Ron Paul’s Revised Legacy
Given The Crossed Pond’s somewhat unusual history vis-à-vis Ron Paul, in that we held a rather startling diversity of opinion as to his merit as a presidential candidate and as a libertarian torch bearer, and that we both praised and critiqued his views, policies, and history extensively, it is appropriate that we examine that legacy in light of Paul’s endorsement of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
On the pro-Ron Paul side, we varied in opinion from enthusiastic endorsement to heavy criticism, but with that criticism tempered by an appreciation for his contribution to the GOP primary, his consistent anti-war stance, and his unabashed opposition to the Bush administration’s “unitary executive” abuses. Our critique focused heavily on his social conservative record, widely varied civil liberties positions, fringe economic views, and association with some truly loony or heinous constituencies. As McCain solidified the nomination, our Ron Paul coverage trickled out on the sour note of his controversial newsletters, and the possibility of channeling some of the Ron Paul campaign’s energy and supporters into a renewed Constitutionalist libertarian movement or organization.
And so this is a disheartening development. Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin is a disastrous, petulant, ill-considered act that taints his legacy and hinders any positive impact he might provide for the libertarian movement. He has, in either a fit of pique or a conscious revealing of his actual leanings, endorsed a true horror show. Rather than allow the slow healing of the libertarian rift by endorsing the odd and politically bumbling, but at least defensibly libertarian candidate Bob Barr, he has reopened the wounds by endorsing a “loopy ‘America is a Christian nation’ paleo-conservative” Rather than signal his continued opposition to the GOP foreign policy and economic agenda as well as rejection of fringe element mediocre candidates by remaining out of the endorsement business altogether, he has stated his support for a “Theocratic Homophobic Lunatic for President.” Rather than retain some semblance of legitimacy as a libertarian elder statesman and an alternative rallying point for a GOP opposition element in Congress, he has lessoned his cross cultural appeal and potential political leadership by endorsing a candidate with this abortion for a party platform.
Kip Esquire highlights the low lights:
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. … The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. … We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.
The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.
We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.
We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.
We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
I can’t fully express my disappointment. I can’t even parse that horrific platform. I take exception to some of the “in your face” crowing and hyperbole going on at some of my favorite libertarian blogs, but I won’t even address those misgivings in this post so as not to defensively dilute my disgust. What a waste.
It’s a damned shame. But one of the benefits of being a Ron Paul supporter is that you’re not expected to march in lockstep, on this or any other matter. I think this is the bit that is being missed by all of the “end of the Ron Paul movement” posts this week.
We’re not Bushies or Kos Dems or anything of the sort. We’re individualists who bond together on issues of mutual concern. So: bad choice, Dr. Paul; and we’ll see you again on the other side of the election, working together for greater liberty.
Comment by Rojas — 9/24/2008 @ 11:04 pm
I’m glad you’re back Jack.
Honest to God, I spent all day mulling over writing exactly this post.
Look, nobody can accuse me of being a fair weather Paul fan. I’ve expressed my share of disappointment—some curious electoral strategies, the bizarro anti-immigrant crap that popped up out of left field in New Hampshire, the newsletters, etc. But I’ve also roundly believed a few things. That Ron himself is a genuinely good person. That his movement is one genuinely borne of almost entirely exactly what it’s advertised to be borne of. That the associations don’t matter (and, in truth, I still believe, including, weirdly, with the Constitution party, which I’ll get to in a sec). This is the first time though that I’ve really believed Ron has, more or less, proved his critics right. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that whatever hopes we had last winter for where this campaign might go in the long run aren’t going to be borne out. I can’t quibble with a word of this:
Now, associations first. I actually don’t fault Paul all that much for the Baldwin association, or even advocacy for Baldwin. Left-libertarians will never like it, or his association with Alex Jones, but then again, right-libertarians (Barr, for instance) viewed his cozying up to Nader or McKinney as entirely unacceptable. I don’t see the difference between those two associations, save the perspective of the individual viewer, or how you can accept one without the other.
And I’ll even put in a bit for the Constitution Party. Yes, they are Christianists in all senses of the words. But their policy stances are not substantively different, in that respect, from, say, Huckabee supporters. Where they DO differ is, outside of the morality realm, they are full-throated and fearless critics of the full array of other statist policies. They have balls, they have beliefs, I can respect that, even if I won’t vote for it.
