Murray Rothbard's Take on Where Rand Paul Stands on the Political Spectrum

[purplechoe]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...here-rand.html

Friday, June 22, 2012
Murray Rothbard's Take on Where Rand Paul Stands on the Political Spectrum
Dan Cotter emails:

I think Murray Rothbard laid out the best strategy for the liberty movement ever in this letter to F.A. Harper, George Resch. It appeared in Strictly Confidential and was titled "What Is To Be Done?"

Rothbard’s Confidential Memorandum to the Volker Fund,
“What Is to Be Done?”
July 1961
To: F.A. Harper, George Resch
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

I think he made the perfect distinction between Ron and Rand Paul in this letter and described why Rand Paul's strategy will fail to create positive change.

He laid out three types of strategies.

1.The sectarian strategists (e.g., the current Trotskyite sects) are those who pass out leaflets on street corners, state their full ideological position at all times, and consider any collaboration in halfway measures as “opportunist,” “selling out the cause,” etc. They are undoubtedly noble, but almost always ineffective.

2.The opposite “deviation” is “opportunism”: the willingness to collaborate with any halfway measures or organizations, and, in effect, to abandon the true principles in the name of gradualist advance, “realism,”
“practical life,” etc. These are the real sellers-out of the revolution, and they almost always, in historical Leninist experience, end by turning “reformist” and abandoning—in fact and later even de jure—their
revolutionary principles. These people are ignoble, and, if they are at all effective, they are not effective in the proper, revolutionary direction.

{This is the group I see Rand in.}

3. But I believe that there is a third, “centrist” course—certainly hard to find in practice, but the broad outlines of which can be sketched, and then perhaps used as a guide for our future activities. This “middle way” (Ugh! How I hate that concept!) may, for convenience, be dubbed “centrist” or “Leninist,” and it runs,
I believe, roughly as follows:

{I see this as the group that Ron Paul is a part of}

Rothbard goes on to lay out the strategy and it is just a brilliant letter. I was extremely moved when I read this back when the book first came out. I think your readers would benefit greatly from reading this since there is so much debate over what Rand Paul has been doing.

You can find it here. (page 7)

[July]

The book is well worth a read.

As for where Rand fits into the big picture, I think that's hard to say--this is kinda assuming he is a Rothbardian libertarian in the first place, and I've not heard him claim that. Sure I can see some influences from Rothbard, but then, I can also see other influences from figures like Goldwater, etc.

[realtonygoodwin]

I see Ron mostly in the 1st category, and Rand mostly in the third.

[Randslide]

I see Ron mostly in the 1st category, and Rand mostly in the third.

Agree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The book is well worth a read.

As for where Rand fits into the big picture, I think that's hard to say--this is kinda assuming he is a Rothbardian libertarian in the first place, and I've not heard him claim that. Sure I can see some influences from Rothbard, but then, I can also see other influences from figures like Goldwater, etc.

Yeah, Rand isn't Rothbardian. He doesn't use the phrases, the same issues, or hold to the same principles (see his SS and income tax statements and policies for an example). If Ron is Rothbard (seriously, watch a Rothbard speech, it is hilarious how often he uses phrases that Ron uses on a consistent basis - accents and affectations aside, it's almost like listening to the same person), Rand is Friedman.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I see Ron mostly in the 1st category, and Rand mostly in the third.

Yup. This is what I came to say

I see Ron as far more of a dedicated idealist, and Rand is more pragmatic without abandoning the principles.

Group #2 is reserved for RINOs

[low preference guy]

Rand is Friedman.

Not even close. Friedman didn't understand monetary policy and mocked those who predicted a collapse due to monetary policy, something Rand does fairly often. It seems to me that Rand's goals are similar to Mises, though he wants to accomplish with different tactics than Ron. You're confusing ideology with strategy.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Yup. This is what I came to say

I see Ron as far more of a dedicated idealist, and Rand is more pragmatic without abandoning the principles.

Group #2 is reserved for RINOs

Agreed. Ron is the sectarian 1st group - a truth speaker - nourishing the "hardcore libertarian" and bolstering this base with a clear outline of our Libertarian position, recruiting others.

Rand, I see as #3. He hasn't appeared (at least to me, some may disagree) to have sold out Libertarian philosophy for power/wealth: 2nd group.

Interesting thread, I love strategy.

[trey4sports]

Not even close. Friedman didn't understand monetary policy and mocked those who predicted a collapse due to monetary policy, something Rand does fairly often. It seems to me that Rand's goals are similar to Mises, though he wants to accomplish with different tactics than Ron. You're confusing ideology with strategy.

agreed.