You'd probably also be happy if two doctors in the same practice said you were going to die and wouldn't seek out a third opinion.

No appeal?  That's putting it nicely.

Still, the percentage of voters lending their support to Ron Paul is scary - close to one in ten voters in the GOP primary would back someone wishing to return to the gold standard?  I'll have to cross-check that against the prevalence of mental illness and Scientology in the general population... might not be that out of line.

Caution: The fact that libertarians are a small constituency doesn't mean that neither party can profit from embracing some parts of the libertarian message. You win political campaigns on the margins, with the people who might support the other guy but vote for you instead.

So, you know, free pot, unregulated pollution of your child's drinking water, and legal prostitution are not winning platforms. But a general spirit of trusting the people, reducing regulatory burdens where possible, and focusing on core government competencies could be of benefit to Democrats. A more permissive approach to guns and hunting, for example, has been a significant boon to recent Democratic campaigns in the Plains, the mountain West, and here in Virginia.

Sure, Ron Paul's voters (who surely are not voting for Ron Paul the actual person, but rather Ron Paul the idea of a libertarian takeover of one of the major parties) may represent only 5 percent of the possible electorate. But if enough of their message can be coopted without compromising any core values, wouldn't you rather they vote for you than for the other guy in November?

Rhubarbs--the people that vote for Ron Paul believe that any major party candidate is going to continue tapping your phones, raising your taxes, putting flouride in your drinking water, and instituting the draft right after taking the oath of office.

These are the marginal voters who will always vote for the libertarian party candidate no matter what happens.  I'd rather try and capture the independent voters than go after these loons.  

1186 comments on Kirchick's Ron Paul post.  Surely a new TNR record, far surpassing Scott Thomas Beauchamp and George Soros.

I was sort of hoping the amount of posts would surpass the amount of votes Paul got.   Not even close, sadly.

I agree with Rhubarbs, though.  We could use a little more of that attitude, that of a kind of government-protected libertarianism, if that makes sense.  I think it was Berke Breathred, in an interview, who said if you scratch a good liberal you will find a libertarian underneath.  THe government should help us live our lives the way we want- which includes helping us all have health care, protection, etc.  Give us space and opportunity.  

My mind is not really working now, so I apologize for that not making a ton of sense.

But speaking of Paul- I know that one shouldn't always judge a candidate by their supporters.  All of them are bound to have morons.  But a random sample of the comments on Jamie's piece shows bad craziness.  And I read just two in their entirety, so I don't know if they are representative or not.  THey may be outliers that I just happened to pick out of the 1200.   Or they may be very instructive.

| Posted by Jake

974 of 1196 | warn tnr | respond

Waht a hoot!.. btw, hopefully someday Rudy Jew and the rest of you stinking, warmongering, know-little, fog-leghorn Republicans will learn the difference between 'isolationism' and 'non-interventionism'..(good thing for you scumbags we don't have hardly any honest, focused, candid, debate in amerika amongst the actual political participants..just lots of cheerleading from the stooooooooooooooopid cheerleaders and announcers!.. GO RON PAUL!..give it to 'em harder!

| Posted by Mike

975 of 1196 | warn tnr | respond

I think your main problem that is, if elected, Ron Paul will cut off the foreign, and I do mean foreign, aid to Israel, without which it could not exist.

Rudy Jew?  Really?

Libertarianism : intelligent politics :: aromatherapy : medical science

Don't knock aromatherapy, teppy.  I can't tell you what the smell of frying bacon does for me while hungover.

Bacon -- mmmmm

Actually, I think Ron Paul (and his adolescent supporters) makes libertarianism *less* attractive.

Politically (like many here), I'm liberal socially and right-of-center economically.  I believe that the purpose of government is to ensure the freedom of its citizens.  In theory, the libertarian platform (liberal socially, conservative economically) should attract me more than either the Democrats (liberal on both) or the Republicans (conservative on both).  Hell, I even registered as a Libertarian, back when I was pissed that both the Dems and Reps of CA had closed their primaries despite clear voter desire to keep them open.  As a result, I started getting some of the Libertarian propaganda... which promptly turned me off.

The Libertarians are such extremists.  Sure I'm all for individual liberties, but  I don't think folks should be able to inject heroin at work.  And while I prefer the free market to government bureaucracy, I know enough about economics to realize that negative externalities will always cause market failure with regard to pollution.  And the gold standard?  I got over Atlas Shrugged before I graduated college.

