« Rental markets in everything | Main | The tastiest sentence I read today »
Ron Paul as President
Bryan Caplan defends the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency. Here is Megan McArdle. Here's yet another perspective. Here is Ezra Klein. Here is Paul himself.
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.
I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual. (Admittedly all the other candidates are too open to whatever is politically popular at the moment.) Openness also means ability to improvise, which is a critical leadership quality; many of the challenges of the presidency are the surprises, 9/11 being one example of many.
The America Firsters, by the way, were right about many things, but
they were very wrong about a few very big things, such as World War II
and the civil rights movement. They also suffered a virtually total
eclipse for decades. I don't see nationalist and states' rights memes as a path toward a future with more human liberty.
Ron Paul is changing the ideological landscape of American politics and the fabric of modern classical liberalism. No matter what your point of view, I recommend that you take the Ron Paul phenomenon very seriously indeed.
Addendum: Here are good remarks from Arnold Kling and Steve Horwitz.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 26, 2007 at 05:32 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
"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." I agree with the general principle here, but it's not obvious to me what harm you think may come from a politician who is too exuberantly pro-gun (given that you don't expect the attitude to directly produce bad policies). Care to elaborate?
Posted by: Jacob Wintersmith at Dec 26, 2007 5:59:36 AM
Tyler,
"The America Firsters, by the way, were right about many things, but they were very wrong about a few very big things, such as World War II and the civil rights movement. "
That statement need some, uh, clarification. The America Firsters were not merely 'wrong about many things', but it appears they were wrong about everything. And not just that, were intimately tied in with Christian Nationalism and strong hints of Anti-Semitism. If nothing else, they're the 'No Thing' Party of the 1940s. Sure, they wanted strong defense, but in the 1940s, who didn't? What do you think they were 'right' about that no one else was right about?
Posted by: Confused at Dec 26, 2007 7:13:14 AM
First, let me congratulate you on your recent traffic surge. I'm sure you've figured out a correlation between high volumes of traffic and mentioning Dr. Paul. After all, there are "Markets in Everything", yes?
Next, this post -though much clearer than your previous one - still lacks a concrete answer as to why exactly you're so suspicious of Dr. Paul. Why is it necessary to include this:
"... so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual?"
The ideas he proposes are not solely those of Dr. Paul, but those of a few men far wiser than you and I, Mr. Cowen. Guys like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington come to mind. Perhaps you appreciate the "thinking on your feet" of our current administration?
And since you brought it up as an example, I am a firm believer that our actions in the past fifty years did provoke the events of 9/11. How long can we continue to poke a hornet's nest before we are stung (again)? Let's stop meddling in the affairs of others who neither asked for nor appreciate our assistance and fix our own problems first.
Posted by: Chris Moore at Dec 26, 2007 8:11:25 AM
The appealing thing about Paul is that he doesn't just seem to fill a pent-up demand for a certain politician, but he seems to supply something that people didn't know they wanted.
Any way you shake it, the GOP is so scattered that they don't stand a chance next election. Has any conservative thinker really been satisfied with Bush? Not socially activist enough for the Evangelicals, not fiscally conservative enough for that wing, not libertarian enough, not isolationist enough, etc. I don't think there will be a consensus candidate, and it's going to show in November.
Posted by: Jarick at Dec 26, 2007 8:59:11 AM
Liberty is lacking in the United States but I'd like to see it more closely bundled with reasonableness, moderation, and yes pragmatism
I don't get it. You have finally found a politician who will vote uncompromisingly for free trade, limiting welfare, less regulation - everything most economists preach - and you don't like such position, because it is not 'pragmatic' and 'moderate'? What I find particularly shocking is that Paul proposes transition programs to get rid of bad government programs. What is not moderate on such position?
It seems to me that you are either uniformed, hypocrite or socialist. I am still giving you benefit of doubt, but if you continue posting such comments, I would have to choose another option.
I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual.
I don't like to call names but this is really, really stupid assessment. Paul has some views and he is vocal in defending them. Any person who is strongly defending his views is insufficiently intellectual by your standard, regardless if he is wrong or right. I guess most great scientist would fall in this category despite defending the right views.
Your ideal politician wouldn't have any views (because he might be wrong), wouldn't defend them (because he wouldn't have any views) and thus you could call him intellectual. Bravo.
Openness also means ability to improvise, which is a critical leadership quality; many of the challenges of the presidency are the surprises, 9/11 being one example of many.
I am not sure what do you mean by that. Care to elaborate? Paul proposed letters of marque and reprisal as a reaction to 9/11 - constitutional reaction. He chose different reaction than the establishment. How does different reaction than majority show inability to improvise?
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 9:15:09 AM
In the last interview I saw with Paul, he attacked the Patriot Act, all trade protectionism, war, and the imperial presidency, while urging diplomacy and friendship with all peoples as the core of US foreign policy. You must have a difference definition of "nationalism" in mind than one I've ever heard.
I also wish you would disaggregate your reference to the America First movement. It was huge and diverse. Your attack certainly doesn't apply to J.T. Flynn, one of the best business historians of the 20th century (Men of Wealth, e.g.), and a great anti-fascist writer. Garet Garrett was a best-selling novelist of the 1920s who celebrated the culture of enterprise, and warned against war because it threatened regimentation of national life (his essays have been brought back in print).
Finally, with regard to civil rights, the America First Committee disbanded after Pearl Harbor, that is, before civil rights became a national issue. Or perhaps you mean the civil rights of Japanese Americans: former America Firsters defended their rights, and were uniformly outraged at their internment.
Posted by: Jeffrey at Dec 26, 2007 9:29:37 AM
Paul seems to me much like Dean back in '04 - alot of hype and a huge internet presence but not enough to sway the mainstream.
At least Fair Tax is gaining ground...
Posted by: j at Dec 26, 2007 10:07:43 AM
If Ron Paul was running for Dictator-for-Life then I certainly would vote for him above any other candidate. But the election is for the Presidency. The President can't just enact any sweeping changes to the way we currently do things by fiat. He has to build public support, and ultimately get his ideas through congress. While Ron seems like a principled man, he has shown little ability in making practical legislative changes.
Just voting no on everything that passes his desk isn't enough. He needs to show that he knows how to compromise in order to get higher priority and more critical legislation through. While understanding which battles he can't win and sacrificing the less important issues to get the greater victory.
I would love to see a libertarian style candidate be able run an agenda without compromise. But this the real world and if you don't know how (or are willing) to wheel and deal in politics then you simply won't be effective.
