Apparently, I am uncharacteristically verbose today.
I tried to add this comment to a Kippy post, but it bounced back at me with an automated bitch that I used too many damn words. :) So I'm posting it here instead.
I have for the most part been spared any meaningful bombardment by the Paulbearers, despite my several unflattering blogposts about their icon.
Part of the reason for that might be that your posts confuse us. Your arguments against Ron Paul seem to be directed at a face-to-face matchup in the general election of Ron Paul versus the Libertarian winner.
In short, you're fighting a fight that it's not time to fight yet.
Dr. Paul and the Libertarian nominee (whoever that might be) are still in the primaries and are not competing against each other yet. And yet your arguments go along the lines of "You shouldn't vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because he's not as consistently Libertarian as the Libertarian candidate . . ."
Those arguments would have some OOMPH in the general election, but Dr. Paul has to win the primaries first for those arguments to be relevant.
What does voting in the Libertarian primary get us? Another Libertarian, any of whom many of us will vote for in the fall should Dr. Paul lose the Republican primary.
So the question becomes, why not vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?
posted by The Last American at 10:23:00 AM
View blog reactions
3 Comments:
"So the question becomes, why not vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?"
Besides the fact that I, as an independent, can't vote in New York primaries?
I am opposed to Ron Paul because he is not a libertarian. His positions on the totality of the issues do not, in toto, please me.
I am not opposed to Roe. I am (obviously) not opposed to gay rights. I am not in favor of allowing states and schools districts to vote themselves into theocracy. I am not opposed to "activist judges." I reject the notion of "states rights." I reject the gold standard. And so on.
These are all Paul positions to which I am strenuously opposed. "Anti-war" and "anti-pork" are not enough for me.
For more, see here.
Most of those points would either be moot with the kind of drastically reduced government Paul proposes or (as in the case of the gold standard) are points where Paul is actually more libertarian than Kip. I have not actually heard Ron Paul use the misnomer "states rights", but arguing that the federal government should wield extraconstitutional powers because you don't like the semantics of how someone opposes it is counterproductive.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and a federalist (technically, an anti-federalist since we're worried more about semantics than results). In net those are both positions that massively increase liberty compared to the status quo. That Paul willingly takes on the mantle of "libertarian" and is bringing individual freedom back into the GOP and national discourse is a bonus.
I suspect that, ultimately, the real issue is his not supporting gay marriage. Disagreeing with him on that or any of the other issues is fine. But including support for the gold standard and opposition to the federal government exercising powers that do not belong to it under the Constitution in the litany of "why he's not libertarian" is risible. I'd be much less inclined to argue, though at this point I've given it up for the most part anyway, if Kip were to forego "Why Ron Paul isn't libertarian" in favor of "Why I don't like Ron Paul." The whole libertarian credential thing smacks too much of "Nathaniel Brandon is no longer associated with me or my philosophy."
That Paul willingly takes on the mantle of "libertarian"
The word "libertarian" appears nowhere on Ron Paul's website. neither, incidentally, does the numeral 1988. Go figure.
This is not a question of "Rand-Branden purity." It's a question of not being wilfully oblivious to plain facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home