Thanks to all who took the time to comment on the recent post Ron Paul: A Complete Disaster for Libertarianism. One comment in particular, from Jeremy, was so long and thoughtful that I decided it deserved to be highlighted in its own post, despite our disagreement.
[begin quote]
I agree with much of what Molyneaux is saying. His invocation for us to live our personal freedom and engage in a personal crusade to educate others by both our words and actions is wonderful. This is obviously the basis for any sustainable movement against the State. He’s also extremely persuasive in demonstrating that political efforts to reform the State are doomed to failure. I mean, I’m convinced even more than I was before.
The problem I have with his message is that none of what he’s championing precludes supporting Ron Paul. To the extent that it takes energy away from people who would be pursuing other, more authentic anti-state activities, then maybe he has a point. But that’s NOT what I see occurring. Instead, Paul’s campaign is inspiring new activists to seriously think, learn, and act on the principles of individual liberty that we all support - many of them for the first time in their lives. This is not a zero sum game.
Like Harry Browne before him, Paul has openly said that there’s not much he’s going to be able to do, even if he were elected, without a widespread mandate for a libertarian agenda - but that he wouldn’t be elected unless this mandate existed in the first place. It’s not about reform - it’s about a symbol that people can get excited about and rally around to advance the libertarian, anti-state agenda.
And, yes, that’s all the candidate is - a symbol. Paul admits as much, stressing “the message†over his personality. I don’t like idolatry, but it occurs in any sort of movement. Paul will not “fix everything†and clearly there are some supporters who will be disappointed no matter what happens. But those kinds of misguided hopes would occur in any radical movement.
Supporting Paul does not mean that we think he’s a silver bullet. It’s just a good opportunity. Do I want revolution? Hell, yes! But that has it’s dangers as well without having the support of the population, just as the electoral reform path does. There is no substitute for the hard, personal work that Molyneaux exhorts us to take up - but the Paul campaign is not intended to be a substitute, at least for those of us anarchists who are standing behind him. It’s yet one more social phenomenon in which we should participate - as you’re doing in your own way - to propagandize against the State.
That’s my main thesis, but there’s one additional point I wanted to bring up. Molyneaux hinted that people’s understanding of the violence behind the State and it’s programs was similar to many people’s ignoring the violence occurring in some families. I thought that was a very, very astute insight. However, is the violence in both situations the problem or the symptom?
I think many libertarians erroneously single out a particular institution - the State - as the “root of all evil†to be forever vanquished. I think this is more than a bit utopian because it appears to me that the State is addressing real psychological, emotional, and social human conditions that cannot be “abolishedâ€. Just as Ron Paul’s campaign is one of many “symbols†of the freedom movement, the State is just a “symbol†of something more fundamental and difficult at not just the social but the individual level. If we want to address these conditions in a different, more voluntary manner, then great - I’m all for that The latter is a positive task, the former a negative one. We should focus on building the alternative institutions with real human beings in mind instead of bitching about who’s evil and who’s not. And don’t worry, I’ve been as bad about this in my advocacy as anybody.
That’s why I see all this (forgive the expression) pissing on Ron Paul’s parade as incredibly ill advised. So what if the campaign is a less-than-perfect vehicle for bringing about change? It’s in good company with the other strategies we libertarians have tried and continue to think up. None of us have it figured out. None of us have enough success that we can go to these people and show them how stupid or misguided they are. We’re all trying to get it right, and it’s counterproductive to turn it into a debate over strategy when we haven’t even captured the majority’s hearts and minds yet!
No, the Ron Paul campaign is not the ideal vehicle for raising libertarian, anti-state consciousness, but it’s the best vehicle we’ve had in some time. Let’s admit it’s flawed and use it for our own ends rather than complaining that the unwashed masses haven’t figured out what we know so well.
Sorry if I come across as needlessly hostile; I assure you that I appreciate this exchange. I just want to try and communicate with you on an area of difference that I’ve noticed more and more between you and me. You and Molyneaux bring up excellent points, thus the wordy attempt on my part at addressing them.
[/end quote]
BTW, Jeremy, you didn’t seem hostile at all. As I read what you had to say, we simply disagree. I may have some followup on this if I can make the time to do so, though.
Tags: Politics by Brad Spangler
5 Comments »
Loading …
