While reading various blogs and comments, I have noticed that some libertarians are lamenting the "baggage" that Ron Paul carries, namely the racist newsletters that were published under his name. If only he did not have this baggage, some argue, then he would be a much better candidate to advance liberty. I dislike being the bearer of bad news to some of my fellow libertarians, but even if Ron Paul were not associated with racist newsletters, his message would not advance much further than it already is. This is because the racist newsletters are a red herring. What people despise about Ron Paul is his message.
I'll use liberals as an example. While there are some liberals who appreciate Paul's foreign policy, they loathe his views on race, affirmative action, women and gay rights. But what exactly do they not like about Paul's position? He is not a racist who has called for blacks to be re-enlaved nor has he called for women to go back to the kitchen. However, he has argued that the federal government has no right to prevent firms from hiring whomever they want, that private business should be able to serve whomever they want, that abortion should be handled at the State level.
Liberals hate Paul's message because it respects private property and advocates decentralized power. For the liberal, Americans are free to use their property as long as they do so in a manner that does not offend liberals. Thus, a restaurant that does not want to serve blacks or a firm that does not want to hire women or a State that bans abortion is committing a evil that must be rectified by enlighted liberals. But clearly liberals are not going to arm themselves and force the restaurant, the firm, or the voters in States to obey their dictates. They need the Federal Government legitimize their threats of violence against the people who do not obey them. And they know that without the Federal Government some restaurants will not serve blacks, some firms will not hire women, some States will outlaw abortion.
I can make a similar argument using conservatives. Conservatives hate Paul's foreign policy because his foreign policy means that the United States government cannot continue to kill brown Muslims in foreign countries. His desire to end the drug war means that conservatives can no longer control the bodies of their fellow Americans "for their own good". His views State's rights means that some States would legalize abortion.
While Paul's message is gaining ground, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that his message would be better received without his "baggage". There are many people who understand the logical results of Paul's message about liberty. His opponents despise these results. They love the power of the State and they want to control everyone else's lives. And they know that they will not be able to do so if Paul's policies are realized in America.
Well said, and absolutely on target!
Posted by: GunRights4US | January 12, 2012 at 04:52 AM
I fear that the folks will not fully recognize the dangers of liberals and conservatives until they are completely enslaved. Some today know the outcome of the present paradigm but too many are focused only on the NFL or Kim et al to know. When they do awake, it will be too late. What a sage was Pogo!
Posted by: Redman | January 12, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Oh no, more "good" news about our D. C. masters; read and weep for our days seem to be numbered:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/11/the-next-war-on-washingtons-agenda/
Posted by: Redman | January 12, 2012 at 03:03 PM