Poltical Journal

This section of my website is devoted to new essays or materials that I am working on. I invite readers to comment and respond. I will publish civil and intelligent responses to these writings. I can be reached at john@johnfwelsh.com.

From Tragedy to Farce:  The End of Libertarianism?  September 11, 2008

Karl Marx once commented that political events tend to occur twice: the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. Whatever one thinks about Marx’s socialism, this comment has considerable relevance for the tragic and farcical misadventures of libertarianism in the 2008 presidential election. 

The tragedy of libertarianism occurred in the campaign of Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Paul commented that he never expected to be nominated by the Republicans. He envisioned his campaign as an vehicle to promote libertarian ideas and, thereby, affect the discourse about the future of the Republican party.

But significant challenges emerged about the extent to which Paul’s campaign reflected libertarian ideals. His web site, his speeches, and his recent book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, are replete with references to libertarianism as the most faithful expression of conservative values. What is generally missing from Paul’s public discourse is the notion that libertarian philosophy is fundamentally distinct from the basic elements of conservatism. The totality of Paul’s positions do not sufficiently differentiate his libertarianism from the grand old paleo-conservative tendencies within the Republican Party. Most revealing is Paul’s self-identification with the paleo-conservative heritage of Mr. Republican, Robert Taft. 

Many libertarians believed that Paul’s candidacy in 2008 was a profound opportunity for both America and libertarianism. But Paul’s identification with old school paleo-conservatism generated contradictions in his view of the role of the state in society. 

Libertarianism seeks the emancipation of the individual and society from political constraints; paleo-conservatism seeks a limited role for the state in society in order to minimize the modernizing tendencies of the nation state. Paul’s pro-life stance on abortion, his “border security first” position on immigration, and his support for using tax credits to achieve public policy objectives simply do not reflect a libertarian perspective on the role of the state in society. In Paul’s presidential campaign, libertarianism became nothing more than an angrier, more embittered form of conservatism, which, today, seeks only to spoil any chance that John McCain might have to defeat Barack Obama. The tragedy of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is that he failed to articulate a compelling distinction between libertarian and conservative thought.

The farce of libertarianism emerged more recently with the nomination of former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. Barr lost his bid for re-election to the House of Representatives in 2002 as a conservative Republican. Since leaving Congress, Barr became a born-again libertarian and a right-wing, card-carrying member of the ACLU. Among his new libertarian insights is the notion that the government could cut spending by limiting access to entitlement programs. 

The nomination of Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party’s candidate is little more than a marriage of convenience. Having lost his seat in the House, Barr sought another entree into the national political drama. While his credentials as a libertarian are very thin, Barr recognized an opportunity to acquire the nomination of the Libertarian Party. The Party establishment was eager to have Barr as its candidate because of the national exposure they thought his campaign could bring to the movement. After all, many political activists across the country recognize Barr as a former member of Congress. Such recognition, the libertarians thought, would attract votes from disaffected conservatives and, thereby, increase the performance of other Libertarians in elections across the country. 

This year, what really matters to libertarians is a measure of electoral success which has eluded the Party since its founding in 1971. Libertarianism has become a farce because its principles and philosophy are subordinate to the attention the Party thinks it will receive at some point in 2008. 

Ron Paul’s candidacy raised a question about the extent to which the Republican Party can accommodate libertarianism and still appeal to a conservative base. Conversely, Bob Barr’s candidacy raises a question about the extent to which the Libertarian Party can accommodate conservatism and still appeal to a libertarian base. Libertarians should be concerned about compromising fundamental principles and, thereby, relinquishing libertarianism’s identity as a distinct point of view.  

Is libertarianism destined to become nothing more than one philosophic tendency safely tucked away within the Republican Party? Or, is it destined to become the repository for the angry, embittered paleo-conservatives who feel betrayed by the neo-cons? If so, what happens to the potential of libertarianism to promote a positive transformation of the role of the state in society? The enthusiasm of George Will and Pat Buchanan for a libertarian surge in 2008 is sufficient warning that paleo-conservatives are redefining what it means to be libertarian. 

The most significant question pertaining to presidential campaigns of Ron Paul and Bob Barr is neither their appeal nor electability in 2008. What really matters are the long-term consequences of their presidential campaigns for the struggle for individual liberty. Is the struggle for individual liberty promoted or inhibited by efforts to support candidates who envision libertarianism as a tragic or farcical version of paleo-conservativism? 

A principled presidential campaign in 2008 had potential to strengthen the libertarian challenge to the collectivist and statist domination of American political life. However, the narrow focus on presidential politics undermined the interest in developing libertarianism as an alternative theory and movement. Libertarianism is unlikely to have a significant future in American politics because libertarians seem unable or unwilling to develop a serious alternative to conservatism.  

Harrassment and Poltical Correctness at the Border  July 22, 2008

My wife and I were returning to the United States recently from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada after a bit of business and a great visit with some friends. 