Posted by: apostate at Dec 26, 2007 10:23:25 AM
The America Firsters were formed largely as a result of what they perceived as America's unsatisfactory experience with World War I. Woodrow Wilson sold that war to the American people with the slogan, "Make the World Safe for Democracy." He felt, as Bush II seems to feel, that democracy would be a cure for all the evil that the nasty Europeans had produced over the preceding centuries. If only we could get rid of the Kaiser and Tsar and a few other despots, a new era of peace and prosperity would dawn - World War I was to be the war to end all wars. In retrospect, all of this seems pathetically naive. Yes, Americans spilled their blood and spent their treasure to beat the nasty old Kaiser, but then the Europeans went right back to doing what they had always done - plotting and scheming and stabbing each other in the back. The Versailles Treaty was a disaster, and both Germany and Russia felt bitter resentment at the way they were treated by the victorious powers. It was tyranny rather than democracy that emerged as the leading force in the 20's and 30's, as Hitler, Stalin. Mussolini, Franco and a bevy of other despots seized power. The America First movement was a reaction to all this. Indeed, non-interventionism surfaced again following World War II, with the appearance of Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio ("Mr. Republican") as a leading advocate. With the Cold War, the movement mostly disappeared, as Republicans assumed the role of strong anti-communists. However, with the demise of the USSR, non-interventionism has again emerged as a powerful force in US politics.
Posted by: Ned at Dec 26, 2007 10:37:57 AM
he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual.
Well, that is the pot calling the kettle black.
Look in the mirror Tyler.
Since we left the Gold standard in 1971 the price level has risen at least 500%, and that is the official Gov estimate, too low.
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm
When it comes to monetary policy, you too are nsufficiently intellectual.
Posted by: russ at Dec 26, 2007 10:38:17 AM
he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual.
Well, that is the pot calling the kettle black.
Look in the mirror Tyler.
Since we left the Gold standard in 1971 the price level has risen at least 500%, and that is the official Gov estimate, too low.
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm
When it comes to monetary policy, you too are nsufficiently intellectual.
Posted by: russ at Dec 26, 2007 10:40:42 AM
Liberty is lacking in the United States
Oh give it a rest. That's ridiculous.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Dec 26, 2007 10:54:17 AM
I disagree with the assessment of Ron Paul: "I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual."
There is evidence that Paul is open to reassessment of his ideas. An example of this is his change in view on the death penalty: "For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."
That said, I think libertarian supporters of Paul will need to ready their case in several areas where Paul's positions differ with the consensus view. Just using the Libertarian Party platform as the starting point, a few points of disagreement include the legality of abortion, differences on immigration goals, and Paul's meddling with gay marriage at the federal level, including his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act. To many libertarians, any differences with Paul in these areas can be forgiven when compared to extensive policy differences with the other major candidates.
Posted by: Boston MA at Dec 26, 2007 11:01:28 AM
Just voting no on everything that passes his desk isn't enough. He needs to show that he knows how to compromise in order to get higher priority and more critical legislation through.
apostate, he DID vote yes on some legislation, he DID compromise. The 'border fence' is one example. The problem I see with you is that you suggest "compromising" on proposed law that would make the situation worse. I can't call this 'compromise'.
The situation seems to me analogical to voting where an airplane should fly. Ron Paul wants to go from New York to Washington, his opponents propose Quebec. After fierce discussion Boston is offered as a compromise. It is very convenient to call someone unable to compromise when he rejects such offer - on the basis that staying in New York is preferred.
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 11:17:22 AM
"Just voting no on everything that passes his desk isn't enough. He needs to show that he knows how to compromise in order to get higher priority and more critical legislation through."
Just curious if you think the current Bush much of a compromiser. Maybe a compro-miser.
Posted by: meter at Dec 26, 2007 11:24:56 AM
Replying to a comment above: "Dr. No" is exactly what we need. Someone who will say "no" to the forces tempting him with ever-greater executive power. I don't care if he doesn't accomplish anything when in office; what I care about is what gets unmade, from the USAPATRIOT act to the spiffy new powers the President apparently now has.
The real significance of this campaign isn't Mr. Paul himself; it's his ideas, and the people unifying behind them. I hope the freedom fighters will stick around, even if Dr. Paul's campaign fizzles.
Posted by: Nanjin at Dec 26, 2007 11:39:04 AM
Just curious if you think the current Bush much of a compromiser. Maybe a compro-miser.
Speaking in pure politics Bush is actual quite good at compromising and getting most of what he wants when he tries. It's when he digs his heals in and gives nothing back that he gets nothing out of the bargain. See the whole Social Security Reform mess among others.
That's why I would be concerned about a President Paul, despite my agreement with him on many issues. I just don't see him as willing to work with congress. A necessary part of the job.
Posted by: apostate at Dec 26, 2007 11:45:30 AM
He who waits for perfection will only perfect waiting.
Posted by: Exotic Electron at Dec 26, 2007 11:48:42 AM
holy cow the crazies are out on this one. Tyler Cowen socialist has quite a ring. Do these people get to this site through some sort of Ron Paul news feed? To make claims along these lines they must not be familiar with your work, or your website.
Posted by: max at Dec 26, 2007 12:14:03 PM
Hey Max,
Grow up and join the big boys.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Posted by: russ at Dec 26, 2007 12:36:56 PM
This conversation reminds me of a movie my wife made me watch the other day (bear with me). In it, the newly elected UK PM rhetorically slaps the POTUS, telling him that the relationship between the two nations will be different from now on, that he his different from his predecessors and will not kowtow any longer. I think it was supposed to be a big high moment in the movie or something, but such sentiment is impractical in both the movie and here. How would that work? What would he be willing to give up in terms of what benefits his country from our relationship in order to stick-up for his country? Is the implication that his predecessors lacked sufficient pride in their country to stand up, or that they had cards they refused to play in diplomatic negotiations?
I would agree that the administrations preceding the "Paul Administration" probably haven't sufficiently valued personal and economic liberty, but that doesn't change the fact that the Paul administration would likely be ineffectual. As ideologically (er, rather rhetorically) far away from congress Bush seems to be, he's still much closer (even to the Democrats now) than Paul would be. NCLB aside, it took 9/11 for him to get his most radical legislation through. What would it take for Paul? Would he be willing to compromise in order to move things in the right direction?
Does the executive have the power to unilaterally make all the reforms Paul promises? That's not meant as a pointed question, I really am curious about everyone's thoughts.
Posted by: G.Ira at Dec 26, 2007 1:17:07 PM
The guy talks about ad hominem argument while missing the point that the comment by "andy at Dec 26, 2007 9:15:09 AM" was full of ad hominem(s) against Tyler.
max has a point and Tyler is correct, "I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong"
I would like to change that to "Ron Paul and his supporters are so taken with their own ideas that they are unable to see how or when their views might ever be wrong."
Posted by: Mo at Dec 26, 2007 1:53:33 PM
"Since we left the Gold standard in 1971 the price level has risen at least 500%, and that is the official Gov estimate, too low."
That statement doesn't really mean anything in isolation. Yes, inflation is bad, but so is unemployment. No one can say what would have happened if Bretton Woods had stuck around. We do know that the situation was pretty dire for the US when Bretton Woods broke down, and external shocks only got worse. A gold standard would certainly have had less inflation, but who knows at what cost?
A better example would be Bernanke's research on the Great Depression. Several countries stayed on the gold standard (France, Poland, Belgium, Switzerland), and several broke off (US, UK, Japan, Italy), and some didn't use it at all (China, Spain). The first group of countries took the longest to start their recovery.
