Journal and Comment

This page is devoted to new essays or materials that I am working on, or infrequent commentaries that I choose to make. It is not a blog and I am not a blogger, but 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.

No More Questions, Please!!  

Buried about half-way through his rather pedestrian and characteristically vague inaugural address, President Obama said some things about political discourse that should raise the eyebrows, if not the hackles, of those of us who believe in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and political liberty.

Obama said, “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

I applaud the interest he expressed in whether government works. I also like the interest he expresses in eliminating programs that don’t work, building trust, promoting accountability, and working to make government transparent.
That doesn’t mean that I believe that these will actually come to pass, but I like what he said.

However, I am very concerned about his comments regarding what constitutes legitimate discourse about our political life and the role of government. His interest in eschewing questions about the nature, size, and role of government are an ideological attempt to restrict political discourse. He says that conversations about the nature of political life are done, over with, finished. History has moved on. He says that we know all we need to know about the role and legitimacy of government. There is no more political thought, no more political philosophy, and no more political questions. The “cynics” need to shut up, and accept his collectivist concept of the role of the state in society and in the lives of individuals. In short, once again, we have a witch doctor preaching the “end of ideology.”

I’ve been called worse things than a “cynic,” but I don’t believe that cynicism has anything to do with the interest in asking questions about the size, role, and nature of government. Instead, I believe that questions about the size and role of government matter. They are important. They are essential to living a free life, or living as an authentic human being. Exactly why is it that we can’t raise and discuss questions about the nature, purpose, size, and role of the state? 

One reason why the political environment is so stale is because this country hasn’t had a real philosophic discussion about the nature and role of government in our lives. I believe that these are important topics and that we do not know all that we need to know about them. Further, I think that there might be solutions to problems that do not fit neatly within Obama’s collectivist philosophic framework. In short, political philosophy is not dead, despite Obama’s pronouncements.

Exactly why is it the proper role of government to “help families find jobs at a decent wage?” Beyond his poor grammar, can Obama tell us exactly what authorizes the government to become a human resources agency? Why is the measure of its success whether it provides person with affordable care or a dignified retirement? What authorizes this sort of use of state power? Why is it legitimate? Why should the state arrogate to itself the right to define what constitutes a decent wage, affordable health care, and a dignified retirement? Is this really what we want the state to do? Why can’t we ask questions about it? Why is it “cynicism” to question his authority, or to oppose his collectivist solutions to problems?

American political life has evinced a disturbing trend away from rational and free discourse for decades. Obama’s effort to stigmatize free thought as “cynicism” and dissidents as “cynics” is not new in the sense that it is simply another effort by the government to control thought and behavior through ideological bullying. Americans have become so philosophically disoriented, politically ignorant, and gullible that they now flock in droves to express their supplication and servitude to this Maharaji of Mumbo Jumbo because he promises that government will provide them with decent wages, quality health care, and a dignified retirement, oblivious to the fact that they are relinquishing to the state their ability to define what constitutes decent pay, affordable care, and dignified retirement.

Many Americans, perhaps most, already blindly accept Obama’s equation of rational discourse with “cynicism” and gleefully subordinate themselves to his concept of the total domination of society, culture, and individuality by the United States government. Ignorance, gullibility, and collectivist sentiments have always provided the breeding ground for tyrannies in the past. The power of the ancient emperors, the medieval church, the sun kings, the slave masters, the communist party elite, the fascists, the Islamic hierarchies, and our own capitalist state were always rooted in the ignorance of the oppressed and the authoritarian prohibition against asking questions. Anti-intellectual sentiment, which is now operationalized in state policy as the prohibition against asking questions, is always a breeding ground for the statist suppression of individual liberty and freedom of thought.  

A tyranny in America is on the horizon, if it is not in right in front of our faces. Today, tyranny is of an ideological sort. It is a form of liberal thug-ocracy that eschews dissent and critical thought. It masquerades under the banners of meaningless political abstractions such as “hope” and “change.” It is founded on the mindless chanting by throngs of anti-intellectual conformists, “Yes, we can!”

***

Insidious Ideology and the Dark Knight - Winter 2009

Much of the format and content of the mass media is structured to promote particular political and cultural agendas, usually to encourage multiculturalist, collectivist and statist "solutions" to problems.

