Why is the Cato Institute so anti-Ron Paul?

[eduardo89]

Just curious...

[LibertyEagle]

The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

[Aldanga]

One word: Kochtopus.

[Zatch]

CATO and Reason support stuff like NAFTA and probably have different opinions on abortion and immigration.

[eduardo89]

CATO and Reason support stuff like NAFTA and probably have differences on abortion and immigration.

Probably why GJ is their man

[Tenbobnote]

Ignore CATO - The mises institute is the real deal.

Mises.org

[Elwar]

Rupert Murdoch was on their board as well...

[eduardo89]

Ignore CATO - The mises institute is the real deal.

Mises.org

Yeah I much prefer Mises too

My economics professor last year is a Mises guy, and he absolutely hates Cato. There's some bad blood there

[lew]

It goes back to the division that occurred between Rothbard and Koch. The 'paleolibertarians' have always looked at Southern secession fondly (while deploring slavery), adhered to cultural conservative values, and valued somewhat Tory high culture. The CATO libertarians don't care about any of those things, by and large. They focus more on leftist social causes (legalization of homosexual marriage, drug legalization, etc). They also tend to be consequentialist based, whereas Ron Paul is deontological based concerning ethics.


Beyond that, they are somewhat anti-Ron Paul for the same reason many are: his supporters. 9/11 Truth, Birthers, bin Laden deniers, etc - regardless of any factual basis behind any of these theories, they are loudly viewed as ridiculous - all flock to Ron Paul disproportionately compared to other candidates, and so Paul is rejected out of hand.

[Johncjackson]

Neither are really "purely" libertarian, if you want to be honest about it. I have my disagreements with both. RP has a lot of social conservative supporters who dislike libertarian values and vice versa.
I support Ron Paul, and I hope we find some coalition that is a little more respectful and less prone to fracturing over these things. Paul is probably the most libertarian and possibly the most principled "conservative" candidate if that's your thing, and he bridges more common beliefs between the two. But there are certainly other candidates who support issues that seem to really matter to some people here.

Cato and the Kochs do a lot of good work, and their role is a lot different than a political campaign or Mises.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKs-6NDtDEc&feature=channel_video_title

[PaleoForPaul]

Because they don't own Ron Paul due to the Rothbard split. In fact, Paul is probably a bigger threat to them than anything else if people come to associate libertarianism with with Ron Paul rather than the Koch version.

[Churchill2004]

Because Murray Rothbard didn't play nice with others 40 years ago, when he wasn't given supreme dogmatic authority over Cato. (he and the kochs worked together on founding Cato.)

This whole stupid feud is 90% personality (half of whom are dead), 8% strategic disagreement, and 2% substantive policy disagreement. Cato does good work, has had plenty of good (if not always 100% laudatory) things to say about Paul, including hosting RP at an Audit the Fed panel when that was gaining steam. Lew Rockwell's pettiness and penchant for grudges is the main thing fueling this almost two decades after Murray died.

Moreover, Cato's main focus is not electoral politics anyway, nor are they a monolithic entity taking their daily orders straight from the Kochs. Hell, this Kochtopus nonsense is particularly funny given the Koch's own falling out with Ed Crane and that they have mostly (but not entirely) quietly disengaged from the day-to-day runnin of Cato. And it's been decades since the Kochs were the main or only large source of funds for Cato. Anyone who hasn't read Brian Doherty's history of the movement should do so before taking every word put out by Lew, et al as the gospel truth.

[lew]

Because Murray Rothbard didn't play nice with others 40 years ago, when he wasn't given supreme dogmatic authority over Cato. (he and the kochs worked together on founding Cato.)

This whole stupid feud is 90% personality (half of whom are dead), 8% strategic disagreement, and 2% substantive policy disagreement. Cato does good work, has had plenty of good (if not always 100% laudatory) things to say about Paul, including hosting RP at an Audit the Fed panel when that was gaining steam. Lew Rockwell's pettiness and penchant for grudges is the main thing fueling this food.

