Paul's Speech...

Although I've been harsh with Paul recently, I have to give props to the speech he delivered at the Rally for the Republic Tuesday night. The speech--except for one brief passage-- was bereft of any social conservatism; instead the text was largely grounded in anti-war radical libertarianism. That was the "good" Ron Paul on display. Non-libertarians will scoff at the radical tone of the speech implying the likely future necessity of civil resistance. However, the gestapo tactics employed by the Feds and the paramilitarized cops in St. Paul, Minnesota should give the scoffers pause if they would consider the abhorrent implications of the scope of the police state crackdown in the possible eventuality of a reinstitution of the military draft. Glenn Greenwald reported on the pre-emptive crackdown and arrests by the feds and cops on the eve of the GOP convention. That's because the state spies had long ago infiltrated the protest groups. To be frank, we are likely only one major terrorist attack away from rivaling the Chinese Police State.

However, I would be remiss not to point out that I think Bill Kauffman's speech and Jesse Ventura's speech actually overshadowed Paul's speech.

My beef with the "Campaign for Liberty" is that a libertarian-independent movement cannot coexist or germinate within the confines of the GOP. Yet even I was surprised by the level of venom for the most part displayed by the convention toward the GOP. A Ventura vs McCain debate would be worthy of a pay-per-view telecast. The undercard would be someone informing Barry Goldwater Jr that Lew Rockwell thinks Barry Sr was a Bill Buckley CIA plant installed to eradicate any last remnant of the old right in the GOP.

Who's at best a half libertarian. The main failing of the major parties is that they tend to abandon civil liberties for economic liberties, or vice versa, or in some cases ignore both. Paul's position on Iraq is as good as anyone's, for example, but he still cozies up to the Religious Right way too much for my tastes, and apparently always has. How is he anything more than marginally different than the majority of elected officials?

Another major problem with Paul are some of the people he tends to attract: hard-core theocrats, conspiracy theorists, militia types, tax protestors, "hard currency" zealots that would make make William Jennings Bryan look like a Fed supporter, and other various nutjobs. Even neo-Nazis.

I'm not necessarily saying Paul is any of those things, but he certainly hasn't done much to distance himself from them. Anyone with more than a passing interest in both civil and economic liberties should find that profoundly disturbing. Indeed at age 73, Paul isn't going to be at the head of this thing for too much longer. What will succeed him? More than likely, see above.

I see a repeat of what happened to the Reform Party in the late 90s: factionalization between the extremists and the relative moderates such as Jesse Ventura, eventually resulting in the latter unceremoniously dumping the former, with the end result descending into utter irrelevance.

The fact is the Ron Paul Revolution - intended or not - has become a party for the Black Helicopter and Buchanan Brigade set. If this is truly the future of liberty, we're all in very big trouble indeed.

"Who's at best a half libertarian."

He has said publicly on national television that the ONLY two issues on which he disagrees in principle with the Libertarian Party platform are on abortion and immigration. This statement is fully backed by his legislative and voting record, by his statements on other national t.v. interviews, and by his Presidential Campaign's issue statements. How in the world does this reduce him to being only "half libertarian?" If anything, I would say this makes him at the very least 98% minarchist libertarian. (And his pro-life position can be well argued from a libertarian perspective.)

As for his supposed "cozying up to the religious right," the only issue where this is real true historically is on abortion. And again, he argues his pro-life position from a libertarian perspective.

"The fact is the Ron Paul Revolution - intended or not - has become a party for the Black Helicopter and Buchanan Brigade set. If this is truly the future of liberty, we're all in very big trouble indeed."

It's clear you didn't participate in Ron Paul supporter circles very often, nor have you taken a look at the Ron Paul-endorsed candidates who are running. I have on both counts. I would estimate that about 80% of the Ron Paul crowd are hardcore libertarians, 15% are Buchananite paleoconservatives, and 5% are Naderite leftists. As for the candidates who are running, I can tell you for a fact that B.J. Lawson- who has become the "New Face of the Ron Paul Revolution" by the Campaign for Liberty blog, and who was called "Ron Paul, Jr." by his primary opponent- is NOT a Black Helicopter and Buchanan Brigadeer; after all, I work for him. Pretty much none of the other candidates Dr. Paul has endorsed fit that label, either.