If the Libertarians want to change political discourse, they need to present well-reasoned alternatives to the proposals of the two parties.  So long as Libertarianism is a haven for crazies and adolescents, it's far too easy to dismiss anything they bring to the table as the rantings of deranged loons.

Plus, aromatherapy can smell good.

Legions of Ayn-Rand quoting Ron Paul supporters? Not so much with the smelling good.

Or David Duke and John Birch-quoting Ron Paul supporters

But who is John Galt, Rhubarbs?

Think about it...

Hey, remember in like 1999 when the ALA had their top 100 English-language books over the century?  Pretty predictable, of course- Ulysses, Gatsby and (surprisingly actually) Pale Fire were the top three.   Or something.  Doesn't matter.

Anyway, the internet tubes were flooded with legions of people complaining at the top of their cyberlungs that Atlas Shrugged wasn't number 1.   Hell, the ALA even had the temerity not to put it on the list at all (not Anthem or the architecht one, whose name, not unpleasingly, escapes me).  

Just as I can't imagine possibly thinking Ron Paul would make a good President, I can't begin to fathom possibly even considering that- politics aside, even- a great, good, or even average novel.  

Seeing the legions of online RoPaul supporters is instructive. Sort of like seeking out an entertainment website and stumbling onto an infinte window-spawn of pornsites.

Libbetrarianism : political web :: porn : overall web. A pity CanWest didn't anticipate the hordes and serve up targeted ads... just imagine the click-thru $$$$$!

Cuomo contest: nominate the targeted ads that would generate the most revenue next to Jamie's article on Paul.

Reading the posts on the Ron Paul articles, I have to admit, I really have to get a kick out of the *snark* flawless logic of the RP supporters:

There are no articles written by RP, so it's all lies!... Uh...OK, so there are articles, but RP had nothing to do with them, so they're all fabrications!!...Uh...OK, so they were printed under his name, BUT HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!!!...Uh...OK, so it was his newsletters, BUT THE ARTICLES WERE NOT WRITTEN BY HIM!!!!...Uh...OK, so he may have written the articles, BUT HE'S NOT A RACIST!!!!!...Uh...He MAY have written the articles, BUT THEY'RE THE TRUTH, YOU FILTHY LEFT-WING NEOCON JEWBASTARD SCUMBAGS!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, if these RP supporters actually are in college, or went to college, what the hell kind of education did these losers get?!

Isaac,

As I recall, back in the 1980s and 1990s, Lyndon LaRouche used to run congressional candidates in primaries all over the US, and some got upwards of 30 percent of the vote, or more.  Don't underestimate the inattentive  + nutccase voting bloc.

Dan

I am still enjoying the comments.

Posted by free2b

1238 of 1263 | warn tnr | respond

You guys must be on the take from the "Bankster's" who own you and the mainstream media, afraid Ron Paul will win this election and cut off the tail of the dragons?

Ummm...no, actually, I'm not terribly afraid of that at all.

Also, one guy who said all the smears were wildly unfair and neither Paul nor his supporters were racist or homophobe or anything called TNR part of the "kosher press".  

This is so much fun!

In Europe, the "social liberal, fiscal conservative" vote has its own parties (Liberal Dems, Free Dems).  These parties are substantial, but never majority parties.

In the US, they do not because of the 2-party system.

They should have this, and coalitions would be built with the Democrats or Republicans on specific issues.

These "independents" should not be forced to marry the other independents, the "social conservative, fiscal liberal" vote (e.g. Huckabee).  This group, as well should have its own party.

In any case, I don't believe the "social liberal, fiscal conservative" vote is Libertarian.  It is closer to the "good government" approach of Bloomberg.

Government can do many positive things if it is run by smart people.

I'll preface this by making the mandatory admission that Paul is indeed a nut and some of his supporters are beyond crazy.  And I'm an Obama supporter anyway.

