PDA

View Full Version : Why the Cato/Reason Crowd Hates Ron




Yvonne
04-22-2008, 09:37 AM
Do you ever wonder where so-called "libertarian" entities like Cato and Reason get their money from and who's really calling their shots? Or what their real agenda is? David Gordon has written an outstanding expose which answers those questions and much more. You'll learn about more about Ron's past experience......and why he continues to fight for the true libertarian ideals of smaller, constitutional government. It's worth your time to read it in its entirety:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

FireofLiberty
04-22-2008, 09:58 AM
I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron, but I know CATO isn't his biggest fan. Even Ron said this to me when I met him last week. When I dropped by the Reason headquarters in DC, in the other hand, I heard no animosity towards Ron by anyone there and all of them were fans and were down with the rEVOLution.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 10:03 AM
"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).

But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different. Austrians differ on the gold standard even (with a "free banking" debate prominently archived on the Mises.org site), and Friedman had said publicly that we would have been better off had the Fed never existed (and Cato published Anna Schwartz's call to abolish the ESF and help end discretionary monetary policy).

There are supporters of Dr. Paul at Cato and obviously at Reason (David Weigel most prominently); and yes, there are people who don't. To generalize everyone by one association is a group rights mentality contrary to our goals.

Hopefully our movement will realize that if we are to survive--and thrive--we need to move past pissing matches from generations past. Dr. Paul's inspired rEVOLution should be more than just picking fights for dead people.

NightOwl
04-22-2008, 10:07 AM
"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).


Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 10:10 AM
Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.

Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working for him (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?

JosephTheLibertarian
04-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working there (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?

Why do liberals call it a conservative thinktank?

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 10:29 AM
Why do liberals call it a conservative thinktank?

I'm at a loss to understand--much less explain--most of what socialists do and think. :D

brunner
04-22-2008, 10:33 AM
I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron

Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.


"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Don't be a douche, Brad.


But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different.
This is so far beyond an understatement that I don't know what to call it. "personality conflicts"??
Come on.... they did their best to contribute to the smear campaign without overstepping their bounds as a think tank. This goes way beyond personality conflicts.

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog (http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2008/01/16/regarding-the-newsletter-war/):

And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 10:52 AM
Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.

The newsletter issue has been dogging Dr. Paul for years--and Reason sat on the story for many weeks knowing TNR was going to do a hit piece--Jamie gets the blame--in order to defer to the official campaign (which was a mistake in hindsight).


Don't be a douche, Brad.

For those readers who don't know, Chris and I are friends--even when acting like feminine hygiene products--who have hosted the other at our places.


I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog (http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2008/01/16/regarding-the-newsletter-war/):

And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.

+1

(and knowing something of the preceding histories can help, yes)

mdh
04-22-2008, 11:12 AM
I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.

mdh
04-22-2008, 11:15 AM
Upon reading this article on lrc, though, it looks like the author seems to be holding a 27 year grudge that's just coming out.
The LP/Cato/Rothbard split is old news, I was a baby when it happened, and half the people involved are now dead. If we can't move on past that stuff, I don't know what to say. :p

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-22-2008, 12:04 PM
Neocons are the new republicans. The old republicans (Barr, etc) are trying to be the new libertarians, since the old libertarians worked so hard for ballot access already. And what a wonderful time for that, since so many Libertarians have worn out their shoes (and hearts)promoting the new neocon party recently. Cato, pfft. whatever.

brunner
04-22-2008, 12:23 PM
I wish it were just a pissing match, but characterizing the situation in that way completely ignores what has happened.

The reality is that when Rothbard co-founded CATO, the meaning of "libertarian" included "anti-war", "anti-Fed" and "anti-state".

Thanks to the Kochtopus, this is no longer true. For many years now, CATO has been advocating a state-friendly neoconservative abortion of an ideology while continuing to call themselves libertarian. Thanks to them, it's now fashionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz) to call yourself a libertarian while advocating war, a federal reserve, certain taxes, school vouchers, and various other government interventions.

My beef with CATO has nothing to do with personal rifts, but the fact that they've destroyed the word libertarian.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-22-2008, 02:05 PM
I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.

That's why we need "big tent" organizations but I believe that the leadership should always be hardline libertarian.

EotS
04-22-2008, 02:15 PM
Stay away from the Beltway, boys. It has a way of turning idealism into utilitarianism, then statism.

The Cato Institute is a ward of the state.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-22-2008, 02:28 PM
Stay away from the Beltway, boys. It has a way of turning idealism into utilitarianism, then statism.

The Cato Institute is a ward of the state.