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 2:04:03 PM
I would agree that the administrations preceding the "Paul Administration" probably haven't sufficiently valued personal and economic liberty, but that doesn't change the fact that the Paul administration would likely be ineffectual.
It seems to me that it is better to support status quo then to progress gradually to the hell... Being able to push a law through congress is not a laudable qality if the law should not be passed in the first place.
Does the executive have the power to unilaterally make all the reforms Paul promises?
Paul himself said several times that president has the power to do certain things (foreign policy) and lacks the power on certain other things and needs cooperation of the congress.
It seems to me rather weird that a free-marketer is a bad choice because the rest of congress is not free-market oriented. I guess that should be the reason to vote for such person (if one thinks free market is a good idea), shouldn't it?
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 2:04:07 PM
No No Mo,
The post was a reply to Max. Not some guy named andy.
max has a point and Tyler is correct, "I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong"
Tlyer and you seem to be quite taken with this floating unit of account. Tell me. Is it possible that YOU and TYLER just might be wrong about that.
The problem with Tyler and the other floating unit of account guys, is that YOU like to ignore the facts of the matter. And you call us obdurate.
Tsk Tsk You will have to do better than that.
Posted by: russ at Dec 26, 2007 2:15:02 PM
That statement doesn't really mean anything in isolation. Yes, inflation is bad, but so is unemployment.
The Austrians argue that unemployment is a function of flexibility of labour markets (aside from extremes - like extreme taxation, extreme over-regulation of enterprenourship etc.).
A better example would be Bernanke's research on the Great Depression. Several countries stayed on the gold standard (France, Poland, Belgium, Switzerland), and several broke off (US, UK, Japan, Italy), and some didn't use it at all (China, Spain). The first group of countries took the longest to start their recovery.
Actually that does not disprove the austrian position. First, in the 30's many countries enacted rules that severly undermined flexibility of labour markets - minimum prices come to my mind. The economic rule says that if the minimum price is above market price, problems occur. Countries that got off the gold standard inflated the money supply, which raised - by inflation - the equlibrium market price, which fixed the problems caused by previous legislation.
Next austrian argument is that both forced inflation and deflation(of money supply) are bad. Most countries inflated during the 20's. In order to be able to hold the gold standard, the countries would have to forcibly deflate the money supply which was effectively continuing a bad policy. (the right solution would be to devalue the currency so that it would reflect the previous inflation and stop further intervention).
A gold standard would certainly have had less inflation, but who knows at what cost?
Free market has some better attributes then central planning, but who knows at what cost?
If we cannot answer the question (although I believe the austrians can), is it an argument for free market or for central planning?
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 2:23:14 PM
Dear Tyler,
In light of your criticism of Ron Paul, please tell me three ideas you have that you think might be wrong.
Best,
David
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Dec 26, 2007 2:25:48 PM
Granted, the gold standard situation is complicated. I gave a historical example where there's almost a 1-to-1 correspondence between using a gold standard and economic depression. If you could give similar evidence supporting a gold standard, I'm all ears. Economic research papers written in the past 15 years with empirical evidence would be best.
The world currency market is a cornucopia of different approaches with extremely low levels of outside interference, and, to my knowledge, there are zero currencies on the gold standard. If it's so great, what is that?
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 2:40:00 PM
1-1 Uh.
England was on a Gold standard from 1815 to 1914, that must have been a terrible time for them.
Do you think they had 99 years of depression.
Posted by: russ at Dec 26, 2007 3:03:34 PM
After the Bush presidency, I think it's clear we want the president to believe himself fallible. We don't want someone who sticks to his guns even in the face of overwhelming disconfirming evidence.
Posted by: J B at Dec 26, 2007 3:10:02 PM
I recommend that you take the Ron Paul phenomenon very seriously indeed.
No. This is a Snakes on a Plane campaign... savvy supporters who know how to make some noise, but the raw numbers just aren't there.
Remember that in the end, passionate wonks who live and breathe politics get the same single vote as any ordinary citizen. And that's not a flaw in the political system, it's by design.
I think only some kind of financial armageddon scenario could make him a serious contender. Maybe in 2012; it's already too late for that for 2008 even if we have the widely anticipated severe recession, there just aren't enough months left.
Posted by: at Dec 26, 2007 3:10:02 PM
To finish that thought, you need to show some otherwise-similar countries with fiat currencies from the same time that suffered because of it. Pointing out that the US had inflation in the 70s and the UK had a strong economy during their empire isn't _on its own_ very strong support for a gold standard.
And for what it's worth, Britain did abandon their gold standard and were among the lucky ones during the Great Depression.
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 3:10:44 PM
By the way, I wasn't trying to claim that having a gold standard invites constant depression. A gold standard works fairly well most of the time, as does a fiat currency. I was pointing out that in times of depression, a gold standard seems to make things worse.
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 3:20:04 PM
AC, can you define gold standard?
The austrian position is that gold-backed money helps to evade depressions. Taking more drugs certainly helps alliviate drug abstinence problems, however not taking drugs evades the drug abstinence problems altogether.
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 3:28:15 PM
This article and the study it discusses, may answer some of the questions about the relationship of gold to economic depression.
Posted by: Perry Willis at Dec 26, 2007 3:36:20 PM
I'd go with the definition that a gold standard is any monetary system where the central bank has to buy back currency for a fixed quantity of gold. This may or may not be backed by enough gold to buy out the entire monetary base. It usually requires free movement of gold across borders.
Use whichever definition you like and don't appeal to the authority of the Austrian School, whose theories I don't necessarily buy. Instead, provide some non-anecdotal, empirical evidence.
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 3:38:17 PM
From what I understand Paul isn't a gold bug by traditional standards. He is more interested in legalizing alternate currency like gold. Let fiat dollars compete against gold and silver notes or actual commodities. Best idea I've heard from a pol in a loooong time.
Posted by: Dakota at Dec 26, 2007 3:50:04 PM
Thanks for that article, Perry. It's pretty interesting.
Posted by: AC at Dec 26, 2007 3:59:14 PM
AC - thank you for your definition.
The Austrians argue that monetary inflation causes problem. They argue that gold is (still) such a commodity that it is physically impossible to easily raise its supply.
This may or may not be backed by enough gold to buy out the entire monetary base.
My problem with your definition is this: even if I concede that gold standard made great depression worse - it still does not refute the austrian argument that the whole mess was created by not backing the money with gold.
BTW: I don't appeal to the authority of the austrian school. I am just trying to explain their ideas - I don't want to claim that they are mine.
Posted by: andy at Dec 26, 2007 4:10:34 PM
One thing I would like to know from gold standard skeptics is how people will accept a currency that is not backed by something with intrinsic value without government intervention.
Posted by: draw at Dec 26, 2007 4:45:41 PM
So, I read all the links at the beginning. By far, Ezra Klein's was the best and fairest, even though he apparently has the least interest in Paul's policies.
And that is what is so shocking to me, (even though it is dangerous to project motivations onto others) the people who should (supposedly) be ecstatic and proud of a Ron Paul campaign are the ones lobbing the most damaging criticisms.
But why are a lot of those like Klein, opposed to Paul's views, giving him a fair shake?