Moreover, Cato's main focus is not electoral politics anyway, nor are they a monolithic entity taking their daily orders straight from the Kochs. Hell, this Kochtopus nonsense is particularly funny given the Koch's own falling out with Ed Crane and that they have mostly (but not entirely) quietly disengaged from the day-to-day runnin of Cato. to And it's Bren decades since the Kochs were the main source of funds for Cato. Anyone who hasn't read Brian Doherty's history of the movement should do so before taking every word put out by Lew, et al as the gospel truth.


Excellent post. I myself lean more towards Mises, Rothbard, and Rockwell over Koch and Cato, but one can clearly read that much of the division arises over personality. Rothbard, my favorite intellectual behind Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, had odd personality traits at times. He (similar to Mises) would disown and not speak to someone for years that he agreed with 99% on just about everything, while also making a few favorable statements about the Soviets or Nazis.

[silentshout]

I probably have more in common with the reason folks (ie pro-choice, don't care if gays get married, am not socially conservative) but I don't see why they don't support Ron. Johnson, while I do like him and agree with his views, has absolutely no chance at winning.

[Churchill2004]

Excellent post. I myself lean more towards Mises, Rothbard, and Rockwell over Koch and Cato, but one can clearly read that much of the division arises over personality. Rothbard, my favorite intellectual behind Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, had odd personality traits at times. He (similar to Mises) would disown and not speak to someone for years that he agreed with 99% on just about everything, while also making a few favorable statements about the Soviets or Nazis.

I agree actually. I would still probably cite Ethics of Liberty as the book that has had the strongest influence on my libertarianism. That Rothbard was a valuable genius doesn't make him flawless or his feuds less petty. See: Ayn Rand.

[sailingaway]

Koch funds them and Koch is antiRon because Ron is antifed and anticorporatist (and foreign policy may play in it). So all the Koch mouthpieces and their student groups (students for liberty) support GJ and now even Cain it seems (maybe not the students, but the papers seem trying to hint Cain is acceptable, almost). They have fought this a long time and there is lots of history. I think some of it goes back to Rothbard, and Ron, as is friend and agreeing with him on anticorporatist issues, remained on the 'other side' of the divide. There are threads on this. The Kochs seem not quite as upset about Rand, or think they can make use of him for points they agree on, given the less water under the bridge, I don't know. However, in the primary they gave money to Trey Grayson, the well known libertarian freedom fighter, rather than to Rand....

[emazur]

Ron Paul's "The Case for Gold (http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/)" has been on CATO's front page for at least a month now

[Wesker1982]

Yeah its too bad Stossel <3s CATO so much. Just imagine if the LvMI got as much TV time on his show as CATO.

I also wonder if they have anything to do with John being clueless on the unnecessary bombings of innocent Japanese in WW2. John is suppose to expose these myths but still buys into the Hiroshima and Nagasaki myth, I wonder why?

http://mises.org/daily/4217
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQ045m3WF8

[sailingaway]

Yeah its too bad Stossel <3s CATO so much. Just imagine if the LvMI got as much TV time on his show as CATO.

I also wonder if they have anything to do with John being clueless on the unnecessary bombings of innocent Japanese in WW2. John is suppose to expose these myths but still buys into the Hiroshima and Nagasaki myth, I wonder why?

http://mises.org/daily/4217
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQ045m3WF8

Murdoch has a tie with CATO which I've figured might be why Fox so pushes Johnson, and why even the Judge seems to be underlining 'drug and abolishing social security' when he interviews Ron lately.

[Peace&Freedom]

Mises is to Cato, what the old Austrian school vs. the Chicago school was in decades past, a contrast between hard and soft libertarian approaches. It's not surprising that one is anti-Fed/anti-Corp while the other bends to accomodate the banks and big business. It also explains why Judge Nap can put so much real libertarianism on his FOX show---he uses a lot of Cato guests for filler interviews, whose watered down approach is more FOX-friendly than the Rockwell/Paul hard edge.