In the city l live in there is only one major newspaper, The Louisville Courier-Journal. The C-J has a definite leftist slant which is expressed in its editorials, the op-eds it publishes, placement of news articles, and the headlines and photographs it uses to frame the text it publishes.

It occasionally prints letters to the editor that espouse a conservative point of view and it will occasionally print an op-ed by Cal Thomas, George Will, and Thomas Sowell. However, these seem to be printed in order to evoke vituperative responses from the leftist automatons who uncritically accept the C-J's view of the world. I have never seen an editorial or op-ed in the Courier-Journal that presents a libertarian, individualist, or egoist interpretation of culture and politics in the United States.

In my view, the Courier-Journal is not much of a newspaper. Most the real news that is printed in it comes from national or international news sources. Frequently, it will print articles that appear in places like the Wall Street Journal days prior to publication in the Courier-Journal. I guess that the editors figure that we don't read anything but their screed. The only reason I read the Courier-Journal is because occasionally it prints some important local news. Apparently, the paper is having financial problems; it has been cutting staff and reducing the size of the paper itself.

On January 24, 2009, the Courier-Journal once again demonstrated that it is more interested in imposing the ideology of its editorial board than it is either reporting news or "listening" to its readers.

A letter by Michael Higdon appeared in the "letters to the editor" section of the newspaper that expressed the writer's hope that Heath Ledger would win the Oscar for "Best Supporting Actor" for his performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight. He wrote an interesting letter and made a pretty good case for Ledger. Personally, I was glad that Ledger won the award, even though I thought the Dark Knight was a very flawed movie. But, instead of publishing a picture of Ledger as the Joker from The Dark Knight, the C-J used a picture of Ledger from Brokeback Mountain.

Now, it is curious and seems odd that the newspaper would use a picture of the actor from another film, and not the film that the writer referenced. Why not use a picture that was referenced by the writer?? Are we to believe that the C-J could not find a picture of Ledger as the Joker??

I think the reason why is an example of the insidious form of ideological control the C-J and the corporate media generally use to manipulate thought.

Ledger was nominated but did not win an Oscar for his role in Brokeback Mountain, much to the dismay of gay and lesbian activist groups. Many critics and pundits believe that Ledger should have won the award for his role in The Dark Knight as payment or retribution for his loss in Brokeback Mountain. The way the C-J framed the letter to the editor was an almost subliminal effort to reinforce this argument for awarding Ledger the Oscar this year. In my view, this was clearly an attempt by the C-J to ingratiate itself with its gay readership and the leftist groups that promote the gay agenda.

I don't really have a problem with that. I realize that the C-J has an ideological slant and that it is going to promote political and cultural activism that is consistent with its view of the world. And it doesn't bother me that it is gay activism, in this case, that it is promoting. In fact, I believe that gay activism is a noble and important endeavor.

What is disturbing is the C-J's effort to layer this ideological stunt over a sincere letter by a reader that had nothing to do with gay activism. The fact is, the C-J attempted to distort the meaning the writer wanted to convey in a public form of discourse. The C-J's behavior here is only one example of the slanted, unaccountable construction of knowledge that is imposed on us by the mass media. There are many others.

It is appropriate to use the freedom the web offers to provide a counter-interpretation of culture and politics than that imposed by the mass media. It is important for us to think critically about the text and images that media, such as the Courier-Journal, use to construct knowledge and values.

Political and cultural movements should be able to make their case using concepts and arguments that are presented in a manner that individuals can grasp and debate. Otherwise, they are using coercion and manipulation to control their opposition. Otherwise, the "support" they receive is shallow and not based on the convictions of individuals.

It is regrettable, but not surprising, that the editors of the Courier-Journal would use a cheap device like a picture to subvert the meaning one of its sincere readers intended to convey.

***

Exchange on After Multiculturalism - Winter 2009

I was pleased to see a review of After Multiculturalism by David Gabbard in Issue 15 of Workplace: A Journal of Academic Labor. Workplace is an academic journal that is devoted to the analysis and critique of higher educational organizations, a worthy mission in my opinion, even if I have some concerns about the collectivist trajectory of some of the articles I have read in it.