But your one-dimensional caricaturization of libertarianism in general is about as accurate as conservative stereotypes of modern liberalism.  Take a look at Reason magazine, which has been relentlessly covering abuses of law enforcement and the justice system which primarily target low-income citizens and/or minorities.  (By the way, according to HuffPo the Clinton campaign is going to criticize Obama for his votes *against* mandatory minimum sentences and *for* the rights of criminal defendants.  One example of the latter is that thanks to Obama's efforts while a state legislator, police in Illinois are no longer beat confessions out of suspects.  This tells me a lot about Hillary.)  They're not part of the black helicopter crowd - neither are most other libertarians - and although their economic views are too harsh for my tastes, they're very consistent about advocating freedom for everyone, not just rich whites and gun nuts.  It's an interesting contrast to the limousine liberalism on display here.

Or better yet, go read Markos Moulitsas's article on "libertarian Democrats" - which more or less describes my views on the subject.  But if I recall correctly, y'all think Kos is a nut too.  (To be fair, many of his readers certainly are.)  Brink Lindsey wrote something similar here about libertarians and Democrats allying on issues of mutual concern, and Jon Chait essentially told him to f*** off.  It's a mystery to me why these ideas are so despised by most liberals, since they aren't as completely inconsistent with liberal policies as you presume.  Is there something you find offensive about restraining what our elected and appointed officials are able to do?  Have any of you ever seen a big government program you didn't like?  Do you ever stop to consider the possible effects of endless expansions of bureaucracy on individual freedom?  (Do you even care?)

As I recall, TNR applauded both the Raich v. Ashcroft and Kelo v. New London decisions, which were essentially blank checks for the government (federal and local, respectively).  And William Stuntz's article here <i>against</i> transparency and privacy was about as repulsive as anything I've read in a mainstream publication, liberal or conservative.  That kind of mindless "soft authoritarianism" is what made me change my party registration  to independent and (along with Marty's racist rants) decide not to renew my subscription.

<i>the people that vote for Ron Paul believe that any major party candidate is going to continue tapping your phones, raising your taxes, putting flouride in your drinking water, and instituting the draft right after taking the oath of office.</i>

I'll ignore the fluoride joke, because I haven't seen any libertarian who cares, but I have no doubt that either party is going to raise taxes (or run up deficits, which might as well be the same) and continue tapping your phones (those of us who pay attention to technology remember the Clinton administration's attempts to mandate encryption backdoors for the convenience of the NSA).  And I've seen quite a few liberals - Rep. Rangel comes to mind - propose re-instituting the draft or some form of national service.  You can crack jokes about libertarian potheads all you want, but it was more than a little disturbing when John Edwards said in a debate that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana because it would send the wrong message to kids and the president should be a moral exemplar.  That sort of sanctimonious attitude would fit right in with today's GOP.

I don't really mind taxes or (some) regulation, and I support moderate welfare and (with reservations) universal health insurance, but some of you have taken social engineering and nanny statism to an extreme, and when I see "freedom" treated like a dirty word by big-government liberals, it makes me very, very reluctant to support *anything* you propose.

<i>I don't believe the "social liberal, fiscal conservative" vote is Libertarian.  It is closer to the "good government" approach of Bloomberg.  Government can do many positive things if it is run by smart people.</i>

Like banning trans fats and cracking down on petty possession of marijuana?  These are not on the top of my list of things the government should be doing with our tax dollars.

The notion that this country's political economy "takes nanny-statism to an extreme" is ridiculous.

Everyone who drinks the libbetrarian kool-aid should spend a year or two living in northern Europe, where the state is vastly more intrusive than it is here, and yet-- miracle of miracles-- people live well, are extremely well-educated, in excellent health, and benefit from world-class companies, superb technology and strong economic growth.

Nothing better demostrates American parochialism than this absurd notion that we are careening toward nanny-state socialism, or that state intervention in northern Europe has not produced extraordinary prosperity and high living standards.

Nat, libertarians are nuts.  This isn't one-dimensional as much as it is a reflection of the Libertarian Party.  It might be important to distinguish the ideology from the party, but sadly, the Libertarian Party is uncompromising in its adherence to "Government bad!  Individual good!"

You also make it seem like Democrats and Republicans don't adhere to a philosophy that values individual freedom, which is silly.  They're just a little more observant of the fact that government exists to enforce order, and that requires that individuals be restricted to some extent.

"I don't really mind taxes or (some) regulation, and I support moderate welfare and (with reservations) universal health insurance, but some of you have taken social engineering and nanny statism to an extreme, and when I see "freedom" treated like a dirty word by big-government liberals, it makes me very, very reluctant to support *anything* you propose."

