Fairweather Libertarians

The insurgent campaign of Ron Paul is fascinating for several reasons, but the most intriguing aspect of Paul's candidacy is his unapologetic libertarianism. Previous would-be spoilers such as Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson enjoyed genuine support, but neither of them espoused positions as fundamentally at odds with the status quo writ large as has Ron Paul.

Libertarianism is a stance the speaks directly to the holder's beliefs; libertarians believe in libertarianism. But what do Democrats believe in? Democracy? Don't most of us believe in democracy? What do Republicans believe in? The Republic? Don't most of us believe in the Republic? Isn't it, in fact, impossible to be an American without believing in both democracy and the Republic?

The vapid nature of our modern political discourse is betrayed in the very names of the parties: Republican and Democrat. It's just drivel, the sort of drivel reflected in talking points about "a comprehensive approach" or "protecting the American people".

Democracy in Great Britain is inferior to ours in some aspects, but at least their parties are unabashedly called "Conservative" and "Liberal/Labour". Such straightforwardness is rare in our "Democratic Republic".

It is clear that a third way is needed. Actually, since the two "ways" offered at present are so similar as to be indistinguishable, it would be more precise to say that a second way is needed.

To say that the Democrats and Republicans are substantially different is akin to saying that green and red apples are substantially different; they are, but only if nothing else if for sale. When shopping in the marketplace of ideas, how lazy do we have to be to focus on the apples and ignore all the other produce, never mind the grains and meat?

When assessing the major challenges facing the Republic today, some manifestation of libertarianism is clearly the best option. America's problems today are primarily financial, and they stem from two overreaches which libertarianism is uniquely equipped to remedy.

Global garrisons and insolvent entitlements are 90% of the financial problem. Put simply, America is promising to fulfill its promises to its own citizens with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and America is also promising to police the world. And America does not have the money for both of these delusions in the short term or either of them in the medium term.

Democrats occasionally propose cutting military expenditures, but not nearly often enough to betray actual conviction; they have been, are, and always will be without the courage to honestly critique American imperialism.

Republicans assail the social mandates rather than the military machine, and they do so far more aggressively than Democrats challenge the Pentagon. While the Republicans deserve credit for making a strong stand against one money pit, they deserve condemnation for choosing the wrong dragon to slay; how many Americans would rather pay to pacify Fallujah than be guaranteed to get their own money back via Social Security?

The only person to honestly critique both the empire and the mandates is Ron Paul. He does what is easy for Republicans; he rightly criticizes Social Security as harboring a suicide gene. As soon as retirees outnumber wage earners, which will be soon, Social Security will crash and millions of folks will lose their money for the sin of forcibly investing in the United States government.

Paul goes further, though; he dares to call the American empire what it is: a money and morality pit which strips us of material and moral might. He is the only person running for president who will dare assert the obvious: there are people on earth whom the United States has wronged.

The problem with Paul's supporters, however, is that many of them are fairweather libertarians. They want the government to step back when it suits their own agenda, but when it does not, they argue for an intrusive government.

For example, Paul's devastatingly logical critique of the Iraq War appeals to many liberals. They feign support for Paul, but they would never abide his ideology as applied to anything other than American militarism. They would use his logic to end the war, but they would not use his logic to abolish the IRS or the Department of Education.

In kind, many conservatives applaud Paul's rhetoric of government restriction in terms of education or taxation, but they will still hold that the government should legislate sexual morality or fund and train the police force in Baquba.

If you are not, on some level, frightened of following a new path, then that path is not new at all. Enlightenment and liberation requires sacrifice and faith. To follow libertarianism, everyone must let go of some of their concepts of the proper role of government.

Liberals must accept that people should be left with their own money rather than having the government hold it for them, with the implicit premise that the government is wiser than the citizens. Right now the government is run by George W. Bush. Is George W. Bush wiser than you?

Conservatives must accept that, if the government has no right to tell a man in Raleigh where to send his child to school, then the government has no right to tell a man in Ramadi when he can leave his house.

The beauty of letting go is the resultant liberation. Liberty is often scary, as it implicitly rejects the security of paternalism. But if we value "democracy" and the "republic" as much as our prior votes for president imply, then libertarianism is the only American way.