I support utilizing moderates but we shouldn't ever put them in positions of power.

Lucille
04-22-2008, 02:55 PM
Speaking of reason, Paul has written a piece for next month's issue.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 03:43 PM
Speaking of reason, Paul has written a piece for next month's issue.

Aha! More proof "Treason" is out to get Dr. Paul. :rolleyes:

yongrel
04-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Aha! More proof "Treason" is out to get Dr. Paul. :rolleyes:

Indeed.

I'm not a big fan of Reason because I feel the quality of the writing isn't fantastic, and they seem to grasp at straws to look mainstream. They wrote an article proclaiming Bill Richardson to be the best hope for libertarians, and I just got fed up with it.

However, they ain't enemies.

Xenophage
04-22-2008, 04:51 PM
I wish Rand was alive today so she could insult people with accusations of irrationality.

She campaigned hard for Barry Goldwater you know.

Lord Xar
04-22-2008, 05:31 PM
Reason, imho, has been compromised, and is comprised and controlled by the very same entities that are for open borders, one world government/NAU (big government). They are like all the rest.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 05:56 PM
Reason, imho, has been compromised, and is comprised and controlled by the very same entities that are for open borders, one world government/NAU (big government). They are like all the rest.

Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?

Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410e.asp

I guess we'll be left with a table for one soon if we keep going down this road. :(

ruggedindividualist
04-22-2008, 07:55 PM
>>>Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?<<<<

Spoken like a true compromiser. Does Ron Paul compromise his principles? No, and that is the point. The Kochtopus got into bed with the enemy and have become a Neocon tool, a defused, sanctioned "official" Libertarian source. As such they are free to espouse un-Libertarian nonsense but have it viewed as official Libertarianism by the MSM, politicians, folks who can't tell the difference, etc. Call it "ideology" if you want, but Ron Paul promotes liberty at least as far as the original Constitution permits, and that is not "pure" libertarianism. But even that isn't statist enough for CATO, REASON, and other so-called small gov't, pro-liberty sites and sources. These so-called libertarian outfits have shown their true colors. They had an opportunity to put a man in the White House who is truly libertarian and they deliberately worked against him; they are wolves in sheeps clothing, pretenders and false prophets. "Using moderates" and compromising to "grow the movement" will get nothing but corruption of the RP revolution until it also becomes a Neocon tool. Why are you advocating that? Maybe you find that "simplistic" but the truth can be simple.

>>>Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:<<<

Open borders will not work in a welfare state. Bankruptcy will result. Even RP has said as much.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 08:02 PM
>>>Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?<<<<

Spoken like a true compromiser. Does Ron Paul compromise his principles? No, and that is the point. The Kochtopus got into bed with the enemy and have become a Neocon tool, a defused, sanctioned "official" Libertarian source. As such they are free to espouse un-Libertarian nonsense but have it viewed as official Libertarianism by the MSM, politicians, folks who can't tell the difference, etc. Call it "ideology" if you want, but Ron Paul promotes liberty at least as far as the original Constitution permits, and that is not "pure" libertarianism. But even that isn't statist enough for CATO, REASON, and other so-called small gov't, pro-liberty sites and sources. These so-called libertarian outfits have shown their true colors. They had an opportunity to put a man in the White House who is truly libertarian and they deliberately worked against him; they are wolves in sheeps clothing, pretenders and false prophets. "Using moderates" and compromising to "grow the movement" will get nothing but corruption of the RP revolution until it also becomes a Neocon tool. Why are you advocating that? Maybe you find that "simplistic" but the truth can be simple.

>>>Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:<<<

Open borders will not work in a welfare state. Bankruptcy will result. Even RP has said as much.

Your arguments on confused on many levels. I argue against the simplistic analysis you offer here based on associational labels not ideas. I cite as an example an LRC contributor calling for open borders--by your level of analysis, Lew now isn't pure enough, a compromiser corrupting the movement. :rolleyes:

I'm advocating that I want Dr. Paul to be the president of the Republic of all of us--not to use his presidential run to alienate potential allies as was the goal of some of the HQ incompetents.

mdh
04-22-2008, 08:03 PM
Most libertarians are for open borders. The debate is over whether removing the socialist welfare state crap is a pre-requisite, and the majority of us believe it is.

Once you get rid of that and have a truly free market in place, closing down the borders becomes more of a hassle/expense than it's worth.

familydog
04-22-2008, 08:05 PM
Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

Bradley in DC
04-22-2008, 08:07 PM
Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

Yeah, we're having the same problems with Vern McKinley's race too. :D :(

mdh
04-22-2008, 08:10 PM
Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

I'm inclined to disagree with this. A lot of young people I talk to, the first thing I hear from them when I hand them a slimjim or mention Ron Paul is "oh, he's the guy who wants to legalize weed... right on, he has my vote!"