HERESY!  You'll be kicked out of the L-club if anyone hears of this.

Hey nat -- the term "spoiled-rotten brat" ring familiar to you?

It should.

Sigh.

"Hey nat -- the term 'spoiled-rotten brat' ring familiar to you?"

Hah-hah.  I'll be the first to admit that as a white male child of upper-middle-class parents, I've got it made in this country.  No one in my family has ever complained about our high tax rates - except for the obscenely high sales tax where my parents live, which is both highly regressive and funds some truly abominable projects (some inflicted on them by the Democratic state government) which have gone billions of dollars over budget.  Actually, I'm not really worried about the government infringing on *my* freedom, because there's not much chance of that happening - I don't even drink, and I don't own a house they can take to give to Pfizer - although I don't understand the local police department's obsession with jaywalking.  And to repeat one last time, I don't mind taxes in principle, although I'd rather not pay for some congressman's re-election in the form of a federally subsidized Museum of Hair Clippings for his home district.  We could probably also think of a better use for all those billions of dollars that went towards the Joint Strike Fighter.

In fact, I'm an expert on spoiled-rotten brats, since in addition to being one myself, I've spent much of my life surrounded by them, especially at college, where I, like George Bush before me, was a legacy and could party for four years (which I didn't) secure in the knowledge that after graduation I could quickly rise to power and wealth (which I didn't) or perhaps coast on the family name for a while (ours isn't worth anything), and follow a proud tradition of screwing up the country, wasting other people's money, peering into every body cavity, and rushing into random third-world conflicts (which I didn't).  Actually, although I was in the library or at work most of the time, I saw enough idiocy in college (of the sober kind) that I'd be much happier if spoiled-rotten brats like me and other Ivy elites were kept as far away as possible from any position where they might be responsible for the welfare of the country.  I'd be rotten at governing anyway; I'd probably forget to read the omnibus spending bills and watch my DVDs of "The Simpsons" instead, which wouldn't be that much different from the seriousness with which today's Congress treats its job.  In general, I adhere to the principle that anyone who actually wants to run the country (or state, or county, or city, or neighborhood association) probably shouldn't be trusted too much and needs to be watched very carefully.

This does *not* mean that I favor drowning the government in the bathtub and leaving the poor to rot in cardboard boxes, although I do occasionally wish that we could throw several hundred legislators and a few thousand more bureaucrats into the Potomac and give *their* homes to the poor. (We could also throw in some magazine editors and think-tankers, starting with the Heritage Foundation.)  I am merely concerned with the unintended consequences of unbridled government and the excess trust we place in our lords and masters in Washington (or anywhere else).  Universal health insurance is a fine and noble idea and by all means let's do it, but could we at least spend a few minutes considering how to ensure that the government can't botch it or abuse it or reach too deeply into our private lives?  Please?  I believe that our collective failure to exercise this sort of caution and keep reasonable restraints in place is part of what has enabled the last seven disastrous years and many more smaller episodes of insanity (like our increadibly bloated defense budget) for much longer.  Politicians have an uncanny skill at finding creative new ways to abuse their authority and their constituents (consider, for example, the Republican perversion of Democratic proposals like No Child Left Behind, the Medicare presicription drug benefit, the DHS, etc., none of which affect me other than the massive deficits I'll be paying for until I retire), and too many liberals simply don't make the connection or pretend it doesn't exist.  But what the heck, since part of the Bush tax cuts ended up in Christmas presents from my parents, that must be all I care about, right?

I'm also confused about whether this means Markos Moulitsas is a spoiled-rotten brat too, since he's the only writer I can find whose views approximate mine.  Most people appear to think that he's a crazy far-left moonbat.  I like that label much better.  "Moonbat" sounds like a superhero name.

Actually nat, it seems to me that you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

I suggest a year in Afghanistan for you, chap.

Nat - I don't think anyone will disagree that our political system is a little... flawed when it comes to spending money wisely.

However, just because you dislike the ineffective governing methods of our elected officials doesn't mean you should suddenly declare yourself a libertarian and champion the right of the individual above all.  There's no good reason to do that.  Well, maybe schizophrenia, but that wouldn't really be your fault.