how the world operates! Progress is usually incremental. Withdrawing from trade agreements and international organizations would be a huge step in the wrong direction. You are right that it is innovation, not the UN , that is responsible for the great achievements of man. Nonetheless, this innovation was greatly facilitated by free trade, global cooperation, low taxes/tariffs and open immigration, whioch are all political decisions, and much of which will be overturned if RP has his way.
Regarding immigration, you claim that you would rather believe Paul’s own words. How about this, then?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
He wants to expand government control on borders in order to reduce immigration. In his own words:
He has never mentioned a word about “free immigration”, on the contrary, he has expressed the view that there is too much immigration.
As I mentioned in my post, I admire Paul’s position on many matters. But there are some issues, especially the above ones and abortion, and some decisions, especially his decision to endorse the Constitution Party candidate, where I am deeply disappointed with his stand.
Hey Abhishek,
Back in october you stated that Ron Paul doesn’t know enough about economics. How stupid do you feel right about now? seeing as how everything Ron Paul predicted is coming to fruition. Ron Paul is so much smarter than you or anyone in congress with regards to the economy. He studies the proper form of economics, the Austrian style not this bullshit Keynesian style we are all being taught in every college across America. Our schools have been co-opted by the globalist and have reduced them to nothing more than an indoctrination process to accept the ever increasing shitty jobs as all our desirable jobs are farmed out to India and the Philippines. You talk down to people in here as if you have a crystal ball, you need to learn a little humility my friend. Please admit that you were wrong in your evaluation of the good Doctor and be on your way.