To put that another way, we already have plenty of Roy Moore Christianist types in the Republican Party. I can’t hardly say that I wouldn’t prefer if more of them were also anti-war and pro-separation of powers and federalization.
No, the failure on the grounds of purity to the liberty ideal doesn’t bother me, because the truth is, I don’t think that was ever, truly, the organizing principle. The movement became as much civic as ideological—there was a reason liberal Kucinich hippies, 911 Alex Jonsian Truthers, and Constitution Party Christianists got along just fine under the Ron Paul banner (and, of course, a great bulk of more respectable types; it wasn’t all, or even primarily, kooks). It became, really, more about revolution than restoration (contrary to a great old Rojas post)—and in a good way, because, for those of us of my bent, a revolution (at least part metaphorical) isn’t entirely uncalled for.
What disappoints me is the comprehensive failure on the grounds of making a movement.
In that sense, I agree with David Weigel:
It’s simply become impossible to deny: the Campaign for Liberty has become far, far less interested in actually promoting a liberty agenda than it has in attempting to self-indulgently cultivate a cult of (minor) celebrity. The Rally for the Republic was great—I wish I could have been there—and entirely justified. There needed to be a bookend there. But what happened to taking the campaign beyond Paul himself? Between the book deals, the self-indulgent media appearances, the Lew Rockwell-esque blogging, the Don Young style endorsements, and then the almost comically small-ball backbiting and elbow-throwing, who, really, are they trying to reach here? If they were genuinely interested in expanding out to create a broad coalition, to support liberty candidates, and to move a new liberty movement beyond this cycle, there are many, many possible ways to do it. Instead, at every turn, they’re squandering it.
What are they doing for other candidates? If I had my way, since roughly April, they’d have turned the whole machine over to a new Freedom Candidate very month. B.J. Lawson month, Tom Allen month, whatever. They would go to bat to get more of Ron’s ilk in Congress. They would actually put muscle beyond the scattered and disorganized talk. But they haven’t, at all. Instead, they held a worthless “historic” press conference, and then got baited by the LP nominee into a clash of personalities. Which is ridiculous, because you’re Ron Paul, and he’s the LP nominee. Who really gives a shit, outside of those two insular circles? What are you trying to prove?
There was an incredible opportunity here to start a genuine movement. But with a combination of self-indulgence, mismanagement, and too many small fish cooks in a big pond swinging their dicks (the return of the mixed metaphors), they’ve managed to fuck it up, such that I don’t believe it’ll substantively carry over out of this cycle (though I take Rojas’ optimism above, and share it, if only in an ephemeral, unformed way). I think what Ron has accomplished is activating a new generation of liberty advocates, of all stripes (and their diversity is a strength, not a weakness). But what they have utterly failed to accomplish in their pivoting away from the primary is in creating some unifying banner, or a one-stop liberty movement voice, or even a singular, concerted push. Frankly, where they’ve failed is in showing leadership beyond the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. And that’s a damn, damn shame.
Comment by Brad — 9/24/2008 @ 11:13 pm
How in the name of the wide world of sports do you right that many cogent sentences that fast? Seriously. I will respond tomorrow when the scotch has worn off. I am glad to be back as well.
Comment by Jack — 9/24/2008 @ 11:29 pm
I type 100 wpm and prefer not to think too much as I do it.
Plus, I had to get that off my chest. Like I said, I’ve been chewing it over the last few days and it’s increasingly been leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
Comment by Brad — 9/24/2008 @ 11:36 pm
Thanks for the linkage. =)
Comment by KipEsquire — 9/25/2008 @ 12:16 am
Linkage? Fuck that, I want to see an entire “stated differently” “Kip’s Law of central planners” “Is it the proper function of government” Kipesquian post regarding the re-evaluation by historically Ron Paul sympathetic blogs in the wake of the Baldwin endorsement. Also: as a born and raised Floridian, thanks for this: http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/09/linkfest-gay-adoption-update/ Because its my birthday, and this kind of post beats a new tie or cologne.
Comment by Jack — 9/25/2008 @ 12:29 am
Before you get too triumphmentalist, Kip and Jack, I think I could make a swell argument that Ron Paul, despite his faults and this unfortunate ending in a whisper, did more to mainstream libertarian ideals in the two party system than any left-libertarian has ever come close to managing.
