So why did the inside-the-Beltway libertarians turn on Ron Paul?

[Chamdar]

I know about the newsletter fiasco, but that was already common knowledge in libertarian circles for years.

Personally, I think one of the real reasons they threw Paul under the bus was because he actually tried to reach out to lower-middle class and poor voters, which seemed to be an affront to the economic views of Beltway libs (who couldn't care less if the American middle class disappears).

I think the other controversies were just a cover.

[crazyfingers]

Much of the Reason/CATO crowd is pro-war, or at least not vehemently opposed to it. Paul’s principled noninterventionist position did not sit well with them. They also do not like that he is a white, culturally conservative Christian...they like to ignore the fact that the majority of the libertarian movement is made up of that segment of society and instead prefer to promote the libertine agenda.

[yongrel]

A lot of the Ayn Rand objectivist crowd is vocally, or at least tacitly, pro-war. A lot of them are terrified of "Islamofascism" and whatnot.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I have no idea but I would like to know who is on that CAto list. If I find the LP too atheist..I might have to change back to CP. TONES

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well..I wasn't crazy about the essays I read at the CAto Institute. Hmmmm TONES

[Truth Warrior]

Perhaps Ron didn't KOWTOW to the Kochs.

[WRellim]

It's also part of their old feud against the Rothbard (+Rockwell) faction that was the main support for Ron Paul -- by "kicking" Ron they were really "kicking" Lew Rockwell.

IMHO, CATO sold out years and years ago. Occasionally they get something right. But heck, Dennis Kucinich gets a few things right too. And even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

[Chamdar]

Much of the Reason/CATO crowd is pro-war, or at least not vehemently opposed to it. Paul’s principled noninterventionist position did not sit well with them. They also do not like that he is a white, culturally conservative Christian...they like to ignore the fact that the majority of the libertarian movement is made up of that segment of society and instead prefer to promote the libertine agenda.

About the only person at the magazine who's sincerely anti-war is Jesse Walker.

The Reason folks fail to realize that they'll never be accepted by the cookie-cutter leftists or the neo-conservatives they've been trying to suck up to. Please all and you will please none.

[Chamdar]

It's also part of their old feud against the Rothbard (+Rockwell) faction that was the main support for Ron Paul -- by "kicking" Ron they were really "kicking" Lew Rockwell.



Yeah, I think you're right.

I'm not a big fan of Rockwell myself (although I like some of the columnists on his site), but I still thought dropping Paul like a sack of potatoes because they didn't like Rockwell was wrong.

[Alex Libman]

I supported Ron Paul based on the hope that, in spite of the early denials, he would run outside the GOP. I understand why he didn't, but now I hope he'll do more to support the Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr (and/or if any other libertarians decide to run as independents, i.e. Mary Ruwart, at least in a handful of states, though it's probably too late for that).

[Kade]

Much of the Reason/CATO crowd is pro-war, or at least not vehemently opposed to it. Paul’s principled noninterventionist position did not sit well with them. They also do not like that he is a white, culturally conservative Christian...they like to ignore the fact that the majority of the libertarian movement is made up of that segment of society and instead prefer to promote the libertine agenda.


Proof?

[Pauliana]

I think part of it was jealousy - he raised all that money that should have rightfully been theirs (in their mind) to "waste" on some silly quixotic presidential bid that was going nowhere, when instead all that money and attention should have been showered on them and their Very Important work.

They have failed to galvanize people as RP did, and does. I think its painful for them to face this shortcoming.

Instead they wanted it overwith as soon as possible so they could step in front of the angry Paultard mob and get money-bombed.

Thats my theory.

But I still think inroads should be made to those organizations. Let's not think of them collectively, but instead consider the individuals there. Surely we have a few friends, and a few others that are reasonable and worth talking to...

[Chamdar]

Regarding Reason, I don't think it's completely turned into a neo-conservative magazine, although the staff has been trying to avoid being attacked by them, oblivious to the fact neo-conservatives (hell, most conservatives in general) will never see libertarians as anything more than terrorist-loving dopers.