Cato has been good for converting libertarian concepts into policy proposals and rhetoric that can be accepted by your average Republican or Democratic politician. They have tried to (at their best) act as an interface between principle and "the real world," to eventually get the latter to adopt to liberty ideas. Kind of a "let's salt the earth" method to spread the word. This is similar to what Paul does when he drafts and introduces bills, even if they go no where---it gives us an idea as to what liberty legislation should look like.

But the weakness of Cato's approach has been it encourages them to maintain "respectability" at all costs in order to keep its dialogue with the mainstream pols going. Being beltway-centric, they also seem to favor a top-down approach to obtaining political victory. The kind of grassroots-driven movement for Paul would never have happened in the 2007-8 race if a CATO-type candidate had run as the liberty alternative. This would have prevented a coalition of constitutionalists, LPers, patriot movement and other forces from combining in the first place.

[BuddyRey]

B...b...but, Huffington Post says Ron Paul is a stooge of the Koch Brothers! Why would The Kochtopus use their think tank to attack him if he was working for them?

Does not compute...does not compute!

[sailingaway]

B...b...but, Huffington Post says Ron Paul is a stooge of the Koch Brothers! Why would The Kochtopus use their think tank to attack him if he was working for them?

Does not compute...does not compute!


HuffPo doesn't compute. Liberals and math....

[low preference guy]

The main reason the CATO has been opposed to Ron Paul is that they are intellectual lightweights. They at least used to believe that you could be a libertarian without being opposed to the Fed. They didn't make the connection between the existence of the Fed and other aspects of government, or at least kept quiet about it.

[Wesker1982]

Yeah I noticed that Reason and CATO give a lot of love to Milton Friedman. I heard that before he died he changed his mind on the Fed, though.

[emazur]

Yeah I noticed that Reason and CATO give a lot of love to Milton Friedman. I heard that before he died he changed his mind on the Fed, though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg

[nolvorite]

I think what really bothers CATO, is okay, umm, how Ron Paul says that even though he's for legalizing drugs, he's not for enforcing that they be legal and that state laws could ban them anyways. CATO is against states rights, and I think Ron Paul is abstractly an advocate on that issue.

[Churchill2004]

I think what really bothers CATO, is okay, umm, how Ron Paul says that even though he's for legalizing drugs, he's not for enforcing that they be legal and that state laws could ban them anyways. CATO is against states rights, and I think Ron Paul is abstractly an advocate on that issue.

Not exactly. Cato supports 14th Amendment "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights agsinst the states. Alan Gura's work in Chicago v McDonald is a good example of this. Paleocons are much less supportive of the of Federal courts striking down state laws.

Both strongly support Federalism, its just a matter of what limits should be placed on the states to protect liberty.

[Teaser Rate]

I think some of it has to do with the fact that they are think tank trying to influence reforms through practical and political means and Ron Paul is an ideologue who basically refuses to compromise on anything.

[AlexMerced]

To Be fair...

CATO - is a lot more beltway libertarian than Ron Paul who's on the extreme of Libertarianism (AN-Cap anyone), CATO thinks in piecesmiel "Pragmatic" policy steps and arn't as heavy on the austrian economics. When taking this approach I'm sure they fear their policies may be vetoed by a Ron Paul, so while a lot of shared values that there would less revelence for them.

Mises - I love the mises institute but unlike CATO they are about education and anarchy so they want Paul cause he gets people to the education part of the move towards a free society. CATO focuses on policy, so they want politicians they can manipulate.

At the end of the day, still think CATO is an ally in the fight for liberty, but their goals are very different then ours is at the moment.

[reagle]

I think some of it has to do with the fact that they are think tank trying to influence reforms through practical and political means and Ron Paul is an ideologue who basically refuses to compromise on anything.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w

3:44 Anderson Cooper: Those who say, "Well look, what about actually getting things done in Washington?", I mean, that compromise is essential in politics, that no matter what, you need at some point to compromise with someone on the other side of the aisle or someone within your own party to effect change; do you think that's true? And if so, do you think these new voices, those who have been elected by the Tea Party and their supporters, do you think they're going to be willing to compromise on things?


