A Stitch in Haste

Try to guess who said this:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] ... In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
...
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
...
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
...
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
...
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Hint: The candidate in question is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

Libertarians do not invoke history — especially the history of religion — as a justification for anti-gay bigotry or unfair and unequal treatment under law, just as we do not invoke history to defend slavery, coverture, spousal rape, pre-arranged marriages or the divine right of kings.

Libertarians do not pretend that discrimination, the suppression of individual rights or the betrayal of the principles of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are any "better" when they occur at the state level rather than at the federal level. Libertarians understand that "states' rights" is an insolent fiction: individuals have rights; states have powers — powers that they can and do abuse unless properly checked.

Finally, libertarians do not fear the shibboleth of "activist judges" — sorry, "rogue judges." No libertarian fears a judge more than a politician (or bureaucrat). No libertarian fears a federal court more than a state legislature (or city council). No libertarian denies the unarguable historical fact that for over two centuries it has been judges, especially federal judges, who have been responsible for — and have generally acted responsibly in — defending individual liberties against oppression at the hands of the rest of government.

A libertarian does not say such things. A libertarian who disbelieves such things does not say them anyway just to gain or keep political office.

Therefore, the candidate who said these things is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

Answer here.

I have only one hasty stitch from last night's GOP Fundamentalist Revival / Comedy Hour:

RON PAUL: Well, I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials. The state should determine so many of these things that we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level.

That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all, because you have a Supreme Court ruling like on Roe versus Wade; it ruined it for the whole country. And that's why we shouldn't have it at a central level.

As I blogged previously: This man is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

Libertarians do not believe that theocracy is perfectly hunky-dory, so long as it's at the school district level and not at the federal level. Libertarians do not blank out the Fourteenth Amendment and its incorporation of the First Amendment (and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) to apply equally and coextensively to the states. Libertarians do not forget that there is no such thing as "states' rights" -- that there are only individual rights, including the right not to be religiously coerced by government in any way, at any level.

Not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

P.S. Not to nitpick, but it's "Congress shall make no law..."

---

Technorati Tags: Ron Paul, libertarian.

A self-standing comment I left on another blog:

Can you cite to one occasion in this campaign where Ron Paul has, unsolicited and not in response to an interviewer's question, used the word "libertarian"? Can you point to one page at his website that contain the word "libertarian"? Even his bio page omits his 1992 1988 big-L Libertarian candidacy.

Paul calling himself "a proud constitutionalist"* is like a gay calling himself "a proud alternative-lifestyler."

---

*And he's not even that. "Constitutionalists" don't believe that theocracy and anti-gay bigotry are perfectly hunky-dory so long as they occur at the state level. "Constitutionalists" do not complain about "rogue judges." And so on...

No substantive responses so far. Go figure.

Dude, what's with the earmarks? (WSJ - $)

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident."

Four hundred million dollars? Shrimp-fishing research?

With the insolent faux-rationale that, "Gee, the money will get spent anyway, so why not grab some for my shrimping buddies..."?

Whether you call Paul a libertarian (incorrect) or an anti-federalist (closer to correct), be sure to call him two other things as well:

A hypocrite and a moral defective.

A self-standing comment I left on another blog in response to this video of Ron Paul at Iowa:

Based on this speech, the first item on his agenda is ... drum roll please ...

–abolish income taxes and the Fed? No.

–bring back the gold standard? No.

–reduce government spending? No.

–withdraw from Iraq? No. (!)

Instead, the first item on his agenda is to abolish all right to an abortion. Not even the deceptive canard of "sending it back to states," but an absolute fetal right to life, beginning at conception.

Go figure.

---

My response to a response that Iowa is very pro-life and Paul is merely taking that into consideration:

So Paul shifts his priorities based on the audience of the moment, and focuses on telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

And that makes him an "unusual politician" -- how?

Discuss.

(Pretend you don't already know the answer...)