And furthermore, I was disturbed by Lew Rockwell cheering on jack-booted "law and order" thuggery. Even if one doesn't have any sympathy for Rodney King, it wasn't just people like King who were brutalized by the police during the 1990's.
Then again, Rockwell is the same person who defends the Tienanmen Square massacre (even denying that it was a massacre) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004795.html) and puts columns from frauds like Cindy Sheehan on website, something which has pissed off even other LRC columnists.

[LibertyEagle]

IMHO, CATO sold out years and years ago.

Yup.

The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

The Kochtopus and the Cosmopolitan Libertarian Brigade vs Lew Rockwell
http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

[MsDoodahs]

Perhaps Ron didn't KOWTOW to the Kochs.

Nodding agreement here...

[Truth Warrior]

Nodding agreement here...
;)

[porcupine]

I think their problem was largely RP's social conservatism.

[votefreedomfirst]

I think their problem was largely RP's social conservatism.

This is probably true but I don't understand this critique of Paul at all. Sure, he's personally a social conservative, but he is opposed to using the coercive power of government to legislate vice. I imagine he'd completely do away with "victimless" crime legislation if it were up to him. What does it matter what his personal beliefs are?

[klamath]

This is probably true but I don't understand this critique of Paul at all. Sure, he's personally a social conservative, but he is opposed to using the coercive power of government to legislate vice. I imagine he'd completely do away with "victimless" crime legislation if it were up to him. What does it matter what his personal beliefs are?
This is what soured me on the libertarian Party. I always thought of myself as a libertarian that voted for the lesser of the two evils in the general election.
To my great dismay during this last election I have found that a large number of libertarians don't just want people to have the freedoms to do sick things they want to do those things. Many of those people didn't like RP because he believed in the rights but did not advacate these things and personally found some of those things sad and horrible.
I am a man without a party. I will be sticking to ideas and individual politicians regardless of their party.

[Truth Warrior]

Not having a party is no big deal. BTW, neither is voting.

[Chamdar]

This is probably true but I don't understand this critique of Paul at all. Sure, he's personally a social conservative, but he is opposed to using the coercive power of government to legislate vice. I imagine he'd completely do away with "victimless" crime legislation if it were up to him. What does it matter what his personal beliefs are?

I agree, but one too many libertarians seem to think that just because you oppose anti-drug laws, censorship and sex laws for consenting adults that it also means you should enthusiastically support things like snorting cocaine and making pornographic movies. I think this contributes to the right-wing misconception that libertarians are all drug-addled sex perverts who want a tax cut.

[Truth Warrior]

The GOP roots of the LP are showing. :p

[LibertyEagle]

Oh heck, people. CATO was backing Giuliani for much of the campaign. :rolleyes: If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.

[Truth Warrior]

Cato has become just another player, "stuck" in the D.C. matrix. :( :p

[tribute_13]

Any main differences between Chuck Baldwin and Barr I need to know about? I understand Barr's polling at 6% but I also know he recently left the Republican party and completely 180'd his platform. To me he sounds like a troll trying to cause trouble. But then again more than likely I'm wrong since I haven't heard much of his ideals. Serious replies plz.

[Chris_Augustine]

All revolutions start at the bottom. I too noticed the lack of Libertarian involvement at the march. But you know, they do think themselves too educated. More like pretentious. Education is good but the pretentiousness is appalling.

What we have here is the start of a new REAL 3rd party. This country desperately needs a viable 3rd choice.

I'm here for the ride, and will do everything in my power to see this thing to fruition.

Just my 2 cents,
Aug

[constituent]

Perhaps Ron didn't KOWTOW to the Kochs.

someone had to say it, thanks truth warrior.

[constituent]

All revolutions start at the bottom. I too noticed the lack of Libertarian involvement at the march. But you know, they do think themselves too educated. More like pretentious. Education is good but the pretentiousness is appalling.

What we have here is the start of a new REAL 3rd party. This country desperately needs a viable 3rd choice.

I'm here for the ride, and will do everything in my power to see this thing to fruition.

Just my 2 cents,
Aug

very perceptive.