Unless you care to argue that Paul’s historical legacy will be majoritarian neo-confederate theocratism, an argument I’d be more than happy to join.
Paul’s divergence here is disappointing for its missed opportunity, not for its legitimizing the Constitution Party (which, A. would not be a terrible thing for any candidate of the outside-the-two-party-system stripe, but B. isn’t going to be the take-away of the Paul legacy in any event, save for among his left-libertarian critics).
One could argue, certainly, that Paul’s run further added to the notion that libertarian = kookiness, and that’s a more even argument, but given the complete absence of any alternatives even approaching libertarianism this cycle, and given the, even you would have to admit, surprising success of Paul in creating a libertarian-leaning movement in the context of a two-party primary (and, as Rojas points out, with the added benefit of nothing really approaching dogmatic orthodoxy regarding his biggest faults), I’m willing to throw down there too.
Unless you hold the belief that doing nothing would have been preferable to Paul. Though I’d ask there how doing nothing has been working out for libertarianism so far.
I think it’s, at this point, nigh on undeniable that Ron Paul has been the most effective mainstreamer of libertarianism in a generation at least. I also believe he’s squandered the opportunity to take that farther, to take that, himself, out of this cycle. But the two positions, make no mistake, are not mutually exclusive.
Comment by Brad — 9/25/2008 @ 1:00 am
The Libertarian component of the Ron Paul support were surely already used to disappointment, backbiting and factionalism.
Anyhow. I wondered a while back about what the Ron Paul movement should become, after Brad had linked his own plans, and expressed the desire that it shouldn’t be about Paul:
My bottom line was this:
I think that there was no real hope of disentangling the movement from Paul so soon, so what he’s done with the Baldwin nomination is inevitably bad for that movement even if Paul was going to fade out soonish. Even making an official endorsement at all is problematic given that the movement has yet perhaps to work out what it really is about (except I think that most of them know that they’re not about Chuck Baldwin).
Comment by Adam — 9/25/2008 @ 9:26 am
Are you kidding? This is Ron Paul finest moment. He called this fiscal crisis in spades and looks like a prophet.
You really get hung up on the social issues, Jack. You have to make trade-offs.
Comment by daveg — 9/26/2008 @ 12:46 am
I think you’re referring to a different moment than this thread is about, daveg.
Again, legacies are more complicated than any one thing, and this movement is about more than obeying every instruction Ron Paul gives.
The fact that we don’t march in lockstep makes us less effective than we might be in some ways; but it also insulates us from the failings of any one leadership figure. We can appreciate what is best in Ron Paul without excusing what is worst. The Show Will Go On.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 12:49 am
daveg,
Would it not be more accurate, or at least more constructive to say “but then you emphasize social issues more than I” rather than that I get hung up on them? The latter is pretty dismissive of issues about which I care greatly.
My post was about Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin, and the negative impact this will have on his legacy. I felt the post particularly relevant in light of TCP’s history with RP. It was not a post about the financial crisis and bailout. You might have noticed there are already one or two TCP posts about that subject, but if you missed them, I would be happy to point you in the right direction. Further, on one of my crisis/bailout posts, I included a link to Ron Paul’s relevant article on CNN, and clearly indicated it was good to see them give him that prominence. By contrast, we had not posted or discussed at any length RP’s endorsement of Baldwin.
I never know whether you care so little about social/culture war issues such that you are always willing to manufacture apologies when one of your preferred libertarian/paleo-conservatives blunders, or whether you actively support the positions of people like Baldwin. The former is merely disappointing, the latter quite ugly. Ron Paul endorsed this cretin. He lent his moral authority, his patronage, his name to the positions of The Constitution Party candidate. It is more than appropriate that we discuss it on this blog.
Will this be one of your drive by shootings, or will you perhaps return to the comment section for further discussion?
Comment by Jack — 9/26/2008 @ 5:03 pm
Weirdly, daveg hasn’t been posting until you returned Jack. Hi Dave!
Incidentally, two mitigating things:
1. He is not wrong about Ron Paul’s legacy as it concerns the financial crisis, though as Rojas points out that’s not really germane to what we’re talking about.
2. I suppose I have to admit, it’s not Baldwin or the Constitution Party’s social conservatism that bothers me, but more the way the Paul campaign has devolved as a tactical organization.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 5:17 pm