I'd say that his hard-line stances (and accompanying statements) against the federal drug war probably qualify him as "hip", if nothing else.

ruggedindividualist
04-22-2008, 09:07 PM
>>>Your arguments on confused on many levels. <<<

It is more helpful to explain how instead of simply asserting this as if the assertion is itself proof.

>>>I argue against the simplistic analysis you offer here based on associational labels not ideas.<<<<

It doesn't matter what you call them. People who do not share true libertarian beliefs are not part of the RP revolution...period. Attempting to incorporate them to "grow the movement" will simply result in the more politically talented co-opting the collective to their own non libertarian "Libertarian" labeled agenda. We have seen this over and over in other groups and movements, from the NRA to the Catholic Church. Usually those who object to "purists" and advocate compromise (frequently to attract "moderates") are exactly those agents. There are plenty of compromised Libertarian groups out there. The RP revolution doesn't need to become another one, what's the point of that? RPs principled views are enough to attract people, once they understand those views.

>>> I cite as an example an LRC contributor calling for open borders--by your level of analysis, Lew now isn't pure enough, a compromiser corrupting the movement.<<<

Nonsense. I am for open borders. It is a consistent libertarian principle. However, it will not work in a welfare state as Ron Paul has stated. Not all LRC-ers agree on all ideas, BTW. There is a lot of debate there. As far as anti-statist purity LRC is all over CATO and REASON. I'll refrain from a snarky observation on the "level" of your "analysis".

DrCap
04-22-2008, 10:36 PM
All the discussion about what divides us is useless. Ultimately we have a common enemy - big government at all levels, and control of our personal lives. Every dollar that is taken in taxes and every regulatory law is a freedom stolen from us.
The rift has been there for a very long time, but it really should remain an ACADEMIC rift, not a political rift. Political change will never come if a bunch of academics are always arguing about the details of the best way to privatize roads- it's just that it's no fun to argue about what people agree about so these rifts have grown. When I ran the libertarian organization in college we'd have Austrian/Friedman-Chicago school/IHS speakers all arguing about academic details. While everyone agreed on 98% of how to change the system, we'd spend hours in discussions about the 2% difference.
This is not a way to get politcal consensus - so we get no political change instead.
I say we need a relatively big tent to actually create true change. We will never see change otherwise.

(This statement in no way should be construed as a defense of Cato's lack of effort for RP- given their mission they should be ashamed of not openly supporting him - but Cato also should be welcome to join the big tent party if they so choose).

Highstreet
04-22-2008, 11:33 PM
I support utilizing moderates but we shouldn't ever put them in positions of power.

Paul is the only Moderate.

We need to help redefine Moderation and Sensible Policies as the only chance this country has left.

We can't leave it to the Fringe elements like McCain, Bush, Obama, and Clinton. If we don't get some Moderates back in positions of power, then we can kiss our great Republic goodbye.

Highstreet
04-22-2008, 11:48 PM
All the discussion about what divides us is useless. Ultimately we have a common enemy - big government at all levels, and control of our personal lives. Every dollar that is taken in taxes and every regulatory law is a freedom stolen from us.
The rift has been there for a very long time, but it really should remain an ACADEMIC rift, not a political rift. Political change will never come if a bunch of academics are always arguing about the details of the best way to privatize roads- it's just that it's no fun to argue about what people agree about so these rifts have grown. When I ran the libertarian organization in college we'd have Austrian/Friedman-Chicago school/IHS speakers all arguing about academic details. While everyone agreed on 98% of how to change the system, we'd spend hours in discussions about the 2% difference.
This is not a way to get politcal consensus - so we get no political change instead.
I say we need a relatively big tent to actually create true change. We will never see change otherwise.

(This statement in no way should be construed as a defense of Cato's lack of effort for RP- given their mission they should be ashamed of not openly supporting him - but Cato also should be welcome to join the big tent party if they so choose).

+1

Hook
04-23-2008, 12:12 AM
I never understood why the players in this saga couldn't just agree to disagree on some fringe areas, and understand that they have 90% agreement on everything else.

Just because I disagree with some of my friends on monitary policy doesn't mean we need to be mortal enemies for 30 years.

Of course, when Cato starts supporting pre-emptive wars and such, there is obviously a problem.