Which Republican presidential candidate said the following in a radio interview with a radical theocrat bigot:

Q: Do you believe [homosexuality] is a sin?

A: I'm not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background, so I don't see it in those simplistic terms; I think it's a complex issue to decide whether it's sin or other problems with the way people are born. It's to me too complex to give an answer as simple as that.

Whether "being gay is a sin" is a complex issue? Too complex for a hyper-educated Twenty-First Century American to answer?

Q: We'll try to stop anyone from getting in the military who is a homosexual, who is an adulterer, who is a fornicator, and then other categories that indicate a character flaw. Why we shouldn't try to do that?"

A: Looking it in protecting the military if they are going to perform the services, and they are imperfect -- because we're all imperfect and we all sin. If a heterosexual or homosexual sins, that to me is the category of dealing with their own soul. Since we cannot have only perfect people going in the military I want to separate the two because I don't want to know the heterosexual flaws, nor the homosexual flaws and that's why I got in some trouble with some of the civil libertarians because I don't have any problem with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because I don't think that, for the practicality of running a military, I'd just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual or homosexual did, and those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and everyone one of us has those imperfections.

Wanting to serve openly is a "homosexual flaw"? Openly being in a committed monogamous same-sex relationship is a "serious flaw"? Military policy -- all government policy -- should be crafted based on subjective, factional notions of "sin" and not on objective standards of conduct and competency? (Oh, and he got into some trouble with "the civil libertarians" and not "my fellow civil libertarians"?)

Stepping back a bit, note how the candidate carefully crafts his answers to suit his interviewer and audience (one observer: "he weasel-words his way around this landmine and that one, instead of just saying what he thinks"). What rational basis would anyone have to conclude that this is a man of principle and not just another moral defective politician?

Answer here.

A revised and expanded version of a comment I left elsewhere in response to this article asking whether it would be hypocritical for Ron Paul to accept federal election funds —

I am wholly sympathetic to the broad principle that a libertarian taxpayer is morally justified in recouping as much of his taxes as possible (i.e., in benefits, entitlements, tax deductions/credits, etc.).

In the case of Ron Paul, however, since:

(1) Ron Paul is not a libertarian;

(2) "Politician" is not the moral equivalent of "taxpayer;"

(3) "Libertarian politician" is practically an oxymoron even under the most intellectually consistent circumstances (and the Paul campaign is definitely not "the most intellectually consistent circumstance"),

it follows that to talk of Paul's "libertarian" rights as a politician is therefore rather silly.

Discuss.

More thoughts at Liberty Papers.

As compelled as I am to stand athwart the Ron Paul juggernaut* shouting "Theocrat!", I also feel compelled to point out how utterly unfair and despicable this was:

Six GOP presidential candidates are taking their turns addressing the Americans for Prosperity "Defending the American Dream Summit" here in Washington, today. They are targeting government spending and taxation.
...
After Giuliani spoke for nearly 25 minutes, Ron Paul, who may have earned his time to speak with this quarter's fund raising, took the stage. Speaking for just over 10 minutes, Paul was then cut off by the stage music[.]

The sad part is that, as interchangeable as Giuliani and Paul are qua moral defectives, surely the membership of Americans for Prosperity would have been more amenable to Paul's message than Giuliani's. Paul was, arguably, the only candidate with standing to appear at such an event. (Did I mention that this summit was about "targeting government spending and taxation"?)

Assuming, of course, that "the message is the message" (as opposed to the photo op or the fundraising implications for AFP). Yes, I know: big assumption.

Paul does not deserve the praise he gets. But he deserved better than this, especially from people like this.

---

*To the extent, of course, that 2-4% support of one dysfunctional party constitutes a "juggernaut."

(Via Guided by Noises by way of Daily Dish.)

Much buzz over Ron Paul's appearance at the most recent Republican debate joint press conference --

CAMERON: Why are those on stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?

PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.

Libertarians are rejoicing. Andrew Sullivan declares it "conservative sanity."