4:11 Ron Paul: Well, I don't think we have to compromise. I think you build coalitions. I work a lot with the Democrats on foreign policy and civil liberties, so I think coalitions are very good. But compromise, yes: If I want to eliminate the income tax and the other side wants to reduce it 50% -- I would say, well, if it's reduced 50% that's not bad, that's a good compromise.

But if somebody else wants to double your taxes and somebody says "Let's not double, let's just increase it by 25%"; no, I don't deal with those kind of compromises. Always compromise with people in your goals, which to me, is perfecting liberty. Increasing individual liberty and the free marketplace; when you compromise moving in that direction and working with coalitions, that's quite a big difference.

[awake]

Cato-kochtopus

[Teaser Rate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w

3:44 Anderson Cooper: Those who say, "Well look, what about actually getting things done in Washington?", I mean, that compromise is essential in politics, that no matter what, you need at some point to compromise with someone on the other side of the aisle or someone within your own party to effect change; do you think that's true? And if so, do you think these new voices, those who have been elected by the Tea Party and their supporters, do you think they're going to be willing to compromise on things?


4:11 Ron Paul: Well, I don't think we have to compromise. I think you build coalitions. I work a lot with the Democrats on foreign policy and civil liberties, so I think coalitions are very good. But compromise, yes: If I want to eliminate the income tax and the other side wants to reduce it 50% -- I would say, well, if it's reduced 50% that's not bad, that's a good compromise.

But if somebody else wants to double your taxes and somebody says "Let's not double, let's just increase it by 25%"; no, I don't deal with those kind of compromises. Always compromise with people in your goals, which to me, is perfecting liberty. Increasing individual liberty and the free marketplace; when you compromise moving in that direction and working with coalitions, that's quite a big difference.

Ron’s definition of compromise here violates the entire principle of negotiation. The point is to give up something you value in exchange for something else. Since Ron is never willing to vote for anything which contradicts his values, he’s not ready to compromise, but rather just accept less good in exchange of nothing.

While this attitude is why he has such a strong and devoted following, it does make him a terrible negotiator; how can anyone negotiate with a man who is unwilling to give up anything he holds dear?

Take the debt ceiling vote for example, everyone knows it’s going to pass one way or another, the only question is whether the Republicans are going to be able to get something valuable from the Democrats from the process. There are essentially three possible outcomes – debt ceiling passes with no budget cuts (Democratic victory); debt ceiling passes with budget cuts (Republican victory); debt ceiling doesn’t pass (practically impossible). In Ron’s world, the second possibility is a non-starter because he wouldn’t want to violate his principles, which would essentially narrow down the choices between a democratic victory for more spending and a virtually impossible scenario. And instead of having something to show for a loss, we're left with nothing because we're weren't willing to accept that victory was impossible. This, as Voltaire put it, is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

When your choices are between bad, less bad, and good but very very unlikely to work, you can't always pick the last option.


(btw, I don't have sound on my computer right now, so my reply was based entirely on the responses you quoted, if there was something else in the interview which addressed the points I raised, please let me know)

[TNforPaul45]

Ignore CATO - The mises institute is the real deal.

Mises.org

Here! Here!

[LibertyEagle]

Not exactly. Cato supports 14th Amendment "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights agsinst the states. Alan Gura's work in Chicago v McDonald is a good example of this. Paleocons are much less supportive of the of Federal courts striking down state laws.

Both strongly support Federalism, its just a matter of what limits should be placed on the states to protect liberty.

I dunno know about that. I grew up in a traditional conservative family; Goldwater-conservative, if you will. My parents made it clear that they much preferred the Anti-federalists over the Federalists. heh

[Churchill2004]

No contemporary "anti-federalist" would have accepted that label, I dont know why we should claim it. That's what Jefferson's "we are all republicans, we are all federalists" was all about.