The Cult of Ron Paul
While it's taken me many years to learn this, I'm happy that it's finally computed: no one is above criticism, and no one is exempt from scrutiny. In fact, the endless quest of large numbers of people for a messianic leader has historically been one of the greatest threats to liberty. And no -- I'm not just talking about the Obamamaniacs who really believe that Barack can do no wrong. This also applies to many of the folks who have become so enamored with Ron Paul that they can't see the trees for the forest.
I've been a Ron Paul supporter for years. I enthusiastically worked on his 1988 Libertarian Party bid for the White House, and when he declared himself a candidate for president in this election cycle, I was 100% behind him. He's been right about so many things over the years that I'm willing to overlook the few points of disagreement I have with him (mostly involving his religion-based opposition to abortion).
The "Paulistas", on the other hand, are a different story. There is something -- well -- disquieting about people who build a cult of personality around an individual who is promoting individualism, capitalism, and liberty. It's not unheard of though. Were it not for George Washington's unwillingness to be made king, he probably would have been. Many great leaders in the fight for liberty have refused to be made into semi-deities. I always figured Ron would resist the urge as well. Maybe he's just getting bad advice from his staff -- maybe his success has gone to his head a bit. I don't know ....
When he called his press conference a few weeks ago to encourage Americans to abandon the two-party system and support a third party of their choice, I could appreciate his message. It wasn't a bad media stunt, and I certainly can't fault anyone for encouraging people to think beyond the typical democrat-republican / right-left / lesser of two evils mindset.
And if it had stopped there I could have bitten my tongue and lived with it. If there's one thing I've learned over the years is that politics is an endless series of compromises, and I've abandoned the notion that one must be ideologically pure in order to be a good Libertarian. I guess that's why, if Ron wasn't going to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, I can live with Bob Barr. I'd never claim that Bob is the perfect Libertarian. I just met him for the first time a few days ago, and after chatting with him a bit, I'm think he's still discovering some of the nuances of Libertarian thought. But he's doing a reasonable job of promoting a relatively consistent Libertarian message (in many ways it's pretty similar to what Ron has been saying for years), and that's good enough. After all, no one who advocates constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets is going to win the presidency. In a nation divided between those who worship government and those who worship an imaginary man in the sky, liberty is nothing more than a fire a few of us keep burning in the hope that some day it will again be appreciated.
But apparently there's bad blood between Ron and Bob. Maybe it's between Ron's staffers and Bob's staffers. I'm not really sure, and it's a shame that it's come to this. After all, Ron is still a member of the Libertarian Party, and he often embraces the small-l libertarian label. There's no political or ideological reason I'm aware of that the two of them shouldn't be on the same page most of the time. And hence, I'll commit heresy and assert that Ron should have, once the fun in Minnesota was over, endorsed Bob Barr for president and thrown the support of his PAC behind Bob's campaign.
But he didn't. I was, to put it politely, appalled (pardon the pun) to go to the Campaign for Liberty site and discover that Ron had endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. By all means, please to go their website and read what they stand for. While they cloak themselves at times in libertarian-sounding rhetoric, they're really just religionists who want to create their own version of a christian theocracy in America. In many ways, they're just a slightly more superstitious version of George Bush with less socialism on the economic side of things.
But what's really frightening (as though Ron's endorsement of Baldwin isn't frightening enough), is the reaction of the Paulistas. I heartily invite you to read their comments. How can anyone claim to be a supporter of liberty (which includes the notion that one can be non-religious or enjoy a non-traditional lifestyle and still enjoy equal protection under the law) and possibly vote for Baldwin and the CP?? These are the folks who, on their home page, proudly declare that their intention is to "... restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations". But many Paulistas line up, like the microcephalic lemmings they are, and thank Ron for - essentially - telling them what to think.
There's something very, very wrong going on here. Liberty and christianity are inherently opposite concepts. Christianity (much like Judaism) is an authoritarian mindset. Sure, believers try to emphasize the "love" theme, but the bible is replete with reminders that "god" is jealous, vengeful, and unwilling to share the spotlight with anyone else. The believer has a simple choice: knuckle under to the supreme dictator of the universe, or burn for eternity. These authoritarian beliefs are most definitely NOT the foundations of the Constitution (which is a product of the Enlightenment -- and was a definite move away from religiosity), and how Ron can overlook this escapes me.