I call it a moral defective being morally defective.

To review:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] ... In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
...
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
...
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
...
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
...
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

There are two possible explanations for Paul's (only somehwat) changed stance, neither of which in any diminishes his contemptibility on the subject:

1. Re-read, carefully, exactly what Paul said: "We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution."

Here is an openly declared anti-gay bigot, trying to appeal mostly to openly declared anti-gay bigots, insisting that "we know what marriage is about." Do you really think he thinks, or that he thinks they think, that marriage "is about" two competent consenting adults not being irrationally discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation, premised upon primitive religious dogma and the "will of the majority"?

Or was there a not-so-subtle implication: "We do know what marriage is about -- a man and a woman." "We don't need a new definition -- from activist judges." And so on.

This is -- if it is what Paul is attempting -- comparable to the silly garbage that Rudy Giuliani is telling these same theocrats about appointing "strict constructionist" judges -- a term that has no coherent meaning except as code for anti-Roe. Giuliani is engaging is naked, uncomplicated Mephistophelian haggling: Give me the White House and I'll give you the Supreme Court. No philosophical underpinnings required. So too, perhaps, with Paul, the theocrats and gay marriage.

2. The alternative is of course that Paul has indeed flip-flopped on gay marriage. Which makes him "not just another politician" -- how?

He may be selling a "new and improved" version of himself, but I'm still not buying.

A comment I left at another blog, in response to conservative group blog RedState's announcement that it has begun restricting posting by Ron Paul supporters:

First of all, "free speech" applies to government, not private people controlling their private property — including their websites. "Private censorship" is an oxymoron.

Second, liberal bloggers may not fully appreciate how out of control these Paulbearers (as I call them) have gotten on conservative and nonpartisan websites — especially YouTube.

They are, almost universally, not engaging in reasoned commenting; they post canned placard slogans that are usually orthogonal to the original blogpost and, occasionally, totally nonsensical.

They are, in other words, spammers.

So, while no fan of RedState am I, I can feel their exasperation.

---

I have for the most part been spared any meaningful bombardment by the Paulbearers, despite my several unflattering blogposts about their icon. But I've seen, on other blogs and especially on YouTube, just how "spammish," unintelligent and just plain pointless these comment bombardments can be.

Bottom line: I don't know who is hurting small-l libertarianism more — the faux libertarian candidate or his misguided background-noise supporters.

More thoughts at Threat Level.

No use crying over banned milk?

But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk.

No, he introduced a bill to end federal regulation of unpasteurized milk. There's a difference.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to states that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

So we see, yet again, that Paul does not love liberty. He merely hates Congress. No libertarian would suggest that banning unpasteurized milk is perfectly hunky-dory at the state level, just not at the federal level. Property rights and economic substantive due process either exist or they don't, either are guaranteed by the Constitution or are not (including that pesky Fourteenth Amendment that Paul in another context so insolently dismissed yesterday as "wasn't in the original Constitution").

Of course, the 2008 election will not be decided on the issue of raw milk. Neither does the fate of raw milk rise to the level of domestic spying, preemptive war, same-sex marriage (which Paul actively opposes), jurisdiction-stripping of federal judges (which Paul actvely supports) or even compulsory vaccinations in his home state of Texas. But it illustrates nicely the key philosophical point that the Paulbearers refuse to tackle: Ron Paul is simply not a libertarian.

If you want to argue that an anti-federalist is better than "business as usual," then fine. But please stop with the "Ron Paul is a libertarian" idiocy.

(Via Hit & Run).

First things first:


Now for the substantive hasty stitches:

--Paul is responsible for the content of his newsletters, especially considering that all but a handful lack bylines. Whether he wrote them or not, whether he read them or not, whether he disowns them today or not. None of it matters. His name, his newsletters, his imprimatur, his responsibility. All else is sophistry.