I was particularly pleased that Gabbard said that I developed a “compelling” critique of multiculturalism , which was my primary goal in the book. He gave After Multiculturalism a highly recommended summary judgment, which is consistent with other reviews and comments I have received. Perhaps I should be satisfied with his overall positive review, leave his criticisms to the consideration of others, and focus my time and energy on other matters.

Not to be.

I am going to indulge myself a little and comment on the crux of his main criticism of After Multiculturalism because I believe that it expresses a significant misrepresentation of the argument of the book. Also, my response might hold some interest to the readers of this forum and of Workplace. And, who knows? I might learn something from it.

The issue seems to concern the relationship between capitalism and racism. Gabbard appears to believe that I am an uncritical supporter of capitalism and that After Multiculturalism failed to explore, much less critique, the relationship between capitalism and racism. He says that I am reluctant to engage in that conversation.

Gabbard says,

“While we cannot deny the historical role of the state in legalizing and enforcing racist practices, neither can we avoid discussing the 'symbolic and political environment' responsible for the ascension of racism as state policy. That discussion, of course, would entail opening up for analysis the importance of racist ideology in justifying the most egregious expressions of heteronomy (e.g., slavery and genocide) endemic to capitalism, as well as the historic role of capitalism in giving birth to the modern nation state.”

Further,

“Perhaps we can attribute Welsh’s reluctance to engage in that conversation to his sympathy for the Objectivist views of Ayn Rand that he presents in Chapter Two, where he rationalizes more than he critiques her notion of laissez-faire capitalism as an 'unknown ideal.' If, for Rand, “race is a mystique because it mystifies,” then the notion of 'laissez-faire capitalism' is no less mystifying in that it 'confers legitimacy on the illegitimate social and cultural expropriation of individual liberty' imposed under capitalism. In presenting 'laissez-faire capitalism' as an 'unknown ideal,' Rand (and, by default, Welsh) creates a mystifying apologia for actually-existing capitalism. Whatever abuse or injustice perpetrated by capitalism occurs as a consequence of something else, never capitalism in itself.”

I’m sorry to be blunt, but this is nonsense. There was no reluctance to engage in a conversation about the “symbolic and political environment” responsible for the ascension of racism as state policy. That’s what the book is about. Gabbard’s critique is directly refuted by the analysis in the chapter on Rand, but also in the chapters on Murray Rothbard, the individualist anarchists, and Max Stirner, each of which presents a critique of capitalism situated in concrete socio-historical circumstances, or the “actually-existing capitalism” Gabbard references.

Gabbard does not discuss either (1) the immanent or transcendental forms of critique, or (2) the multi-level analysis that I included in the dialectical libertarian framework employed in the book. This is regrettable because the framework demonstrates that my own views of capitalism are more critical than Gabbard lets on in his analysis. If he had discussed both forms of critique and the multi-level analysis, it would be clear to readers of his review that After Multiculturalism includes the sort of conversation he says I want to avoid, especially his interest in looking at the “symbolic and political environment responsible for the ascension of racism as state policy.” It is also regrettable because the theoretical and methodological foundation of the book might interest the readers of Workplace and similar journals who are students of dialectical methods and open to the consideration of individualist and anti-statist ideas.

What interests me about Rand’s critique of racism is her radicalism, not any phony “apologia for capitalism” nor any putative “sympathy” for Objectivism, a motive Gabbard falsely imputes. In her transcendental critique of racism, Rand counterposed the concept of laissez-faire capitalism with the “actually-existing capitalism” of America during the mid- to late twentieth century. She referred to it as “the mixed economy” or, following Chris Sciabarra, the “predatory state,” but her interest was in the “actually-existing” form of capitalism that entailed the governmental domination of economic life, or the interpenetration of the state and capital. The outcome of her critique is that it helped lay bare “whatever abuse or injustice perpetrated by capitalism” that concerns people like Gabbard, including the “actually-existing” forms of racism in our society. Her method was to examine the departures of the “actually-existing” capitalism from the unknown ideal. It is not an apologia; it is a form of societal critique that Gabbard didn’t understand, or chose to ignore.

Is any transcendental concept a “mystifying apologia for actually-existing” circumstances? Is the concept of “participatory democracy” a “mystifying apologia for (the) actually-existing” form of government we suffer in the United States? Is the concept of “praxis” a ”mystifying apologia for actually-existing” conditions of labor? Of course, if we apply Gabbard’s approach to the concept of “socialism,” then any concept of an improved future that uses this nomenclature is simply “a mystifying apologia” for the barbarous “actually-existing” forms of socialism in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Red China, and Castro’s Cuba. Paraphrasing Gabbard, those who believe that socialism means something different from these sorry regimes is an apologist for them since “whatever abuse or injustice perpetrated by socialism occurs as a consequence of something else, never socialism in itself.”

Even though I’m not a socialist, I can understand that theorists such as Marcuse, Dunayevskaya, Castoriadis, and Horkheimer, were horrified by the “actually-existing” forms of socialism. Marx himself critiqued forms of “vulgar communism” and counter-posed them to the notion of a fully human praxis. Marcuse was merciless in his critique of “Soviet Marxism;” Dunayevskaya lambasted the “state capitalism” of socialist countries; Castoriadis savaged “total bureaucratic capitalism;” and Horkheimer theoretically devastated “the authoritarian state.” Each did so in part by counterposing a transcendental concept of a fully human praxis to the realities of these socialist regimes. Interestingly, neither Marcuse, Dunayevskaya, Horkheimer, nor Castoriadis chose to live in a socialist society.

Transcendental concepts can be helpful when theorists use them to demonstrate the tension, or contradiction, between an ideal, a principle, a value and “actually-existing” social realities. Whatever her faults as a political philosopher, Rand provides us with a critique of the type of racism found in “actually-existing” capitalism using a philosophic concept of laissez-faire capitalism as the foundation for her critique.

As much as Gabbard disparages transcendental concepts such as “laissez-faire capitalism,” he actually capitulates to them. Exactly what is “capitalism in itself?” Is he saying that there is some absolute, eidetic form, “capitalism in itself,” that is somehow detached from or separate from the “actually-existing” capitalism he hates? Or, is he saying that mercantilism, laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, simple commodity production, advanced industrial capitalism, imperialism, monopoly capitalism, and bureaucratic capitalism are all the same thing? Is he saying that “capitalism in itself” is an essence that persists throughout time and space in some supra-human dimension?
If we eschew transcendental concepts altogether, then aren’t we merely slaves to “actually-existing” facts? How can we think critically without concepts that differ from the world of what Berger and Luckmann called “objective facticity?” Without transcendental concepts, human knowledge is eternally subordinated to the world of “objective facticity.” And Gabbard wants to lecture us on egregious forms of heteronomy!!!!

Gabbard simply did not demonstrate nor explain his allegation that Rand’s concept of “laissez-faire capitalism” is an apologia for anything. Nor did he demonstrate that my discussion of it was an endorsement of Objectivism. The latter, he could not do. In his review, I am guilty “by default.” But, the readers of Workplace might want to take a look at the chapter in its entirety, especially my critique of Rand that appears at the end of Chapter Two, and is also interspersed throughout the other five chapters. I’d also recommend taking a look at the whole book; it won’t hurt too much.

Gabbard’s critique of Rand’s transcendental concept functions as an ideological hammer to bash those who think differently into an anti-capitalist conformity. I’ll use Cornelius Castoriadis as an example here since Gabbard uses his concept of “heteronomy” with such felicity. Why is it OK for Castoriadis to use “autonomy” as a transcendental concept, and not OK for Rand to use “laissez-faire capitalism” as a transcendental concept? Why isn’t Castoriadis’ concept of “autonomy” merely an apologia for “actually-existing” heteronomy? What’s the difference? Why is Castoriadis superior to Rand? Evidently, it is OK for socialists to use this method, but not for those who disagree with them. Bashing his opposition into conformity may be the strategy since Gabbard is so concerned that I succeeded, as he admits, in writing a book on my terms and not his. Why do I have to write on Gabbard’s terms? Why are they superior? Why is it necessary to have one set of terms that are used to evaluate theoretical arguments? Who is reluctant to engage in a conversation, again?