I was thinking that there are (at least) 3 things we look for in a president. (1) policy (2) integrity and, for lack of a better term, (3) theme. So, for an acronym, it's PIT.
I think that, although many would argue, mainly because they have another dog in the fight, Paul wins (2) and (3) hands down. His integrity is unquestioned. The few questions of it I've seen are lame not even considering comparisons to his competition. His record is laid bare if someone just wants to look. If someone was wanting to win at all costs, he most definitely would not say the things Paul is saing. This is beyond debate.
His (3) theme dovetails perfectly with the zeitgeist of the country. Thematically, he is the opposite of what has tired the people of the Clinton and Bush presidencies. People are sick of the wet finger in the wind politics of opinion polls of Clinton and The Decider's complete faith in his own faith. Paul is rational and works from principle.
The statement by the author that Paul is full of his own ideas is just nonsense. Seriously. It could be quite correct that Paul really is not putting any stock in his own ideas. So, you think he was born an Austrian economist and a Jeffersonian Federalist? No. He reads and those principles which make sense, he incorporates into his worldview.
There are finance scandals, Paul accepts no PAC money. The people distrust the establishment elite, Paul distrusts the establishment elite. Paul is the anti-politician, in theme and integrity. The people are craving this. If he were making it up because he thought that's what people wanted to hear, they would be able to tell. They can't because he's not.
Over and over again, the swing voters will tolerate policies they may not prefer in order to get the politician they like. The pundits, themselves single issue voters, overestimate the layman's proclivity to exclude a politician based on one policy shortcoming.
So, the question still bugging me is, why do the people who do agree with more of Paul's policies not see the rest of the package? Who knows. I think it's just political snobbery.
Even the critics have resorted to criticizing his supporters rather than the man or the message. And when they do criticize the message, they use the Paul version of "Hilary is a socialist!" tripe. I for one know that I offer reasoned arguments for the man and his positions. Though I'm sure this still annoys the critics, I know for a fact, because I get compliments from all sides, that I am not shrill or rude. That is not tooting my own horn, just stating facts. Surely there are rude and shrill Paul supporters. But a short search on YouTube will show that Paul's critics can be all the more crass.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. Ron Paul will win the primary and he will be President. To most, even supporters, this will sound like hubris. I won't divulge my analysis right now, except that he won't even need a recession to do it.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 26, 2007 4:52:54 PM
By the way, if The People more fully knew and absorbed items like this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece
...a Ron Paul victory would be all the more obvious.
From personal discussions I have with my acquaintances, I believe most moderates can't fathom or come to grips what this government has become and what it does in their name. They are quite literally in denial. It's all about timing. If anger and acceptance come before the votes are cast, Ron Paul will be unstoppable. I'm betting on The People. I still believe in them.
Maybe our anger is what Ron Paul's critics find most annoying. That we are angry. We feel justified. And we won't shut up about it. Well, if that is what it is all about, then I may yet get rude.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 26, 2007 5:06:06 PM
Forgive my rapid-fire posts. I have a few minutes a day to do this stuff.
G. Ira states Paul's administration would be "inneffectual" and then asks "Does the executive have the power to unilaterally make all the reforms Paul promises?"
It's a good question. One Paul answers routinely. And I will answer it this way. No, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Many people have come to appreciate gridlock. I'm not talking about flaming libertarians like myself. I'm talking about Possum Party (dead middle of the road) moderates. People like Bob Brinker. Look him up. You'll be glad you did.
So, far from inneffectual, a gridlocked administration actually is worthwhile. What it accomplishes, by leaving things alone, like say not harassing the people with constant tax-policy changes, is allows the people to plan and execute their lives with relative insulation from political meddling. And again, many outside libertarian circles are recognizing the benefits of this.
Knowing "The Answer" and believing you can accomplish it are two different things. That is why Ron Paul answers that there are things he can do unilaterally as The President. Executive branch prerogatives. And these are the things he is campaigning most strongly on. It is the things further down his priority list, things that basically get one-line nods in his speeches, that he has acknowledged he would need Congress' support. These things are what most critics are making the most hay over. I.e., they are missing the point.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 26, 2007 5:22:26 PM
How could the author think the Founding Fathers were mixed up in a Christianity scheme when very few of them were Christians? Read up on your Founding Fathers or at least go to YouTube.com and type in "Founding Fathers Religion" and watch many, many quotes against Religion in general, and Christianity in particular...They actually believed in FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Sara DiNicola at Dec 26, 2007 6:12:00 PM
I was one of the 25,000 first time contributors to the Ron Paul presidential campaign on Dec. 16th. I really like Dr. Paul’s adherence to the philosophies of our founding fathers. I especially like the “no entanglements” part. With every pothole that I crash through and every creaky bridge that I survive, I think towards the time when President Paul's sound domestic/foreign policies have Americans working to repair USA infrastructure instead of destroying and then rebuilding the rest of the world. Why just the cash given to Israel alone would have paid for the "$14 Billion Dollar Big Dig" in just over two (2) years. Next year Israel wants the cash in euros.
So many of Dr. Paul’s young supporters are written off as freaks, flakes or even worse. What I have come to understand is that many of them are the families and friends of all these young people coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know that they are next to be shipped off to some foreign land to fight and die in these endless wars that only the bankers love. Is that why this government pushes so hard for ever more poverty stricken immigrants? They need the poor for their war! Say, NO MORE!
Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far in this war for Israel. Tens of thousands have been horribly maimed and burned. A literal army of teenagers and twenty-somethings in their wheelchairs. They have been permanently disfigured and they will forever suffer from this insane war for Israel.
I am almost fifty years old and I have always voted. I have already changed my party to Republican for the primary in my state (FL). I will be voting for Dr. Paul.
For the first time in my life, I sent $50 to a politician.
Posted by: WD at Dec 26, 2007 6:22:53 PM
The popularity of Ron Paul accurately reflects popular revulsion against globalization policies that have failed and more broadly elites that have rebelled against, and betrayed the American people.
US elites have embraced globalization as their defining ideology. The reasons are many but clearly include self-interest, anti-Americanism and of course, an easy way to demonstrate their superiority to the proles with their traditional patriotism. Robert Shiller (the “Irrational Exuberance” guy) wrote a rather good essay on the subject, “The New Cosmopolitans” (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller44) which I recommend to all.
The consequences of elite globalization have been ugly to say the least. Mass unskilled immigration (legal and illegal) has destroyed the American Dream in much of the United States. Wages have fallen while prices (think housing in California) have soared. At the same time public education has collapsed and gridlock become the norm. Yet somehow the American people are supposed to “embrace diversity” and think that this is a good thing.
At the same time our trade deficit has soared to unthinkable levels (around 6% of GDP at the peak) while millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost (3.1 million since Bush took office). And what is the flip side of the trade deficit? The housing/debt bubble (subprime, CDOs, CPDOs, SIVs, etc.) now crashing around us.
Beyond our borders, elite globalization brought us the fiasco in Iraq. Only a president caught up in “The World is Flat” fantasies could have ever envisioned Iraq as a model democracy that would somehow inspire peace, freedom, and liberty throughout the Arab/Muslim world.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Dec 26, 2007 6:31:19 PM
If you look at Cowen's bio at his home page, the answer to a couple of mysteries becomes clear.
If you don't understand why people who too stridently advocate for the 2nd amendment upset him, read his bio.
If you don't understand why the most libertarian-ish major party candidate in decades makes him uncomfortable and angry, read his bio.
Tyler fancies himself a sophisticate. He lives in the metro DC area and writes for the New York Times. He writes restaurant reviews, for Christ's sake. He doesn't like the 2nd amendment advocacy part of libertarianism because gun rights are something that people in flyover states worry about. People who turn first to the Style section when they get their Washington Post can't possibly worry about a measly right like the right to bear arms. Only scruffy, chubby guys with dirty baseball hats and lumberjack jackets can talk about guns. Tyler's nervousness about the gun issue is based on his perception of the proper markers of his status as a member of the urban literary and academic class.
His seemingly nonsensical chatter about Paul's purported "nationalism" is similar. If you're confused how a man can live through the W Presidency and call Ron Paul a nationalist, remember that the social life of our nation's capital and of New York City is enriched by the presence of an international expense account set. If the US pulled out of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, etc., there would be fewer open bar parties for intellectual restaurant critics and philosophers to attend in Washington DC and in New York. This is, of course, of much more importance than the fact that the only defense of our liberties we have is our legislatures and courts, and that therefore elevating any transnational body above our legislatures and courts can only be destructive of liberty.
Most Paul opponents who style themselves libertarians and libertarian leaners are against him because of the war and the war only - but I think Cowen's opposition is more existential, and probably is very close to what I've outlined here with my tongue only slightly in my cheek.
Posted by: Fluffy at Dec 26, 2007 7:19:05 PM
Whatever. Paul has done more to promote freedom than Tyler Cowen ever has, or ever will.
If you are such an 'intellectual' (which you say Paul isn't) how come you are surprised by a politician defending the second amendment in strong terms? You cannot pick and choose constitutional rights. How come you're surprised that Paul opposses overseas wars that fail objective cost/benefit analysis?
OK, you are an intellectual in one respect. You are a huge snob envious of Paul's success.
Cheers
Posted by: Pablo Escobar at Dec 26, 2007 7:30:04 PM
Oh, I almost forgot to address the part of Cowen's post where he calls Paul insufficiently intellectual.
If you might wonder why he would say such a thing, when Paul is almost certainly the most well-read candidate for the Presidency in Cowen's own discipline [even if most of that reading is in an unfashionable school] since Wilson [if you don't count Reich, who was never a serious candidate] I can explain that for you, too.
Cowen is an academic and Paul is an autodidact. Now, everyone knows that academics hate all autodidacts right off the bat, because autodidacts tend to insufficiently respect the system of academic credentialism and the mores of academic society in general [and then there's the fact that people who read for themselves threaten academics' pocketbooks the way that people who change their own oil threaten the pocketbooks of the guys at Jiffylube]. But above and beyond that, Paul suffers from the chief personality flaw of most autodidacts: excessive earnestness. You see, if Tyler has a difference of opinion with Ben Bernanke, he might write a witty and well-cited article or paper about it; when Paul has a disagreement with Bernanke, he snarls at him and accuses him of devaluing the savings of old people. As an academic, Cowen regards the ideas he discusses as features of a career and a lifestyle, and as part of the way he socializes with his colleagues and peers; as an autodidact, Paul regards the ideas he reads about as a desperate matter, and something to intellectually and morally street-fight over. Paul's sin is not that he does not have an intellectual mind, but that he does not have the manners of a public intellectual. Perhaps more precise word choice on Cowen's part could have avoided misunderstanding here.
Posted by: Fluffy at Dec 26, 2007 7:33:48 PM
Tyler worries that "the wrong emotions will have the staying power."
That's pretty funny, and says a lot, although I don't know whether it says more about Dr. Paul or Dr. Cowen.
Okay, so Tyler's favored strategy of Invade-the-World / Invite-the-World hasn't worked out so hot in practice, but it is _emotionally correct_ and that's what counts!
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Dec 26, 2007 7:38:54 PM
Translation: He won't send the bank to Israel.
Posted by: El Gronde De Rondo at Dec 26, 2007 7:39:17 PM
Tyler worries that "the wrong emotions will have the staying power."
That's pretty funny, and says a lot, although I don't know whether it says more about Dr. Paul or Dr. Cowen.
Okay, so Tyler's favored strategy of Invade-the-World / Invite-the-World hasn't worked out so hot in practice, but it is _emotionally correct_ and that's what counts!
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Dec 26, 2007 7:40:11 PM
Yeah, sure, an M.D. autodidact. No. Anyone who speaks out of their field then is an autodidact.
Posted by: El Gronde De Rondo at Dec 26, 2007 7:45:06 PM
I certainly didn't expect to log into MR today and find Tyler Cowen, Values Voter. What's the matter with Fairfax?
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Dec 26, 2007 8:38:19 PM
How were the America Firsters wrong about WW II?
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Dec 26, 2007 8:43:20 PM
No, Rondo. Paul didn't have to study economics or political philosophy to get his medical degree. Paul's advanced degree is irrelevant to his economics education, which was entirely self-driven.
If I speak out about my opinions on the eating habits of insects in the Amazon, I'm speaking out of my field but NOT acting as an autodidact. If I go out and get a medical degree but then later in life spend a couple of decades puttering about reading about the economic theories of Hayek and Von Mises and the philosophy of Lysander Spooner, and then attempt to apply the product of my self-driven study to my political career, I'm speaking out of my field, AND acting as an autodidact.
Posted by: Fluffy at Dec 26, 2007 8:57:03 PM
Empires are realms of evil.
While the U.S. is not operating a colonial empire, it is nonetheless running an empire. Check the fasces on the Statue of the Lincoln mrmorial, they are the emblems of empire.
Ron Paul proposes the dismantle the U.S. empire and I support that proposal wholeheartedly. I think this is critical to the advancement of leberty.
Posted by: Sam Grove at Dec 26, 2007 9:48:47 PM
Memetics never got off the ground, primarily because no one really agrees on what a meme is. Whatever a "meme" is, state's rights isn't one. It is a legal concept, a tradtion, whatever. Nationalism certainly isn't a meme. Unless you tie it to a specific evolutionary model, "meme" is a meaningless term, easily replaced by a dozen more specific words.
I imagine most people don't make an issue of this, but I'm not unique in my view. When someone uses the term "meme" as a replacement for "idea" "theme" etc., I assume the writer is lazy and pseudo-intellectual.
Posted by: I Hate Memes at Dec 26, 2007 9:50:32 PM
Well, I guess I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. To me he's just more conservative, right-wing, Christian evangelical nonsense.
Posted by: Wayne at Dec 26, 2007 11:10:40 PM
Hmmm, someone who has a 30 year track record of defending the Constitution is out of the "mainstream"? Good God man, get a grip! The Presidential oath of office is,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What have we become when someone who actually legislates based on this oath is out of the mainstream? Mind boggling what propaganda does to people.
Remember, RP will not be a dictator, he will only start a rollback to Constitutional government. Everything he wants won't make it past the Congress but it will spark serious debate on what the role of government, Federal and State, should be.
THAT is a much needed and good thing!
Posted by: Phil at Dec 26, 2007 11:40:21 PM
Uh, Fluffy, some people are against the war, but also do not like Paul's authoritarianism
on the aborition issue, his nationalistic anti-free trade positions, and some other distinctly
non-libertarian stuff he happens to believe in, not to mention some past remarks that are frankly
racist, quite aside from his somewhat goofy monetary views.
BTW, your personalistic slam on Tyler does suggest that your name is appropriate for the
quality of your intellect: fluffy.
Offhand, one of the things that makes Tyler's concern about the emotional atmospherics here
is precisely your kind of commment, ranting hysteria dripping with venom. I am personally
not afraid of Ron Paul, who seems like a mostly personable guy who is fairly reasonable, even
if I disagree with a lot of his positions. But some of the people who are backing him? Sheesh,
please save us from the likes of people like you.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 26, 2007 11:45:53 PM
Cowen is an academic and Paul is an autodidact. Now, everyone knows that academics hate all autodidacts right off the bat, because autodidacts tend to insufficiently respect the system of academic credentialism and the mores of academic society in general...
Almost all academics are autodidacts -- you don't survive 5+ years of graduate school without spending long periods of time alone pouring over books and articles. And most were doing that long before they ever even knew what graduate school was. The difference is that most academics have had to debate and defend their ideas around people who are as smart as they are, if not smarter. That experience causes all but the most arrogant and self-aggrandizing to develop a sense of humility and skepticism.
As Cowen said, Paul almost certainly is a highly intelligent guy. However, as a politician, it is unlikely he has spent large amounts of time among people who are in his same league intellectually but who have different views.
Posted by: Ricardo at Dec 26, 2007 11:54:53 PM
Barkley: Your ad-hominem attack on Fluffy suggests that you are a doody head.
Posted by: greenish at Dec 26, 2007 11:55:27 PM
AC said.
"Since we left the Gold standard in 1971 the price level has risen at least 500%, and that is the official Gov estimate, too low."
That statement doesn't really mean anything in isolation.
"It is a statement of FACT. Meant to be just that. It's one of those FACTS that make YOU uneasy agreeing with."
AC said,
Yes, inflation is bad, but so is unemployment.
" are you speaking of now, last year, last 30 years, that statement is poorly worded. I am not a Philips curve guy, that stuff is nonsence."
AC said,
No one can say what would have happened if Bretton Woods had stuck around. We do know that the situation was pretty dire for the US when Bretton Woods broke down, and external shocks only got worse. A gold standard would certainly have had less inflation, but who knows at what cost?
" Do you know why Bretton Woods broke down?.
The external shocks came AFTER the breakdown, or maybe because of the breakdown?."
"We agree on a less inflation senario with gold"
AC said,
A better example would be Bernanke's research on the Great Depression. Several countries stayed on the gold standard (France, Poland, Belgium, Switzerland), and several broke off (US, UK, Japan, Italy), and some didn't use it at all (China, Spain). The first group of countries took the longest to start their recovery.
"I beleive Ben Bernanke et Friedman got it all wrong on the great depression.
It was a Great Depression not a Great Deflation. It was not Monetary in nature, but was caused by Fiscal errors by Gov. Blaming the Gold Standard was the real crime there. As to papers, we can start with this:
http://www.polyconomics.com/1930s.pdf
AC said,
ranted, the gold standard situation is complicated. I gave a historical example where there's almost a 1-to-1 correspondence between using a gold standard and economic depression.
" I could not find that 1-1 example, could you please direct me to it."
If you could give similar evidence supporting a gold standard, I'm all ears. Economic research papers written in the past 15 years with empirical evidence would be best.
" see above"
AC said,
The world currency market is a cornucopia of different approaches with extremely low levels of outside interference,
"To quote Dr.Robert Mundell" There are 175 currencies in the world, and most of them are junk" page 9,
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may01/friedman.pdf
and, to my knowledge, there are zero currencies on the gold standard. If it's so great, what is that?
" Only the BIG GUY can fix to Gold, small countries cannot."
AC said,
To finish that thought, you need to show some otherwise-similar countries with fiat currencies from the same time that suffered because of it.
" All countries suffer from a fiat currency backed by faith, which time are you talking about?."
Pointing out that the US had inflation in the 70s and the UK had a strong economy during their empire isn't _on its own_ very strong support for a gold standard.
"The US had inflation after it left the gold standard, the UK had no inflation while it was on it.
The Pound became the worlds reserve currency because it was backed by gold, as did the $."
And for what it's worth, Britain did abandon their gold standard and were among the lucky ones during the Great Depression.
" On that we disagree, this is a nice factiod paper on the trade wars that made worse the great depression, even though I don't agree with his conclusions."
http://www.cba.uni.edu/economics/Themes/milder.pdf
Ac said,
By the way, I wasn't trying to claim that having a gold standard invites constant depression. A gold standard works fairly well most of the time,
"we agree"
as does a fiat currency.
"we disagree"
I was pointing out that in times of depression, a gold standard seems to make things worse.
" The key word there is seems, it shows you have a open mind about it. That is a illusion created by Friedman-Bernanke et al."
Posted by: russ at Dec 27, 2007 12:01:39 AM
I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong
I'll bite: Which candidate doesn't do this?
Posted by: Paul at Dec 27, 2007 12:09:56 AM
Barkley Rosser,
While I understand the problem you have with Paul's abortion, to say Paul is anti-free trade is patently false and it's ironic since nobody is more free trade than Paul...nobody. Calling Paul anti-free trade is like calling John Edwards a free trader.
Paul's problem on trade is that he against trade agreements. He'd rather just eliminate all tariffs and barriers and stay away from "agreements" that are not true free trade. Granted, I think Paul is, as someone else said, obtuse on this matter and it's a perfect example of "perfect being the enemy of good".
Now, that said, it doesn't take very much at all to know someone like that. No real digging is needed, it's right there in plain sight. Saying Paul is anti-trade is simply succumbing to hearsay. Many of his other supposed positions and such are muddled with the same hearsay....being a racist is another such label that falls apart with about 2-3 minutes of decent research.
Posted by: John V at Dec 27, 2007 12:22:16 AM
greenish,
If making an ad hominem attack on somebody for making an ad hominem attack (which is what "fluffy" did
to Tyler) makes me a "doody head" then so be it. I am a doody head, and proud of it.
John V
Oh really? I just did a quick google. Came across Paul's statement from 1992 about 95% of black men
being "criminals." Not a racist? Give me a break.
The free trade issue is more complicated. He loudly says he is for free trade. However, he just seems to
end up voting against almost all trade agreements or deals that come before the Congress.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 12:41:33 AM
Rosser,
that story is old and well known by now. He didn't say it. It was a staffer who was duly fired.
The free trade issue is not that complicated. I just explained it. I'm not saying I agree with his purity on the matter but it is the reason.
Posted by: John V at Dec 27, 2007 1:13:57 AM
Liberty-loving, reasonable, moderate, pragmatic, intellectual, open, and of course non-reminiscent of America First
Well that should be easy! Tell me Dr. Cowen, how many people have you met in your whole life who satisfy all of these criteria? I can think of only one person that I know. Heck, maybe you ought to run for President!
Frankly, I don't agree with Paul on everything but I'm going to take your advice and try to be "reasonable".
Cheers!
Posted by: E-Wadda at Dec 27, 2007 2:05:08 AM
A few questions:
-There have been a number of people attacking Paul on blogs like this for supporting gold currency. I have always heard him say that he would just allow monetary competition (although I think he is convinced that gold or a gold backed currency would largely prevail in the free market). I know he comes off sounding pretty heavily Rothbardian sometimes, but if all he does is legalize competition I don't see what the problem is. I could be wrong about his ultimate position though.
-I'm not really sure what nationalist means in this post, but I don't see how it applies to Paul in any case. I assume you are referring to his immigration positions. If so, I would simply point out that I have heard Paul say many times that he would have very open borders if we didn't have all the entitlements. I don't think it has anything to do with nationalism.
-I am curious what forms of gun control Dr. Cowen is not skeptical of?
Posted by: E-Wadda at Dec 27, 2007 2:32:50 AM
One more thing about guns and Paul. The main thing I wish Paul would stop talking about is how people carrying guns on airplanes could have stopped 9/11. Even if Paul managed to legalize the 2nd Amendment, airlines would still have the right to refuse to allow people on airplanes who were carrying guns. No doubt they would all enact policies like this.
Posted by: E-Wadda at Dec 27, 2007 2:40:58 AM
Think of the US as a huge ship. Here we are going the wrong direction at full speed. Then, we get the chance to have a captain who knows what the hell he is doing, and you are not voting for him because he can't turn the ship around and get us back to where we should be before his stewadship is over? He will not decelerate the ship fast enough?
It seems like you don't truly believe we are headed in the wrong direction. I am not overly optimistic. I'm not even sure Paul can stop the increases in the size of the Federal government, but the Congress will have to assume responsibility for the growth of government, because Paul won't play their game.
Frankly, I wouldn't be upset if the entire Federal government was shut down for a couple years. Paul should just get elected, hire a surragate to veto EVERYTHING, and go on a couple year diplomatic mission. I can't wait until the Congress has to over-rule the President just to fund DoHHS, DoEn, DoE, DoHS, or any of the other rubbish that needs a serious budget trim. Oh, I get excited when I think - veto, veto, veto, veto....... Congress is going to cry like babies, and if it comes to pass, we'll get a non-partisan, strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: rhys at Dec 27, 2007 2:42:34 AM
Oh yeah!
I am all for a gold standard or competing currencies or whatever, but a gold standard is to rigid a money supply for fradulent fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking requires an elastic money supply to bail out banks since fractional reserve banks are frauds and terminally insolvent. I would like to see fractional reserve banking outlawed. Then gold would rule, and the US would attract a very substantial amount of the world savings as the most rock solid currency and banking country in the world.
Posted by: rhys at Dec 27, 2007 3:04:09 AM
I think Ron Paul is a little more reasonable and practical in his stances than you think. When I first heard he was running, I was afraid he'd run on too libertarian a platform, as I know a lot of libertarians who wouldn't be able to govern effectively because they'd want to move too far to fast. I think it was when I first heard Ron Paul talk about social security that I felt my fears eased. Although he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional, he understands that people have spent their entire lives paying into it and it would be wrong not to give them some return on the money they had no choice but to pay. So his plan is to cut unnecessary spending enough that we can afford to support people on social security while letting the younger generations opt out.
It is that type of honest and practical libertarianism that will advance our movement not just in policy success but in popularity.
Posted by: Pablito at Dec 27, 2007 6:09:13 AM
Tyler,
Well, hopefully in another 60 or 70 years there'll be a perfect libertarian candidate of the variety that you'll vote for.
Posted by: Jacob at Dec 27, 2007 7:35:43 AM
Several interesting straw polls have been taken regarding Ron Pauls standing amongst Presidential contenders. For example he is winning in the "Who the World Would Vote for Poll." Of course, there are obvious biases in this sample which represents, at most, whom the "wired world" would vote for. I would be interested in learning the results of another poll "Who would proffesed Austrian economists teaching at GMU vote for?" My suspicion is that Ron Paul would loose. It is the same as the chinese parable of the man who loved pictures of dragons and then was terrified when he actually encountered a real dragon. More to the point, the establishment must be so terrified of libertarianism at this point that it must have in its employ cadres of faux-libertarian blogers and academicians, just as it has its faux conservatives and liberals in the MSM.
Posted by: Holy Jehosophat at Dec 27, 2007 7:40:47 AM
Sure, there might be a perfect libertarian candidate in another 60 or 70 years............but this country will be unrecognizable by then. Look at where we were 60 or 70 years ago; any reason to think that the advance of socialism and fascism we have witnessed will begin to decelerate?
If you claim to be a libertarian, is there another conceivable candidate that has a ghost of a chance, as Ron Paul does? The Libertarian Party has been around for over thirty years -- take a look at their whopping .5% vote totals (as Dr. Paul himself got in 1988!) to see how libertarianism is poised to change this country.
No, it's not a freedom-loving candidate who is going to change the political philosophy of the citizens, from the top down. It is a freedom-loving citizenry who must choose a candidate in favor of freedom. The election of Ron Paul (or A Ron Paul) is a necessary first step in that process. I can see no good reason for sitting on the sidelines of this very important election.
Posted by: Libertarian at Dec 27, 2007 7:59:35 AM
"Ranting hysteria laced with venom"?
I see where the venom is, but ranting hysteria? Just because I needled Cowen about how his class background might influence his political views?
Barkley, I think a much better case could be made that you're the one getting hysterical. After all, even if my posts were merely a little snarky and dismissive. Your post confesses an irrational fear. Of the two, which is more hysterical?
Honestly, I find your attitude [and Tyler's] to be much more "anti-intellectual" than Paul could ever be. The "reasonable and dispassionate" attitude you claim you want to see can only be maintained by people who ultimately believe that the ideas they are discussing really don't matter and are merely symbolic games. If the underlying ideas we are discussing actually mean something, differences of opinion are in fact grounds for a little hostility. If you're such a blushing violet that you can't withstand a mean-spirited joke or two, I shudder to think how you're react to a meaningful and significant confrontation.
If anything, your post goes a long way to proving my point: by your own admission, you're more disturbed by the fact that I don't adhere to the mores of the culture of academic-style discussion than by anything else.
Posted by: Fluffy at Dec 27, 2007 8:24:48 AM
Ricardo writes (David, is that you?):
"The difference is that most academics have had to debate and defend their ideas around people who are as smart as they are, if not smarter. That experience causes all but the most arrogant and self-aggrandizing to develop a sense of humility and skepticism."
Right, and the most arrogant and self-aggrandizing become professors.
