Cato's Michael Tanner marginalizes Ron Paul in favor of Fred Thompson

[LastoftheMohicans]

While this is old, I think this typifies the Libertarian Establishment's view of Ron Paul.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/31/is-fred-thompson-a-small-government-conservative/

[mesler]

They want to remain objective, that's all. They are secretly rooting for him, certainly.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/15/ron-paul-and-the-nba/ - David Boaz on RP

[AlexAmore]

I didn't read it, but I know Tanner is a globalist. I read some brief stuff of his before.

[LastoftheMohicans]

They want to remain objective, that's all. They are secretly rooting for him, certainly.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/15/ron-paul-and-the-nba/ - David Boaz on RP

Some may be rooting for him, but not most. Many in Cato have, IMO, sold themselves out in order to be acceptable to the Republican Establishment. Some are ideologically not libertarians, especially in the foreign policy area.

[Capitalism]

Some may be rooting for him, but not most. Many in Cato have, IMO, sold themselves out in order to be acceptable to the Republican Establishment. Some are ideologically not libertarians, especially in the foreign policy area.

Fortunately, I think the foreign policy scholars are still libertarians. But I see your point. Others there support the war in Iraq, like Brink Lindsey.

[austin356]

Cato does not even want to touch the great RP.

They have sold out long term principle for short term political ramifications. But, that being said, they do serve a great purpose, and if they can force their way into the Republican mainstream, as AEI did, then it not only helps people like Paul, but would be great for the nation and world.


I certainly would prefer CATO being in charge of the GOP instead of the AEI.

[liberatenyc]

Oh please. Our disparaging Cato typifies the aggressive individualism of libertarians such as ourselves. There should be absolutely no doubting the passion with which Cato advances the cause of liberty. They are our ally.

[mesler]

Some may be rooting for him, but not most. Many in Cato have, IMO, sold themselves out in order to be acceptable to the Republican Establishment. Some are ideologically not libertarians, especially in the foreign policy area.

Can you give an example of someone at Cato advocating foreign intervention or praising the decision to go into Iraq?

[mesler]

Cato does not even want to touch the great RP.

They have sold out long term principle for short term political ramifications. But, that being said, they do serve a great purpose, and if they can force their way into the Republican mainstream, as AEI did, then it not only helps people like Paul, but would be great for the nation and world.


I certainly would prefer CATO being in charge of the GOP instead of the AEI.

Yes, and pure Libertarians think Paul has "sold out" for his stance on immigration and a fence, and they roll their eyes when he talks about God and life starting at conception.

I don't think Cato sold out any more than RP sold out.

[beermotor]

Oh please. Our disparaging Cato typifies the aggressive individualism of libertarians such as ourselves. There should be absolutely no doubting the passion with which Cato advances the cause of liberty. They are our ally.


I agree, but only insofar as an organization like Cato can actually be an ally of an individualist liberty movement. I am sure they have ideological differences with Paul because he has positioned himself as a "libertarian centrist" / republican, rather than a hardcore libertarian (I am thinking expressly of the borders issue). At any rate, I think Cato (from what I've read) falls too readily into the standard pessimistic libertarian outlook - "well it would be nice if Ron Paul won and we changed the country for the better, but we've made a career out of complaining about how crappy things are and I doubt it's going to change any time soon so let's try to get behind Fred Thompson."

Yawn.

[Capitalism]

Can you give an example of someone at Cato advocating foreign intervention or praising the decision to go into Iraq?


http://www.reason.com/news/show/32065.html

No more 9/11s
The case for invading Iraq
by Brink Lindsey, now a VP at Cato


Later he kinda, sorta admitted he was wrong: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/25/confessions-of-a-former-and-maybe-future-hawk/

[kylejack]

I feel like a battered housewife. I keep putting my faith in Cato and they often let me down.

[mesler]

Every Libertarian does support some intervention, that is, if they feel our nation is in imminent danger. Was he wrong that we were in imminent danger? Sure. Does he represent all of Cato? No. Does that mean all of Cato are sell-outs? No.

From the article you posted:


The views I expressed were extremely controversial within Cato and the larger libertarian camp. Cato’s foreign policy scholars, reflecting the “orthodox” libertarian opposition to an interventionist foreign policy, strongly opposed the Iraq invasion. But for a minority of policy staffers at Cato, as well as many other libertarians, waiting for the other guy to take the first swing no longer seemed to make sense in a post-9/11


So he admitted that he and the others who advocated action in Iraq were in the minority at Cato.

[mesler]

I agree, but only insofar as an organization like Cato can actually be an ally of an individualist liberty movement. I am sure they have ideological differences with Paul because he has positioned himself as a "libertarian centrist" / republican, rather than a hardcore libertarian (I am thinking expressly of the borders issue). At any rate, I think Cato (from what I've read) falls too readily into the standard pessimistic libertarian outlook - "well it would be nice if Ron Paul won and we changed the country for the better, but we've made a career out of complaining about how crappy things are and I doubt it's going to change any time soon so let's try to get behind Fred Thompson."

Yawn.

They were around when Paul ran in 88, before he "sold out" to the Republican party. If I was part of a libertarian think-tank for 30+ years, I probably wouldn't be getting my hopes up over a libertarian getting elected either.

Cato is simply being objective. People who are on the fence or not part of your specific circle will be more inclined to listen to someone who is obviously objctive over someone who comes across as a party-liner. And so when Cato finally does start touting Paul, they won't be written off as libertarian cheerleaders and will be taken seriously outside of libertarian circles.