We were proceeding through customs and immigration to re-enter the U.S. before we got on the plane. Of course, all of our documents were prepared for the scrutiny by the barely literate, dour, and disheveled customs and immigration officials.  The customs form reported that we bought my wife a purse and her administrative assistant a box of chocolates.  The government needs to know that kind of stuff.  As we got to the immigration window, we reported to the agent the purpose of the trip and what we did, as though he really needs to know.  Unbelievably, the immigration agent begins to quiz us on who we intended to vote for president in 2008. The agent informed us in clear terms that he planned to vote for Senator Obama, but he would settle for Senator Clinton, if Obama did not get the Democratic nomination. He informed us that he would never vote for McCain because "he will bomb Iran." (From some perspectives, this might a strength of McCain's candidacy!)
 
His lecture to us went on for a couple of minutes about how the Republicans have failed in everything they have done and that Obama will be a great leader. We were just trying to get to our plane and keep all of our luggage and important forms together and, thus, did not say anything in response to him, although a few choice expletives came to my mind.  

If you do any international travel, you probably know that the process of re-entering the United States is somewhat onerous, frustrating, and intimidating, even under normal circumstances. Even though I consider myself an internationalist, I can understand the importance of U. S. immigration officials doing a thorough job of making sure that everyone who enters the U.S. has the proper identification, at least in a time of crisis. I mean, I'd rather that Islamic terrorists stay out.  At the same time, I have witnessed other unnecessary obnoxious and abusive behavior by immigration officials toward U.S. residents and visitors even though they cooperate as they attempt to enter the country.

I will never forget the treatment a lovely elderly German couple received as they attempted to proceed through immigration and customs at the Atlanta airport in 2003. I met the couple on the plane from Munich to Atlanta. This couple was very excited about visiting the United States for the first time. They spent months learning and practicing English. They were erudite and probably spoke better English than most Americans. They were dressed very well and clearly wanted to be respective of our country and to make a good impression on the people they met. They also actually believed all of the glowing rhetoric about the United States. I think they even used the "bright city on the hill" metaphor to describe how they view the United States, probably because we defeated the Nazis and protected them from the Soviets, and not anything we've done lately. However, I actually saw this couple shoved out of line by a sloppy illiterate immigration official because they mistakenly followed me into the poorly marked line for U.S. citizens. Welcome to America! Don't get out of line or you will suffer the consequences! Poor visitors, you are treated like citizens! What a wonderful impression this German couple must now have of our nation!  And let that be a lesson to the rest of you, don't follow me into any line!!Is this how we want people who like us to be treated? 

In a sense, the immigration and customs offices are the "front porch" of the nation.  The treatment that people receive in that process, especially if it is the first time they enter the country, is likely to have a great impact on their experience. I have visited no fewer than thirteen other nations and have never experienced or witnessed any similar treatment by officials in other countries. In fact, I would say that they were almost uniformly gracious and welcoming in their attitude. Our greeters should be no less.  They should be literate, well-groomed, professional, and warm in their treatment of people. As bad as re-entry into the U.S. is, the agent in our situation made the experience infinitely more uncomfortable by his questions about our political beliefs and behaviors. 

The philosophic or policy question is whether customs and immigration officials should be questioning U.S. citizens about their political beliefs and voting behavior at the point of their re-entry into the country.  What if we gave the "wrong" answer?  What if I said what I really think about Obama or Clinton?  Would we be denied admission back into the country?  Would we be further harassed by immigration agents? Would we have been detained, questioned, and forced to miss our flight?  Who knows what the consequences are for "difficult clients" in immigration lines these days?

As it turns out, I do not plan to vote for either Obama or Clinton, and I'm certainly not going to discuss political philosophy with petty despots in the immigration office.  I absolutely resent immigration officials attempting to impose some political correctness on us or other Americans attempting to return to the country.  I thought that we still had the secret ballot in this country and that individuals could keep quiet about their politics if they wanted to.  Perhaps Obamamania has gotten a little out of hand. Maybe this bureaucrat is just so enamored with the Senator that he got carried away in his discussion with us.But, I don't think it is just a matter of an over-zealous Obama moonie. I think that there is a new cultural attitude that has combined the security state mentality of the Bush administration with exaggerated fervor for the "unity" fetish of the Obama cult that legitimates the right of the state to investigate and validate the beliefs and behaviors of individuals.

It is none of the immigration agent's business, and none of the government's business, whether we vote, who we vote for, or what we believe. I don't really believe that these officials should be asking citizens where we have been or what we have been doing while we are outside the country ... but I can accept that.  I cannot accept the practice of these officials attempting to impose political discipline at the border. It is too much of an abuse of state power. This is another example of how the government of the United States is abusing, not protecting, the rights of individuals. I can only imagine how much worse the treatment is for non-residents and others who may have fewer cultural resources to resist or respond to such invasions of personal privacy.

Ron Paul for President: RIP?  June 11, 2008

At the time of this writing, John McCain appears to be the certain nominee for the Republican Party in the Presidential election in 2008, while B. Hussein Obama has all but been crowned President by the media and his "moonie" cultists who worship his mind numbing mantra for a profoundly nebulous "change that we can believe in."

