Ron Paul was right (again) - Purism is Practical:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...m-is-Practical
I very much like all three. I won't hesitate to criticize any of them (as I did when Rand opposed the yet-to-be-implemented Iran Deal), but I also won't hesitate to praise them (as I did for
Rand's recent speech at The American Conservative, wherein he opposed scrapping the already-implemented Iran Deal, denounced Saudi Arabia in no uncertain terms, and signaled his support for rapprochement with Iran).
However, to answer your question - no, they aren't "good enough" (but this is not necessarily their fault - see below). We so-called "purists" want more than they are able or willing (due to personal temperament or political "realities" or etc.) to provide or accomplish (yet). But as Ron Paul pointed out in the essay I linked to above (and as I elaborated in my response in that thread), this makes us complements to one another, not opponents. (Unfortunately, this is something that many on both sides of the false "purism vs. pragmatism" dichotomy seem not to understand.)
If the "moderate pragmatists" are in a position to get something done, then the range of possibilities they have is greatly foreshortened without the presence of a vigorous and assertive "radical purism." In the absence of "radical purists", "moderate pragmatism" becomes the extreme - and as a result, the center of gravity will be weighted much more toward the status quo than it otherwise would be.
As fisharmor correctly notes, this dynamic is perfectly illustrated by Ocasio-Cortez & the radical left
vis-à-vis Pelosi & the Democrat party establishment. Unfortunately, libertarians don't have nearly as many "radicals" as the leftists do, and so our "pragmatists" (such as Massie, Amash and Rand) don't have nearly as much "juice" behind them ...
Connect With Us