Perfect meets good, squabbles
In terms that recall the old saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good," George Mason University economics professor Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, explains why he's not supporting Dr. Ron Paul's presidential candidacy:
OK, I'll call you fussy.
Look, If you believe in the primacy of individual liberty, small government, peace and the voluntary exchange of the marketplace, you're doing pretty damned good this year in terms of Ron Paul's candidacy -- the best you've done since ... well, long before you were born (and I don't care how old you are). Ron Paul is explicitly libertarian, a devotee of the free-market Austrian school of economics, a supporter of civil liberties, a proponent of free trade and a strong national defense, but an opponent of aggressive, imperialist military posturing. He's the only major-party candidate to question the disastrous war on drugs and he's the only Republican candidate to propose defusing the gay marriage controversy by simply getting government out of the marriage business.
Is Paul my perfect candidate? No -- I wish he was pro-choice on abortion. I also wish he favored open borders. It'd be great if he were an explicit anarchist. I'd be thrilled if he had a bit more fire in his belly -- if he walked onto stage during a debate and the first time Giuliani or McCain looked at him cross-eyed, Paul strolled over and slammed the head of the mayor or the senator into the podium. And then lit a joint.
But you get the candidates you get, not those you wish for -- and that may be a good thing. My little piece of Arizona is festooned with Ron Paul yard signs and bumper stickers (the only other candidate I've seen represented is Obama -- by one sticker) that probably wouldn't be there if Paul was edgier and more ... umm ... like me.
Despite my differences, I'm happy to support a credible, well-funded, wildly popular candidate who is libertarian without being exactly the sort of libertarian I usually favor.
I think Cowen gets at the heart of his objection when he says, "personally I am skeptical of most forms of gun control but I worry when a candidate so emphasizes a pro-gun stance." That's not even an ideological difference -- it's a matter of emphasis, and one probably rooted in culture.
I know many New York- and D.C.-rooted libertarians are frankly uncomfortable with the prevailing preferences and norms out in "flyover" country. They don't get social conservatism -- even when it comes packaged with live-and-let-live policy proposals. They don't understand the affection that middle America has for firearms, or its religiosity, or the way it talks, or... well ... pretty much anything about it. I get it; I'm a former New Yorker who lives in rural Arizona and straddles the great divide. I can rest up after an afternoon of splitting wood by watching a Woody Allen movie, but I don't expect other people to attempt such dangerous cultural gymnastics.
And it is a great divide. The discomfort some libertarians feel for other libertarians has engendered a bit of a silly schism over cultural issues and matters of emphasis more than ideological disputes.
But there's a big country out here, and you can't just write off political candidates who agree with you on important political issues, but talk and think differently than you and perhaps arrive at their positions by a different route than brought you to your destination -- not unless you're hopelessly tribal that is. Fortunately, many people seem capable of making the leap. The fact that Ron Paul is simultaneously steeped in middle-American values and doesn't want to jam any of them down people's throats goes a long way toward explaining his wide-ranging popularity. He's playing well in ranch country, but also among college students and even in cosmopolitan enclaves like San Francisco. As far as I can tell, his appeal doesn't lie in being exactly what everybody wants, but in sincerely respecting people's right to differ with one another and to live as they please under a strictly restrained government, as long as they respect the equal rights of others.
If, like Tyler Cowen, you're waiting for a candidate who not only agrees with you on the issues, but emphasizes them according to your priority list and does so from a viewpoint steeped in your culture, you're probably well advised to toss your own hat in the ring.
Go ahead; if you're right on the issues, I'll probably support you -- even if I think you have funny priorities. I hope you do half as well as Ron Paul.
The Ron Paul phenomenon reminds me of the old America First movement, with Misesian 100 percent reserve banking theory on top. He is making (one version of) libertarianism much more popular by allying it with nationalist and also states' rights memes. That includes his stances on immigration, NAFTA, China, devolution of powers, and "The Constitution." Even when the policy recommendations stay libertarian, I fear that the wrong emotions will have the staying power. Evaluating a politician is not just about policy positions; for instance personally I am skeptical of most forms of gun control but I worry when a candidate so emphasizes a pro-gun stance.
Many libertarians see the Paul candidacy as their chance to have an impact and they may well be right. There is also no one else for them to support. But, raw milk or not, I am not myself tempted to take a stance this year in favor of any of the candidates, Paul included. Liberty is lacking in the United States but I'd like to see it more closely bundled with reasonableness, moderation, and yes pragmatism; I am looking to advance on all fronts at the same time. Call me fussy if you wish.
OK, I'll call you fussy.
Look, If you believe in the primacy of individual liberty, small government, peace and the voluntary exchange of the marketplace, you're doing pretty damned good this year in terms of Ron Paul's candidacy -- the best you've done since ... well, long before you were born (and I don't care how old you are). Ron Paul is explicitly libertarian, a devotee of the free-market Austrian school of economics, a supporter of civil liberties, a proponent of free trade and a strong national defense, but an opponent of aggressive, imperialist military posturing. He's the only major-party candidate to question the disastrous war on drugs and he's the only Republican candidate to propose defusing the gay marriage controversy by simply getting government out of the marriage business.
Is Paul my perfect candidate? No -- I wish he was pro-choice on abortion. I also wish he favored open borders. It'd be great if he were an explicit anarchist. I'd be thrilled if he had a bit more fire in his belly -- if he walked onto stage during a debate and the first time Giuliani or McCain looked at him cross-eyed, Paul strolled over and slammed the head of the mayor or the senator into the podium. And then lit a joint.
But you get the candidates you get, not those you wish for -- and that may be a good thing. My little piece of Arizona is festooned with Ron Paul yard signs and bumper stickers (the only other candidate I've seen represented is Obama -- by one sticker) that probably wouldn't be there if Paul was edgier and more ... umm ... like me.
Despite my differences, I'm happy to support a credible, well-funded, wildly popular candidate who is libertarian without being exactly the sort of libertarian I usually favor.
I think Cowen gets at the heart of his objection when he says, "personally I am skeptical of most forms of gun control but I worry when a candidate so emphasizes a pro-gun stance." That's not even an ideological difference -- it's a matter of emphasis, and one probably rooted in culture.
I know many New York- and D.C.-rooted libertarians are frankly uncomfortable with the prevailing preferences and norms out in "flyover" country. They don't get social conservatism -- even when it comes packaged with live-and-let-live policy proposals. They don't understand the affection that middle America has for firearms, or its religiosity, or the way it talks, or... well ... pretty much anything about it. I get it; I'm a former New Yorker who lives in rural Arizona and straddles the great divide. I can rest up after an afternoon of splitting wood by watching a Woody Allen movie, but I don't expect other people to attempt such dangerous cultural gymnastics.
And it is a great divide. The discomfort some libertarians feel for other libertarians has engendered a bit of a silly schism over cultural issues and matters of emphasis more than ideological disputes.
But there's a big country out here, and you can't just write off political candidates who agree with you on important political issues, but talk and think differently than you and perhaps arrive at their positions by a different route than brought you to your destination -- not unless you're hopelessly tribal that is. Fortunately, many people seem capable of making the leap. The fact that Ron Paul is simultaneously steeped in middle-American values and doesn't want to jam any of them down people's throats goes a long way toward explaining his wide-ranging popularity. He's playing well in ranch country, but also among college students and even in cosmopolitan enclaves like San Francisco. As far as I can tell, his appeal doesn't lie in being exactly what everybody wants, but in sincerely respecting people's right to differ with one another and to live as they please under a strictly restrained government, as long as they respect the equal rights of others.
If, like Tyler Cowen, you're waiting for a candidate who not only agrees with you on the issues, but emphasizes them according to your priority list and does so from a viewpoint steeped in your culture, you're probably well advised to toss your own hat in the ring.
Go ahead; if you're right on the issues, I'll probably support you -- even if I think you have funny priorities. I hope you do half as well as Ron Paul.
Labels: popularity contest
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
5:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home