However, the fact that many of his supporters are willing to let him think for them is even more disturbing. Maybe Napoleon was right when he noted that: “Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.”
I've been a Ron Paul supporter for years. I enthusiastically worked on his 1988 Libertarian Party bid for the White House, and when he declared himself a candidate for president in this election cycle, I was 100% behind him. He's been right about so many things over the years that I'm willing to overlook the few points of disagreement I have with him (mostly involving his religion-based opposition to abortion).
The "Paulistas", on the other hand, are a different story. There is something -- well -- disquieting about people who build a cult of personality around an individual who is promoting individualism, capitalism, and liberty. It's not unheard of though. Were it not for George Washington's unwillingness to be made king, he probably would have been. Many great leaders in the fight for liberty have refused to be made into semi-deities. I always figured Ron would resist the urge as well. Maybe he's just getting bad advice from his staff -- maybe his success has gone to his head a bit. I don't know ....
When he called his press conference a few weeks ago to encourage Americans to abandon the two-party system and support a third party of their choice, I could appreciate his message. It wasn't a bad media stunt, and I certainly can't fault anyone for encouraging people to think beyond the typical democrat-republican / right-left / lesser of two evils mindset.
And if it had stopped there I could have bitten my tongue and lived with it. If there's one thing I've learned over the years is that politics is an endless series of compromises, and I've abandoned the notion that one must be ideologically pure in order to be a good Libertarian. I guess that's why, if Ron wasn't going to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, I can live with Bob Barr. I'd never claim that Bob is the perfect Libertarian. I just met him for the first time a few days ago, and after chatting with him a bit, I'm think he's still discovering some of the nuances of Libertarian thought. But he's doing a reasonable job of promoting a relatively consistent Libertarian message (in many ways it's pretty similar to what Ron has been saying for years), and that's good enough. After all, no one who advocates constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets is going to win the presidency. In a nation divided between those who worship government and those who worship an imaginary man in the sky, liberty is nothing more than a fire a few of us keep burning in the hope that some day it will again be appreciated.
But apparently there's bad blood between Ron and Bob. Maybe it's between Ron's staffers and Bob's staffers. I'm not really sure, and it's a shame that it's come to this. After all, Ron is still a member of the Libertarian Party, and he often embraces the small-l libertarian label. There's no political or ideological reason I'm aware of that the two of them shouldn't be on the same page most of the time. And hence, I'll commit heresy and assert that Ron should have, once the fun in Minnesota was over, endorsed Bob Barr for president and thrown the support of his PAC behind Bob's campaign.
But he didn't. I was, to put it politely, appalled (pardon the pun) to go to the Campaign for Liberty site and discover that Ron had endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. By all means, please to go their website and read what they stand for. While they cloak themselves at times in libertarian-sounding rhetoric, they're really just religionists who want to create their own version of a christian theocracy in America. In many ways, they're just a slightly more superstitious version of George Bush with less socialism on the economic side of things.
But what's really frightening (as though Ron's endorsement of Baldwin isn't frightening enough), is the reaction of the Paulistas. I heartily invite you to read their comments. How can anyone claim to be a supporter of liberty (which includes the notion that one can be non-religious or enjoy a non-traditional lifestyle and still enjoy equal protection under the law) and possibly vote for Baldwin and the CP?? These are the folks who, on their home page, proudly declare that their intention is to "... restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations". But many Paulistas line up, like the microcephalic lemmings they are, and thank Ron for - essentially - telling them what to think.
There's something very, very wrong going on here. Liberty and christianity are inherently opposite concepts. Christianity (much like Judaism) is an authoritarian mindset. Sure, believers try to emphasize the "love" theme, but the bible is replete with reminders that "god" is jealous, vengeful, and unwilling to share the spotlight with anyone else. The believer has a simple choice: knuckle under to the supreme dictator of the universe, or burn for eternity. These authoritarian beliefs are most definitely NOT the foundations of the Constitution (which is a product of the Enlightenment -- and was a definite move away from religiosity), and how Ron can overlook this escapes me.
However, the fact that many of his supporters are willing to let him think for them is even more disturbing. Maybe Napoleon was right when he noted that: “Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.”
posted by DrJDG @ 03:08
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home