After being called a "sellout" and "Obama's straw man" in my last post by a Ron Paul supporter, I've come to realize I should probably write a post dedicated to the current Libertarian Movement. It won't be bad, but it won't be pretty either.
After the first wave of the libertarian movement more or less fizzled out by the 1970s with the decline of Barry Goldwater's political career, the second wave was brought on by Texas congressman Ron Paul, that while he served in the US House of Representatives in the late 1970s to the early 1980s representing the Houston area, it was not until his presidential run in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket that really established Paul as the face of the Libertarian movement in the United States.
Since then, through his somewhat controversial newsletters, his mid-1990s re-entry into national politics, and his bold predictions made in 2002 on the housing industry and American foreign policy, Paul's popularity increased and effectively exploded during the mid-2000s. With his passion for limited government, his defense for civil liberties, his down to earth personality, and what his supporters see as grandfatherly-wise-old-college-professor like wisdom, Paul is enjoying the most successful run of his political career. The 2012 election marks his third attempt at capturing the presidency, second time as a Republican, and his first time being at the forefront at a Libertarian Revolution in full swing.
He has a supporter base that is rabid and intrepid who will aggressively defend Paul and libertarian ideals against anyone and everyone. I'm not saying this about all of Paul's followers, and I won't even hypothesize on a percentage or an amount, but I guess it is enough to where it gave rise to the pejorative adjective of "Paulbots" -- a term that developed on numerous political message boards and comment boards in reaction to the responses left by Paul supporters and other libertarians.
They often characterize the biggest enemies of their movement is the mainstream media, the Republican Party establishment, the large federal government, those that ignore the Constitution, yet, they seem oblivious to the real enemy of their movement, the real enemy of the Libertarian Revolution:
Themselves.
***
Chicago School economist Milton Friedman noted that the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises was someone that stood adamantly by his beliefs and conclusions and was not very open-minded. Needless to say, von Mises purportedly brash personality, at least when it came to defending his economic beliefs and theories, did not win over very many followers in economic circles, including fellow Austrian school adherent and later torch bearer Friedrich Hayek at first. This brash, and at times downright abrasive quality of some the responses that libertarians express in political discourse, no matter the medium or the form of media, will more often than not find observers who deem them repulsive instead of attractive.
This is not an indictment against libertarianism. I do have quite a bit of things to criticize about libertarianism in general, but this is not the post for it. This post is about how aggressive, elitist parts of the libertarian -- and consequently Paul -- support base will more or less hamper any large scale success that could be achieved by the most significant political movement since the neoconservatives movement of the late 1970s that culminated in Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and ushered in the current ideological phase of the Republican Party.
Most in this movement are well-read and well-educated -- the greater the education, the greater the tendency to be liberal -- in this case classical liberal, which is what libertarianism evolves from. As a consequence, the greater the education, the greater the likelihood of someone being elitist about it. Whether you are in support of the movement or not, there is an intellectual standard to it, and while that standard can yield positive contributions in debate, there are times where these contributions can be downright condescending and disrespectful. "Sellout", "strawman", "liberty-hater", "freedom-hater" -- you name it, someone that has argued against libertarianism has been called it.
And there's the catch: if you contribute thoughtfulness to the debate and to the issues, and avoid just being strictly combative and dismissive of what you would consider to be dissident thought, then the Libertarian revolt would be taken seriously. The key to your movement should be that why libertarianism makes the most sense even with the most open mind when it comes to politics. Present it with closed-minded absolutism, then do not expect a whole ton of widespread respect. This is why Hayek had a better relationship with his peers than von Mises. While this is not true of most libertarians, it is true of enough libertarians for this to pose a significant problem.
Granted, I'm well aware this will be found in any and every political movement to exist, especially here in the United States and around the world (liberals and conservatives, and even some progressives, can prove to be condescending and repulsive). Yet, history has shown that any sociopolitical movement that once upon a time gained serious momentum, and had a supporting base that did more harm than good for the benefit of the movement because of their approach to the debate or the issues at hand (ranging from approachable and just lacking cohesion and direction to just down right despicable), it was ultimately undermined. A few examples would be Reagan neoconservatives that have increasingly began to lose influence in the Republican Party (the 2008 nominee McCain and the 2012 presumptive nominee Romney don't fall into that tradition), the Egyptian revolt, the Tea Party that crumbled last year, the Occupy Wall Street movement (though still ongoing, lost a ton of steam due to loose organization), the Dixiecrats that were torched by the progressive shift in the Democratic Party in the 1950s, the first American Civil Rights Movement (during the 19th century), and the first French Revolution.
In the end, I'll close by say this: to the libertarians out there that feel that dismissing other realms of political thought and those that follow it only because of the faces and talking points memos of such political thought instead of the core philosophical beliefs behind it and the aggressive and unflinching hero-worship of archlibertarian Ron Paul is the way to go in terms of advancing this libertarian movement, this Libertarian Revolution, then are you doomed for disappointment -- not at the hands of the mass media, not at the hands of liberals and conservatives, but at the hands of yourselves.
However, to the libertarians that believe that contribution to the debate and the issues at hand should be healthy, open-minded, and as a place where ideas can be exchanged without the insistence that entire philosophies and other viewpoints being trashed only at face value, then what you have to offer is welcome and I look forward in engaging in conversation with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment