Yesterday, former Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. This endorsement confirms the fears I expressed in this series of posts about Paul's association with extreme social conservatism and embrace of ridiculous conspiracy-mongering.
Who is Chuck Baldwin? Among other things, he's an enthusiastic purveyor of all manner of far-right conspiracy theories. Paul himself believes the ridiculous claim that the Bush Administration is trying to establish a "North American Union" uniting Mexico, the US, and Canada under a single government. Baldwin goes Paul one better. He not only endorses the NAU myth but also claims that "By 2015, I’m told, the powers that be want to merge Europe and America." He thinks that the Council on Foreign Relations is at the heart of a conspiracy to create a "global government" - a longstanding trope for conspiracy theorists. He rails against "moneychangers" who are supposedly destroying us by promoting free trade and international investment for the ultimate purpose of establishing a world government. Baldwin even wrote a 2007 column entitled "There is a Conspiracy" documenting the supposed plan to create world government. To prevent this, he is opposed to the "global economy," free trade, and international economic integration, a position radically at odds with that of most libertarians (see the last three links).
Baldwin is also an extreme social conservative on domestic issues. Like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Baldwin wrote soon after 9/11 that the terrorist attack was a punishment inflicted by God because of the nation's departures from traditional sexual morality:
For nearly a half-century, we have forsaken the moral principles of Heaven. We have legally murdered too many unborn babies. We have too readily accepted aberrant, sexual behavior. We kicked Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts. As a result, God is giving us a little taste of Hell. [Emphasis added]
By endorsing Baldwin, Paul doesn't necessarily embrace all of Baldwin's views. Nonetheless, it's hard to see how anyone genuinely committed to libertarianism could possibly support such a candidate. Perhaps Paul believes that Baldwin is highly objectionable, but is still the lesser of the available evils from a libertarian point of view. That's a very hard argument to defend; I certainly don't buy it myself. But if Paul were to make it, he could at least distance himself from Baldwin's more objectionable views. In fact, however, Paul hasn't made any such claim. To my knowledge, he has never publicly said anything negative about Baldwin's views at all.
Moreover, it's important to remember that Baldwin (like Paul before him), has no chance of even coming close to winning. From a libertarian point of view, the key question in deciding to endorse him is not whether his policies as president might be less bad than those of some other candidate, but whether association with a far right conspiracy nut helps the libertarian cause more than it harms it in the long run. In my view, the answer to that question is a pretty obvious "No." That, of course, is how I felt about the misplaced enthusiasm among some libertarians for Ron Paul's own candidacy. In retrospect, it's even more clear than before that the tens of millions spent on Ron Paul's failed presidential campaign could have done a lot more good for libertarian causes if spent elsewhere.
The Jews, it seems, are just a front group for the real conspiracy run by the "moneychangers."
I never knew the machines in arcades could have such power.
And I think behind the moneychangers there is an even bigger conspiracy, this one run by the Jews.
And then behind the Jews....
That's debatable. One could make a principled argument that one should support the best candidate regardless of his predicted chances of winning. (But I do agree that this particular endorsement was a very poor one.)
And then behind the Jews...."
It's just an extension of John Buchan's famous explanation of how the world works in Thirty-Nine Steps. I mean, 80 years later, we should be able to get one step farther back in the chain of who really runs things...
And then behind the Jews....
Actually, at some point it's Jews all the way down.
I fail to see how voting for either "helps the libertarian cause."
But suppose both parties not only wanted to increase government but also agreed on precisely how to do so, so even divided government wouldn't make a difference. Still, voting for certain fringe, wacko candidates could objectively harm the libertarian cause. And that's even granting that their policy program, if adopted, would be better for the world than anything we have now.
I'm not sure I agree with that- or at least, I'm sure that it's not obviously true. Obviously he didn't win, but that's not the same thing as saying that the money and the campaign had no useful effect.
One effect is a generally higher cultural awareness of monetary theory. Dr. Paul's being invited onto mainstream news shows to offer Austrian explanations of the financial crisis. The "easy credit" explanation for the housing bubble shows up as a generally-accepted fact in wide-ranging media up to and including the NYT, and it's not difficult to imagine that he's a primary cause of that.