In After Multiculturalism, the chapters on Murray Rothbard, the individualist anarchists, and Max Stirner contain, in different ways, critiques of both capitalism and racism, as well as the linkage between them. Despite his huge differences with Rand, Rothbard articulated a transcendental critique of “actually-existing” capitalism, which he called “state capitalism,” using the analytic concepts of the Austrian School of Economics. Agree with his critique or not, Rothbard’s credentials as a critic and revolutionary who challenged the “actually-existing” capitalism of the late twentieth are indisputable. Similarly, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner linked their critiques of racism with the “actually-existing” form of capitalism of their day. Spooner was an Abolitionist, a revolutionary, and a member of the First International, although (shockingly!) he believed in free markets. Both Tucker and Spooner developed strong critiques of imperialism as a socio-cultural formation that blended capitalism and racism years before Lenin or any other Marxist began to get a handle on the topic. Stirner, too, was critical of the bourgeoisie and the master concepts that helped them dominate the economy, polity and culture of nineteenth century Europe.

Even if one chooses to criticize Rand and Rothbard for supporting a philosophic concept of laissez-faire capitalism, the same cannot be said of Tucker, Spooner, Stirner, and other theorists discussed in the book. Gabbard chose not to include any mention of these theorists or their ideas in his review, thus giving the false impression that the book is only about theorists who support capitalism as a philosophic concept. Why did Gabbard choose to pretend that After Multiculturalism only discussed Rand and not the diverse group of thinkers I included who differ greatly in their views of capitalism and racism? Given the restrictions he placed on the scope of his review, it is little wonder that Gabbard believes that I failed to provide any guidance about a postethnic future. But readers of Workplace may have an interest and it would be fruitful for them to consult the book in addition to Gabbard’s review.

I realize the difficulty in reviewing a complex piece of literature in a brief review. And I know that there are weaknesses in After Multiculturalism. But Gabbard’s discussion of Rand and me (by default, of course) significantly distorts After Multiculturalism. The fact is, he limited his review to a brief excerpt from one section from one chapter about only one of nine or ten theorists. He certainly didn’t review the entire book. I appreciate that Gabbard gave After Multiculturalism a high recommendation, but I can’t say the same about his review.

In another communication, Gabbard conveyed to me that he should have mentioned that one of the limitations of his "review was that it was not inclusive of the entire book. However, I still think you should have called Rand out for her ahistorical treatment of the relationship between the state and capital, which was pivotal in the spread of racism."

I, too, would criticize Rand for the ahistorical treatment of state and capital. I believe that this is something that post-Randian libertarians like Chris Sciabarra are attempting to address. But, it is also true that Rand did not set out to write from an historical or situational point of view. I believe that she saw her writings to be more philosopical than sociological, more normative than historical.

Yet, on the matter of racism, I was interested that Rand developed an immanent critique in addition to her characteristic transcendental approach. Immanent critique attempts to oppose what social systems say about themselves with what they are, or what they are becoming. So, there is an element of socio-historical context in immanent critique. In her essay on racism and in some of her essays in the book The New Left Rand attempts to demonstrate how the prevailing cultural values in the US contradicted the facts of racism. In my view, this is a departure from her usual transcendental or axiomatic approach.

Personally, I think she is a more complicated and subtle thinker than conventional wisdom allows, as evidenced by her inclusion of both forms of critique in her views of racism.

Nevertheless, I can see this as a valid criticism of Rand. Hopefully, readers will appreciate my efforts to address issues pertaining to socio-historical context more thoroughly in subsequent chapters in After Multiculturalism. 

I also heard from Marsha Familiaro Enright about this review, she said, "capitalism without force behind it (i.e. laissez-faire) is about persuasion. No businessman can make me buy his product, he has to convince me it's of value. That's the difference between a business and a gang.

"Under historical capitalism, many businessmen have been able to use government's power to prevent alternatives from entering the market.

"And they have been able to use government's power to tax me for subsidies to them (uh, or inflate my money so they can be "bailed out")... or use myriad other ways to take my money, prevent me from being in business to compete with them, or stop me from purchasing competing products.

"So, what aspect of these interactions are caused by capitalism and what by government?

"A business on its own has no military or police force behind it, only the persuasion of its products (if it uses force, its criminal).

"The introduction of the use of force into business is not anything inherent in business (capitalism); it's a result of organized, state or criminal power.

"Force, either private or governmental, allowed slavery to flourish. Whatever racist beliefs individuals might have had down the centuries, they could only implement them in a state-wide program through governmental force (and I don't see how capitalism could have caused racism, since it existed millenia before the development of capitalism?)"

Well said, Marsha.

***

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.  

***

 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.