And yes, that's a serious question.

Ever found a candidate who held all your views, opinions, dispositions and tastes to a "T"?? Me neither.

Right now, across America, Liberal pundits, "intellectuals" and opinion makers are exploring, discussing and comparing the views of various Democratic candidates. At the same time, right or wrong, they also wear their partisanship on their sleeve by bending over backwards to find and/or magnify any fault, real or imagined, of any and all dastardly conservative candidates because, well, THEY'RE NOT LIBERAL! SO THEY'RE EVIL!!! Likewise, while these liberals may quibble amongst themselves about the candidates, it's a given that they still support the general package of these candidates' views over the GOP alternatives. We all know how it goes. It's simple predictable partisan journalism.

The same is happening on the conservative side. Their "intellectuals", pundits and opinion makers are squabbling over the merits of Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Rudy while never passing up a chance to point out that Hillary is Satan. But again, amidst all this grumbling, is there ever much doubt that the general basket of views of any of these guys is still preferable to the Democratic alternative? Of course not.

With Libertarian "Intellectuals", it's different apparently. Over the past few weeks, and yesterday 12/20/07 in particular, I was simply astonished at how impossibly coy, finicky and ridiculously apathetic these people can be.

Over at The Atlantic, Megan McArdle was having a blast with a string of anti-Ron Paul posts. She was criticizing him on monetary policy. But she wasn't just having a thoughtful criticism pow wow, she was totally dismissing his worth as if the general package of his views was totally unacceptable. And she is a LIBERTARIAN. The flurry of posts started with this one where she calls Paul "a lost cause". From there, she just kept the entries coming. She admits that Paul has some positions that she likes, like eminent domain. Gimme a break! Can you be any more coy?? She then misrepresents his views on Monetary Policy by saying he wants a pure Gold Standard (which he doesn't) and says he thinks foreigners are scary and wanna take our stuff. Of course, neither is true but so what?? DEAL BREAKER! whatever. This is the man who wants to lift all Embargos and normalize peace and trade and diplomacy with all nations and who thinks immigrants are unfairly scapegoated because of shortcomings and insecurity in our economy, without which, we'd welcome all immigrants and not care a bit who's coming over the border....but hey! Pesky details!

Now we move on to economist Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution who calls Paul "Anti-Intellectual" and a Conspiracy Theorist. What?! He's probably the only candidate in recent history who could hold a deep conversation in economics with Cowen and he calls him anti-intellectual. His posturing behind Megan's assertions also got him a quite a bit of ire. See the comments. I simply wonder what Cowen must think of every other candidate if he thinks PAUL is anti-intellectual. Sheesh.

And we all remember Steven Horwitz and his critique of Ron Paul for his lack of "cosmopolitan-ness". There's just no pleasing some people.

I guess, all I can say is that I understand some of their misgivings and complaints. But what I find simply shocking is the total apathy and yawing indifference toward the only true Libertarian Candidate in a presidential primary since maybe Grover Cleveland! In most cases, the complaints are valid but minor or innocuous is the larger scheme of things. Would Ron Paul succeed in changing our Monetary System (never mind if it needs reform and it does)? Probably not. But he can try...by all means!

Is he "Anti-Intellectual"? Let's see, he's a doctor, well read in economics from Bastiat to Mises and Rothbard and Hazlitt to Hayek and beyond as well as in political philosophy and history and has authored about 12 books on politics, history, the Constitution, monetary policy and economics. I'd say "NO" with some level of certainty.

Never in my life have I encountered a politician who's as knowledgeable and well read about topics that matter to me as a libertarian. The man quotes Bastiat and Sinclair Lewis on Glen Beck's show the other night and Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist with Austrian School Economics in his educational background, disses him?!? What gives here?

And Horwitz (an AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST)? He chooses to overlook the fact that he agrees with Paul on 95% of the most pressing issues (including his passion and career: Economics) and decides to dismiss him totally on a smattering of social implications and issues, which, aside from abortion, pretty much amount to nothing. He told me he prefers noble abstention. OK.

And Megan? Well, I guess she likes her general libertarian views but doesn't care for generally libertarian candidates. Joining the chorus that kicks Paul around is more fun.

You'd think these people would overjoyed at his candidacy and have a tone more like:

Wow, it's great having a real libertarian giving attention to out general point of view...even though, it must be said, I have a few gripes with him...some serious. But overall, I'm glad to see someone who shares my views on the main and general policy areas of the day.

And I must say, aside from Peter Boettke (not without a disclaimer as to his objections on Paul), I saw next to nothing in the way of any even tepid defense of Ron Paul in these pithy little coy jabs.

Don't get me wrong here, Paul is NOT my ideal candidate...but who really is? For starters, I'm a pro-choice blue stater and don't think federalism is the answer to everything. But it's been like....forever...since a candidate represented my general disposition on the main issues so well. I think that's great: a civil and economic libertarian who prefers peace, free trade and commerce with all with not a whiff of chest beating hawkish bravado or jingoism in sight? DAMN. Close enough!

I generally role my eyes at the crop of candidates every election cycle and hold my nose tightly when I do vote. I find them funny and it makes for good theater. You gotta have a sense of humor about the whole thing after all The thought that I could pull the lever for a flawed libertarian actually makes crack a bit of smile for once....and prominent libertarian bloggers grimacing like he's the most unappealing candidate since Adolf Hitler.

Please understand, I'm not trying to shill for Paul here. But from one libertarian to another and another and another, I can't help but chuckle and shake again as I write these words...why should I even need to say this...to LIBERTARIANS...not somewhat quasi-libertarian-leaning liberals or conservatives...no...plain ol' 100% libertarians!?! You'd think they were criticizing any of the other candidates...or would they prefer Edwards or Huckabee??? Hmmm.

If Paul is unacceptable, what does that say about their opinion of the others?? Or should we even ask?

I'm simply amazed...not angry...just amazed. I'm almost laughing in astonishment.

This doesn't even have to be about Ron Paul. With the libertarian views I have and considering the candidates we always get, I can't set my standards very high. It's pointless. But with those low standards being what they are, any libertarian is going to blow by that low bar and hit the stratosphere with barely any effort. It's not very hard considering the relative choices before us. If and when Paul is out, it'll be back to the same old "pick your poison" election choices as I try to convince myself that one is at least strategically better than the other. But until then, why bash the best we have...or worse...not even care to know his views that well??

As a apt poster from Marginal Revolution said to Dr. Cowen:

Ron Paul beliefs are about as close to Tyler Cowen's philosophy and economics as any serious candidate in the last 50 or 100 years. And that's not enough? I am simply agog.

Thomas Woods had this to say:

"And then fashionable libertarian opinion sniffs at him. Good grief."

So, like I asked at the onset: Are Libertarian Intellectuals Nihilists??