And, there's now a huge organizaton of Ron Paul meetup groups. The Goldwater contributors list got Reagan to the presidency. The RP Meetups may well turn out to be this generation's version of the Goldwater list, and a catalyst for Taft school reform within the Republican party.
I could come up with more examples, but my point is that "defeated" and "wasted" are not the same thing.
Trope? If he literally believes it -- and I think that's the case here -- then by definition it is not a trope, which is used in a figurative sense.
Maybe you want the word 'canard', which can denote a belief that is untrue.
Bruce
As Gabriel McCall mentioned above, Paul is now being invited on news show to talk about the financial crisis. This is because of what he was saying all throughout the primary.
I don't see a problem with this statement from a libertartian perspective. In this essay he is not advocating state action merely the throwing off of a yoke, something anyone is free to advocate and do.
Additionally, it is perfectly aguable that multiculturalism is a specific maneuver by the left to transform America so the statement is not too far off.
He's certainly no libertarian but Ron himself has many unlibertarian views.
I noticed your post regarding Chuck Baldwin. Perhaps you should contact his office for an interview and ask for details and replies to concerns you have.
By the way the President of Mexico did in fact confirm on Fox news the NAU does exsist. I also have four press video shots of "W" confirming the NAU is a fact.
the proof is clear. Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin have opposed the NAU and so should you.
Also, a bill to oppose the NAU is in congress.
I'm proud of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin.
So, Jews are turtles?
HOW DARE YOU??????????????????
:-(
Until it gets to Nicolae Carpathia, no doubt.
I guess I just don't think the mainstream candidates are any less wacky than Paul or Baldwin. I see them as merely more accepted by the mainstream media. For example, as far as I can tell, both mainstream candidates agree with taking 700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out an industry that took some stupid risks and failed.
I agree though, I am always torn by voting for guy I hate but has the chance of winning (although not in California, so moot here) or in this case hope for gridlock or go for the principled guy and hope that the next candidate will like to at least attempt to get my vote.
I don't like either choice.
There's no rational reason to think one's vote will change the course of a presidential election. So it's best to vote for the candidate who best represents your views.
Bob Barr, anyone? (Assuming he's somehow dispensed with his drug warrior ideas that got the Libertarian Party to exert significant effort to get him booted out of Congress only a while ago.)
Actually, I didn't miss it, which is why I wrote a whole series of posts opposing Paul during the primaries and pointing out some of his wackier views.
I would like to add that Chuck Baldwin makes Sarah Palin look like Ayn Rand. I'm utterly disappointed that he's done this, and I think it is a detriment to his movement.
If the movement to support Palin and Baldwin don't convince ya that Christians are trying to turn this country into a theocracy....nothing will....
"If the movement to support Palin and Baldwin don't convince ya that Christians are trying to turn this country into a theocracy....nothing will...."
You are correct. Nothing will convince me of that false statement. Well, not nothing. Call me when the first Dominionist wins so much as a dog catcher election.
Or show me one action Palin has taken as governor that could be construed as in any way turning that state into a theocracy. Nice tinfoil hat, BTW. You've been played.
At least you appear to concede a point not made about Baldwin.
At least with unified government you only get one side's grandiose plans.
Remember that the goal of the third parties is not to win the election but to get (I think) 3% of the vote for federal funding next time...
This is not so far from George Washington's warnings in his farewell address:
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Religion is not the droid Enlightenment defenders are looking for.
Baldwin, who supported Ron Paul during the GOP primaries, has many libertarian positions that align with the position of Ron Paul on crucial issues, namely:
1. He's for a non-interventionist foreign policy;
2. He wants to abolish the Fed, and return to sound money;
3. He's pro-Second Amendment;
4. He's for a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and end to the federal income tax;
5. He's for U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA/GATT/WTO (this position is in accord with Murray Rothbard's).
6. He's against conscription;
7. He's against presidential abuse of "executive orders"
8. He's against federal involvement in education.
9. He's agains federal intrusion into the health care system.
10. He's for phasing out social security.
These are very strong paleo-libertarian positions in accord with Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. Rothbard, remember, is the most significant libertarian philosopher ever.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.