Previously, the presidential campaign of Texas congressman Ron Paul received considerable attention from the national media early on in the campaign because of the success of his online fundraising efforts and his provocative, albeit clumsy, performance in the televised debates of Republican candidates. Much of the attention Paul received from the national media was blatantly hostile, probably because of the subversive elements of his message.  The Bully Boys at Fox News, or more appropriately, Faux News, were particularly hostile to Paul because he does not fit neatly within their neo-conservative view of America and its role in the world. Despite the fact that Paul's campaign will not result in a libertarian in the White House in 2009, there should be continued interest in and scrutiny of his campaign, his management skills, and his vision for America’s future. 

Support for Paul’s candidacy and his political orientation is diverse, but consistently reflects an antagonism toward the mainstream approaches to politics in the United States, unlike the campaigns of Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Much of contemporary political alienation is clearly rooted in frustration with the Bush administration. However, a considerable amount of the antipathy goes beyond George W. Bush and is directed toward the national political class as a whole, including the liberal Democrats, neo-conservative Republicans, and the religious right, who collectively manage to set the policy agenda, but also demonstrate that they cannot govern the country and, in the words of Michael Scheuer, are marching us toward hell (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after the Iraq War, Free Press, 2008).  

Support for Paul’s candidacy and his political orientation is diverse, but consistently reflects an antagonism toward the mainstream approaches to politics in the United States, unlike the campaigns of Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Much of contemporary political alienation is clearly rooted in frustration with the Bush administration. However, a considerable amount of the antipathy goes beyond George W. Bush and is directed toward the national political class as a whole, including the liberal Democrats, neo-conservative Republicans, and the religious right, who collectively manage to set the policy agenda, but also demonstrate that they cannot govern the country and, in the words of Michael Scheuer, are marching us toward hell (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after the Iraq War, Free Press, 2008).  

What unites these otherwise disparate political actors in the governing elite is their fundamental belief in the unconstrained use of the power of the state in the achievement of public policy objectives, whether these include the redistribution of social desiderata, the centralized management of economic development, or the control of political speech. The national political culture in the United States has become collectivist and statist. It fails to differentiate where state intervention into economy and society is appropriate. It blindly converts all individual problems and aspirations into public policy issues. And it proffers intervention by the state as the only legitimate vehicle to address them. 

Ron Paul is an attractive presidential candidate to many Americans because the libertarian dimension of his platform is a welcome alternative to the collectivism and statism propounded by the political class in the United States. His campaign and his performance in the Republican presidential debates have interjected some life into an otherwise dismal political ritual because he poses serious questions about the appropriate role of the state in society. He challenges the notion that the federal government is able to address the multifaceted crisis confronting the United States. He argues that the government must have a much more focused mission.  

Many libertarians are delighted with the attention and support Ron Paul has received in recent weeks. Libertarians generally support Paul’s view that the purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the role of the state in society and its power over individuals. They also like his opposition to the War in Iraq, critique of the American empire, commitment to free market economics, support for health freedom, and opposition to the Patriot Act. 

But others question whether Paul’s positions adequately reflect a libertarian perspective. The concern is that the totality of Paul’s positions do not sufficiently differentiate his libertarianism from the paleo-conservative tendencies within the Republican Party. Although many libertarians believe that Paul’s candidacy provides a profound opportunity for both America and libertarianism, much of the dialogue reflects a suspicion that the tension between his libertarianism and paleo-conservatism generates contradictions in his view of the role of the state in society. 

Libertarianism seeks the emancipation of the individual from cultural and political constraints; paleo-conservatism seeks a limited role for the state in society in order to minimize the modernizing proclivities of the nation state. Paul’s pro-life stance on abortion, his “border security first” position on immigration, and his support for using tax credits to achieve public policy objectives simply do not reflect a libertarian perspective on the role of the state in society. 

Paul’s candidacy also poses questions about the relationship between libertarianism and the political system in the United States. Much of the commentary is focused on Paul’s electability and the extent to which the Republican Party can accommodate libertarianism and still appeal to a conservative base. Libertarians should be concerned with the extent to which their philosophy can meld with the Republican Party without compromising fundamental principles and, thereby, relinquishing libertarianism’s identity as an alternative philosophy. Is libertarianism destined to become nothing more than one philosophic tendency safely tucked away within the Republican Party? If so, what happens to its potential as an oppositional movement devoted to the radical transformation of the role of the state in society? 

The most significant question pertaining to Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency of the United States is neither the appeal of his policy positions nor his electability in 2008. What really matters are the long-term consequences of his presidential campaign for the struggle for individual liberty. Is the struggle for individual liberty promoted or inhibited by efforts to elect a president who believes in both libertarian and paleo-conservative ideas?

A principled presidential campaign in 2008 had potential to strengthen the libertarian challenge to the collectivist and statist domination of American political life. Conversely, the narrow focus on presidential politics within the Republican Party tends to undermine the interest in developing libertarianism as an oppositional movement that can effectively challenge collectivist and statist ideology in politics, culture, and everyday life. From a dialectical libertarian point of view, the contradiction of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is that it is impossible to liberate people from the state if the goal is merely to acquire and redirect its power.