Where this is reality. Whether he meant to or not, Ron Paul really endeared himself to Helen Chenoweth's former constituency here, among other things. Paul got 24 percent here in a late May GOP primary well after McCain's nomination was a foregone conclusion. Idaho was his best primary state, by far. Shortly after, his supporters were largely given credit for electing an ultra-conservative as GOP state chair over the relatively moderate incumbent. That's no coincidence. Are all Ron Paul supporters on the fringe like this? Of course not, but enough of them are to cause concern. That's particularly true around here.

I confess I don't know a lot about B. J. Lawson. There is some good stuff at his web site, and some pretty dodgy stuff too. I like the emphasis on reading the bills and fighting special interests he has, although he's dead wrong on immigration (as is Ron Paul). I hope he's not talking about a wall or a fence to "secure the border," as such is the epitome of a taxpayer boondoggle and consequently about as un-libertarian as one can get.

I received this insight on Lawson from a member of a libertarian Democrat list earlier this week, "I, for one, live in NC-4, and I can't stand BJ Lawson. He's a big supporter of specie as currency, like Ron Paul, which as that humongous money thread has been saying, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He doesn't even fill a void in NC-4, because many of the things he opposes, like the PATRIOT Act, NCLB, and RealID were opposed by Rep. David Price, the incumbent, who gets great ratings from the ACLU, etc. While Price isn't perfect, he's pretty damn good."

I have to agree with this individual on the currency issue. While I certainly have no problem closely scrutinizing the Fed with an eye on reform, making such a fundamental change in the economy as switching to specie is not something to be taken lightly. All in all the issue is pretty low on my priority list.

I'd have to agree Lawson is not as out there as some Paul supporters, but I'd still be quite unlikely to vote for him.

I work for B.J. Lawson. Your comments about him concern me very much, and I would like to address some points.

Firstly, your acquaintance horribly misinformed you about Price's stance on the Patriot Act, the Real ID, and NCLB. Price voted FOR the Patriot Act in 2001 when it came up (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=398), and as recently as a few months ago he defended his vote by saying it was a "temporary measure" and that it "passed overwhelmingly." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAZ_jhqIjA&eurl=http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/) He did vote against the Real ID Act when it came before the House, but afterward, he voted FOR H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill containing it. (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=77) Price also voted FOR NCLB. (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=145) Furthermore, Price also voted FOR the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=993), the "thought crime bill" that reads like a horror story from the McCarthy era. Considering these votes, I'm not sure how in the world your supposed "libertarian" Democrat acquaintance can say something like Price is "pretty damn good" and support him over us. I also don't see how you could say that you probably wouldn't vote for him over Price. H.R. 1955, the Real ID, and the Patriot Act are three of the most destructive bills to our civil liberties in our history.

Secondly, B.J. does NOT support a border fence. He supports building the border patrol. (And, say, having them here in the U.S. rather than in Iraq patrolling their borders.)

Thirdly, B.J. does NOT support a monopolistic specie standard, and he does NOT support just destroying the Fed now. He does support allowing alternate currencies to be used as legal tender and tough reforms of the Fed, such as removing its power to fix interest rates. (Which is what really needs to happen, and how the Fed has its most destructive impact. The vast majority of economists oppose price fixation by the government, so why is price fixation in financial markets a good idea?)

I understand your concerns about his stance on immigration. I'm not with him completely on it, as I do support amnesty (or at least grandfathering current immigrants who entered illegally). But the only two issues on which he disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform are abortion and immigration. He's a good and hugely intelligent guy (and NOT "out there" at all, as you would know if you actually met him) and solidly a libertarian.

Paul helped birth a newer, stronger libertarian movement with his 2008 run. Trying to confine it to the GOP and supporting statists like Don Young is not going to help the movement. I appreciate what he did with the 2008 primary, but he's got to step back now and let others lead where he is not willing to go.

Supporting Ron Paul for the sake of supporting Ron Paul isn't the answer. Fostering libertarian elements in both major parties, as well as among independents, as well as a third party that isn't absolutely freakin' brain dead (something we don't have in this country), are the answers collectively. There is no one single "movement," nor should there be.