--In the same vein: How can Ron Paul be trusted to lead the federal government, even for the purpose of dismantling it, if he can't even control a newsletter? If Editor-in-Chief Paul can't keep his (purported) ghost writers (and that is the correct term, complete with the negative connotation associated therewith) in line, then how would Commander-in-Chief Paul keep the military in line, or Goldbug-in-Chief Paul keep the Federal Reserve in line, or Vetoer-in-Chief Paul keep his own cabinet in line? (Not to mention those who would not even be accountable to President Paul — people such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John Roberts, etc.). Stated differently: What difference does it make what your agenda is if you're a proven incompetent at implementing it?

--As for the "it was a long time ago" canard: Indeed it was. Which invites another question: What exactly has "Dr. No" really achieved as a (not quite) "libertarian politician"? In twenty years in Congress, has Paul ever won over a single colleague to his cause? Does he ever try, for example, to discuss his views on banking (let alone homosexuality) with Barney Frank over lunch? Does he initiate calm, quiet dialogues about farm subsidies with Collin Peterson or Dave Obey? Does he even know who Jeff Flake is? Or does he just sign in, vote "no" on some spending bills, sponsor some anti-gay bigotry measures, secure some "libertarian earmarks" for his (favored) constituents, and call it a day — all the while patting himself on the back for his "commitment to principles"?

--Similarly, if Ron Paul is "creating a movement," then why did it take the Iraq War for him to become a plausible single-digit fringe protest vote (which was and is all he represents, and which is more than he represented four years ago)? Of course, in reality Ron Paul did not "create a movement" — he merely tapped into one, and exploited it to feed his own appetite for political celebrity.

--The worst nightmare of those of us who never drank the Ron Paul Kool-Aid is coming to pass. Those political mainstreamers who do not share in this movement-that-Paul-did-not-create, the liberals and conservatives who prior to this presidential campaign had barely heard of an "isolationist / neoconfederate / 95% of all blacks are criminals / bring back the closet / Lincoln started the Civil War / the WHO invented AIDS / conspiracies everywhere" fervor now have — thanks to Ron Paul — a name for it: libertarianism. So, on top of having to laboriously explain ab initio that I am a "small-l libertarian," I apparently will forevermore have to pre-emptively declare that I am a "small-l, Non-Paul libertarian." Splendid. Ron Paul has, quite simply, wrecked libertarianism for at least a generation. And, unlike Barry Goldwater, his legacy will never be rehabilitated.

--The (formerly?) pro-Paul libertarians, especially the Reason crowd (i.e., the folks who just slapped his face on the cover on their magazine), should stop the silly headless-chicken damage control spin (worst examples here and here) and just admit they were giddily, and stupidly, wrong about him from the outset. It's time, not just to separate the wheat from the chaff, but to acknowledge that Paul is pure chaff, and always was.

There is an intellectually sloppy meme circulating in the Paulosphere, in the wake of the newsletter scandal, that goes something like this:

It is irrelevant whether Ron Paul, his purported ghostwriters and his other confreres were or are "racist," since Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs, which disproportionately harms racial minorities.

There's one problem with this argument: Ron Paul does not oppose the War on Drugs.

If you do the research, Paul in his prepared commentaries (not his off-the-cuff debate or interview responses) only opposes the federal war on drugs. This should surprise no one, since Paul is not a libertarian but a radical neoconfederalist who is only concerned with constraining the power of and abuses by the federal government. To Paul and his ilk, states are free to trample liberty in whatever way and to whatever extent their majoritarian legislatures see fit (including insulation from — Paul's term — "rogue judges").

Yet the war on drugs — the DEA, Coast Guard, RICO laws, block grants, etc., all notwithstanding — is of course not primarily waged by the federal government, but rather by state and local governments. Whom are you more likely to see on a typical episode of COPS: a DEA agent or some jackboot deputy sheriff?

Remember, this is the same Ron Paul who believes that states have an unlimited majoritarian-based authority (i.e., a "state right") to ban raw milk. Who would dare suggest that Paul doesn't think that a state could turn around and ban marijuana too? (Not to mention abortion, flag burning, same-sex intercourse and a host of other hot-button issues.)

