Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Ron Paul: the Case Against, Part 2

There are a substantial group of Libertarians who want Libertarians to abandon the Presidential race and support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. A post on Third Party Watch refers to this argument. The core issue: whether or not Ron Paul, as a Republican candidate for President, has "advanced Libertarian ideas" by his greater visibility.

Politics is not about “advancing ideas.” Most libertarian ideas are anathema to those currently in power, those who benefit and benefit heavily from ever-expanding government. These people control both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and they will not yield control of either party unless the party is destroyed beyond all usefulness. Libertarianism can only succeed by electing Libertarians to office against the resistance of the existing elite- and Libertarian support of Ron Paul runs counter to that.

Also: how many bills authored by Ron Paul have been enacted into law? (My guess- 0.) How many Libertarians have been elected thanks to Ron Paul being in Congress? 0- and this is no guess at all. How many votes can Ron Paul deliver in Congress on a consistent basis? Only one- his own.

Ron Paul is a pariah in the Republican Party, whose leadership not only rejects but ridicules his small-government beliefs. Despite this, he has worked consistently over the past decade to recruit liberty-minded people into the GOP. His Presidential campaign deceives voters into thinking that there might be room for people like Ron Paul in the GOP, that he and his views have substantial representation. There isn’t, and they don’t.

Despite all this, there are people who state that Ron Paul, as a Republican, accomplishes more than the Libertarian Party ever can. To these people I say: if you support Ron Paul for President as a Republican, and favor the LP rejecting any Presidential candidate, we may as well disband the party altogether and all get GOP membership cards. Don’t tell me about local races- the GOP exists at the local level too, and it’s vastly more successful in supporting nonpartisan candidates than the LP is. Supporting Ron Paul now is an admission that he’s been right all along- that the LP is, in and of itself, a waste of time.

I reject that argument, and I reject Ron Paul, no matter what party he runs under.


Elwar said...

As a long time member of the Libertarian Party and former LP candidate for the House of Representatives I have to say that Ron Paul's presidency would be the best thing for liberty that has happened to this country since the signing of the Constitution.

It doesn't matter the name or party or anything else as long as the principles are the same. Ron Paul has demonstrated that he is true to those libertarian principles.

I didn't run for Congress because I wanted to be in Congress, I wanted someone with libertarian principles in that seat. If anyone else would've volunteered to run I would have gladly supported them. If a Republican or Democrat would have run on the same principles as myself (and had the record to show that they were true to those principles) I would have said, vote for them, don't split your vote by voting for me.

Ron Paul has been a friend to the Libertarian Party for years, he does not ignore them, he does not downplay his candidacy as the LP presidential candidate. He tells it like it is, if he were a third party candidate he wouldn't be getting the exposure he is now.

The amount of grassroots support for Ron Paul after his appearance in the debates is the same support that would have come if a Libertarian were finally allowed into the debates. Something the LP has worked on for decades but has never had happen.

If the LP runs a candidate against Ron Paul they are shooting themselves in the foot and will most certainly lose many members. They will prove that they believe more in keeping their "party" over bringing true liberty to the people.

Kris Overstreet said...

Elwar: Ron Paul supports the party of George W. Bush, of Alberto Gonzales, of Donald Rumsfeld, of Tom DeLay, of Jack Abramoff, of Ted Stevens, etc. etc. etc.

Tell me again how supporting Ron Paul supports liberty?