So what is the "threshold of purity" before we jettison organizations as not representing our philosophy?

revolutionary8
04-23-2008, 12:13 AM
I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.

hello mdh,
to continue our conversation from the other thread, where I mentioned Eric Dondoero LOL-


Then there are the freaks. I don't use that word pejoratively. There is nothing too scary about "Lisa Marie" (no last name, thanks), who tells me that Paul is an "angel" who understands the threat posed by the Bilderbergs. Or Terry Cummings, a musician who tells me to go to BlackBoxVoting.org to see how these elections might be rigged. "There's supposed to a special tape on those voting machines," he says, "but anyone can rip the tape off and tamper with them. Watch the videos!" If they were the only people who showed up on Paul's Pennsylvania jaunt, it would be a problem. But they're only the leading edge of his fan base. They clarify why Paul is doing this and why he can still draw crowds. He is a counterculture figure now, and he doesn't know what to do about it. He knows only that he wants to speak on some campuses and bask in the applause.
http://reason.com/news/show/125959.html
Since you speak with some of these people, will you pass on a few words for me?
Please tell that David Weigel freak he can kiss my freakish ass. :D
This is one of the (several) reasons people "get the idea" that they are pwned/hate Ron Paul, as we all seem to understand guerilla attacks and counter intel.
And please do not get me started on the bloody letters.
That said-

brunner wrote:


I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations.
From my blog:
And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.
I agree, the Libertarians need to stand their ground.
Weigle will get his wiggle one of these days.

revolutionary8
04-23-2008, 01:00 AM
she was a real "freak" for not giving that Weigle her last name, and calling RP an angel, or maybe she doesn't even exist, and no, the elections are not rigged, and there is no such thing as "the Bilderberg Group".
LMAO.
Bask in the sunshine Ron Paul- you attract very intelligent people- unfortunately they are followed by "journalists". lol

In the real world, the right thing never happens in the right place and the right time. It is the job of journalists and historians to make it appear that it has. ~Mark Twain

Misesian
04-23-2008, 05:22 AM
I wish it were just a pissing match, but characterizing the situation in that way completely ignores what has happened.

The reality is that when Rothbard co-founded CATO, the meaning of "libertarian" included "anti-war", "anti-Fed" and "anti-state".

Thanks to the Kochtopus, this is no longer true. For many years now, CATO has been advocating a state-friendly neoconservative abortion of an ideology while continuing to call themselves libertarian. Thanks to them, it's now fashionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz) to call yourself a libertarian while advocating war, a federal reserve, certain taxes, school vouchers, and various other government interventions.

My beef with CATO has nothing to do with personal rifts, but the fact that they've destroyed the word libertarian.

kochtopus. I see somebody read that LRC article yesterday on the STATO Institute's disdain for Rothbard ;)

In response to Bradley where do you see any "pissing matches" from the Mises Institute? I pretty much believe they ALL support free market banking if they are anarcho-capitalists but Rothbard clearly points out that in a free market system the de facto standard tends to become gold. They call it the STATO Institute for a reason but it might be a good bridge to get neocons over from keynesianism over to becoming an austrian.

joemiller
04-23-2008, 07:16 AM
Stay away from the Beltway, boys. It has a way of turning idealism into utilitarianism, then statism.

The Cato Institute is a ward of the state.


Good blogging, DM.

average joe

ruggedindividualist
04-23-2008, 07:52 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart3.html

Truth Warrior
04-23-2008, 07:54 AM
Ron's success would threaten the Cato/Reason cash flow. :D

EotS
04-23-2008, 07:56 AM
Good blogging, DM.

average joe

ha! Thanks Joe. I'm assuming you read my post on fiat money, where I used the term "average Joe."

And nice post by ruggedindividualist:


We have seen this over and over in other groups and movements, from the NRA to the Catholic Church. Usually those who object to "purists" and advocate compromise (frequently to attract "moderates") are exactly those agents. There are plenty of compromised Libertarian groups out there. The RP revolution doesn't need to become another one,


I look across the "libertarian" spectrum and I see a lot of people co-opting the term. Hell, you've got Glenn Beck calling himself a libertarian, the socialist Mike Gravel calling himself a libertarian...

Count me out. Look what was done to the term "liberal." It is the methodology of statists and socialists to seize on a term given to a movement, water it down into another brand of statism, and drain the movement of energy.

EotS
04-23-2008, 08:07 AM
And the post title is spot-on, despite what our resident beltway dwellers say.

Cato and Reason should have embraced the Ron Paul candidacy and done everything they could to support it. No candidate in decades has come anywhere close to the principles they claim to espouse. Instead, they attacked him at worst, laid low and did nothing at least.

They are establishment tools, and the Ron Paul candidacy threatened their hard-earned ties with the state.