If you want to declare openly and loudly that you are a radical majoritarian anti-federalist, and that you support Ron Paul because he shares your worldview, then good for you. If you want to shrug and conclude that a radical majoritarian anti-federalist is better than the other candidates, that could be rational as well. But don't dare proclaim that Paul is a libertarian or that his views reflect a commitment to individual liberty, regarding the war on drugs or anything else.

Related thoughts at The Fly Bottle.

Oh to be young and idealistic:

An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.

Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.
...
Hauer said he'll argue in court that the law violates his First Amendment right to free speech.

Wait, did I say "young and idealistic"? Sorry, I meant "young and misinformed."

Misinformed because, as bona fide libertarians who actually listen to what Ron Paul says and who actually read what he writes know full well, under Paul's neoconfederalist, anti-libertarian, the-Fourteenth-Amendment-isn't-really-the-Constitution worldview, young Mr. Hauer would have exactly zero First Amendment rights to protect him from a duly enacted state law.

To Paul, if it doesn't come from Congress (or the Fed), then it can't be illegal. To Paul, the focus — the obsession — is not with individual rights but with "states rights."

Under the Ron Paul view of state-and-local majoritarianism, Minnesota is perfectly within its rights — its states rights — to ban political posters in vehicles. Not just for content-neutral safety reasons, mind you, but for any reason or no reason at all. The state could pass content-specific bans (e.g., no political posters, or no posters except Bible passages), or for that matter person-specific bans (e.g., you must over 21 to display posters, or perhaps limit it to U.S. citizens driving domestically produced automobiles).

And cars would be just the beginning. If states have "rights," then those rights would include censoring political speech on your lawn, your window, your roof. Not to mention your blog or Facebook page.

They could ban you from wearing a Ron Paul button at school, or even from discussing Ron Paul at school (especially during those mandatory school prayers that the school board just ratified).

And if you're gay, there will be no Ron Paul placards at your wedding — because you won't have a wedding. But at least the bigotry didn't come from Congress, so you're okay with it.

And don't forget that, in Paultopia, federal courts would be unavailable to you when you bump into any of these "states rights." Their jurisdiction to hear cases like yours would have been stripped long ago.

And so on.

Ron Paul has a message on his car window too. Make sure you see it.

Tag: Cody Hauer

---

Meanwhile, young Mr. Hauer's dreams are dead.

During the Ron Paul newsletter debacle, I wrote the following:

The worst nightmare of those of us who never drank the Ron Paul Kool-Aid is coming to pass. Those political mainstreamers who do not share in this movement-that-Paul-did-not-create, the liberals and conservatives who prior to this presidential campaign had barely heard of an "isolationist / neoconfederate / 95% of all blacks are criminals / bring back the closet / Lincoln started the Civil War / the WHO invented AIDS / conspiracies everywhere" fervor now have — thanks to Ron Paul — a name for it: libertarianism.

Exhibit A:


(Click to enlarge.)
No, Mr. Kirchick, it is most definitely not libertarianism.

(Via Crossed Pond.)

The story:

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution strongly defending how Israel has repelled rocket attacks.

The non-binding resolution, passed 404-1 on Wednesday, was substantially rewritten since its introduction in January to include a strident defense of recent Israeli tactics in the Gaza Strip.
...
The sole vote against was U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) who preaches the reduction of U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts.

The post by a Paul supporter:

Ron Paul is the only member of the house [sic] to oppose US taxpayer funding of Israel's occupation of Gaza and war against Palestinian civilians.

The response by me:

This wasn't a funding bill. It was a non-binding resolution.

I would think that, by Paul's standards, the only "honorable" vote for any non-binding resolution would be to abstain (i.e., because the vote itself is a waste of time).

To vote "No" is, I would think, just as "dishonorable" as to vote "Yes."

Discuss.