"As Cowen said, Paul almost certainly is a highly intelligent guy. However, as a politician, it is unlikely he has spent large amounts of time among people who are in his same league intellectually but who have different views."
Right, he's been in Congress.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 9:06:58 AM
By the way, the whole "open debate" thing has not been my experience in graduate school. It's more like a debate where "noone dares question anyone higher up in the hierarchy for fear of unfair treatment in all things from funding to space to equipment." Maybe it's not the same everywhere, but I suspect the incentives are systemic.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 9:14:52 AM
But you are right about one thing. Almost everything I've learned except for the first year of largely useless classes (interesting to be sure, but useless as applied to my research) I've had to teach myself.
This is another aspect of graduate school that is in actuality the opposite of what they want you to think it is.
But, don't we all pretty much have to synthesize the information that enters our eyes and ears? I don't think that is what Fluffy was talking about.
I think he was referring to the system and the implicit appeal to authority built into the respectability of the opinions of the coronated ones. Again, I speculate what Cowen meant was really anti-elitism, not anti-intellectualism. Maybe in his 3rd installment, he'll clear this up.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 9:26:23 AM
This thread is beginning to come down with cerebral paulsy.
Posted by: perianwyr at Dec 27, 2007 9:29:33 AM
And one last thing before the market opens...
So, I think there's confusion here between strength of conviction versus political flip-flopping. They are not mutually exclusive.
Al Gore was fairly politically opportunistic. But he's also pretty convinced we need to shut down the economy to stop the threat of global warming. He came pretty close to being President. Did he make his full intentions clear before the election?
I imagine that most of these candidates are flip-floppers to get elected, but once elected their opinions on the things that will help benefit their key interest groups will suddenly get really firm.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 9:35:24 AM
I've been voting Libertarian since Carter was up for re-election and Ron Paul's the best candidate I've seen in my life. I don't agree with him on immigration and abortion, but I can accept that to get some kind of libertarian message out to the American people. I'd like to see a little improvement in the US government in my lifetime.
Posted by: gao xia en at Dec 27, 2007 10:58:54 AM
Fluffy,
Uh, I never said that Ron Paul was "anti-intellectual," quite the opposite.
If you are so into making nasty jibes about peoples' class backgrounds,
then why are you anonymous? What is your class background? Who the hell
are you? I would suggest that you can't take what you hand out.
John V,
You may be right on both points. The racial comment seems to be a murky
business, appearing in a column that appeared under Paul's name, but is
now claimed to have been written by someone else. At best this is very
poor judgment, and even if Paul is not a racist, which actually he does
not seem that much like the type, it is disturbing that he seems to attract
such types to himself. I have already said that what bothers me about
Paul probably more than anything he says, is the nature of some of the
people who seem to be supporting him.
I said that the free trade issue is murky. I read your "explanation,"
but it is a far from satisfying one, frankly.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 11:06:30 AM
Ron Paul calls the war on drugs, a tragic mistake. That is all that I need to hear to vote for him. If we end up in a depression (hard to imagine in 2008 USA as diverse and strong our economy is) that is fair trade for not throwing so many young men in jail for trying to make a buck selling drugs.
Posted by: Floccina at Dec 27, 2007 11:22:26 AM
At best this is very
poor judgment, and even if Paul is not a racist, which actually he does not seem that much like the type, it is disturbing that he seems to attract such types to himself. I have already said that what bothers me about Paul probably more than anything he says, is the nature of some of the people who seem to be supporting him.
Barkley...racist blacks would definitely support anti-racist in a society where blacks are discriminated. Would that bother you as well? Would you consider voting for racist-white instead?
What bothers me is that the "guilt by association" is still taken seriously. Do the ad-hominem, ad-autoritatem, ad-antiquatem bother you too? I ignore them because they are completely irrelevant. There is no point in taking such arguments into account...
Posted by: andy at Dec 27, 2007 11:24:50 AM
Barkley Rosser: "some people are against the war, but also do not like Paul's authoritarianism
on the aborition issue"
Barkley, I'm not wanting to debate abortion right now. I just want to point out that Ron Paul has never changed his view on abortion.
In August, 1980, while running for re-election to Congress, he explained to me and 15 other Coastal Corporation employees how he, an obstetrician, came to oppose abortion. He related his experience as a young medical resident in the operating room when a two pound baby was taken out breathing and placed in a bucket. The horror he felt changed him forever.
That summer day in 1980, after listening to Ron, I started to examine the abortion issue. Soon after, I joined the ranks of the pro-life, and remained so for the past 27 years.
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 27, 2007 12:03:33 PM
Barkley,
By "the nature of some of the people who seem to be supporting him" (Ron Paul). Are you referring to Austrian economics adherents?
Ricardo,
You are quite right. Ron Paul hasn't spent appreciable time debating his ideas with people that can equal his intellect. He's been in Congress 20 years.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 12:33:36 PM
This morning in this interview he managed to refer to Lyssander Spooner, DiLorenzo and Seymour Hersch... he is intelligent, well-read, economics-savvy...yet he is unintellectual. Kind of - he raised more money than the others, has larger crowds at reallys, more signs and bumper stickers than the others combined, wins most straw polls - and he is a longshot.
It seems to me that 'intellectual' is defined as 'I mostly agree with him'....
Posted by: andy at Dec 27, 2007 12:57:05 PM
andy,
"Guilt by association" is relevant for a presidential candidate.
Why? An administration is not just a president, but the people
s/he brings on board as well. It is fine to have a good president,
but s/he can be completely undermined by being surrounded by scumbags.
John Dewey,
I did not accuse Ron Paul of flip flopping with regard to the abortion
issue. Nor have I accused him of any sort of insincerity. I have long
assumed that his views were what he said they were/are. So, this is a
matter of disagreement. I have three daughters of child-bearing age, and
I take seriously preserving their rights to control their own bodies. I
do recognize that abortion is not something good or desirable. I go along
with the argument of "safe, legal, and infrequent."
I gather that Paul's and perhaps your views are kind of along the "ugh, yuck"
factor. Fair enough. However, I am going to point out to anybody who pushes
a religious argument, that there is no solid support for a strong anti-abortion
stance in the Bible, although to listen to all the religious fanatics in this
country, you would never know this. The only place the matter is ever directly
addressed is in Exodus, I think around 21-22, where there is a discussion of
what should be the punishment of someone who physically attacks a woman and
causes her to spontaneously abort a fetus. Murder? Nope. The punishment is
that the attacker must pay a fine to the would-be mother's family, more like
a misdemeanor. So much for all this baloney about the Bible equating a fetus
with a born and living human being.
Andrew,
No. The debate over monetary policy happens to be an intra-Austrian debate,
and it is not the monetary people who bother me. It is the sort like "Fluffy"
who hysterically flame those who dare to question or criticize Ron Paul, while
hiding behind phoney monikers. There seems to be altogether too much of this
sort of contemptible conduct on this blog, anonymous jerks flaming other people,
and the Paul contingent seems to be way too full of these scum.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 1:02:46 PM
Apparently posting under one's real name is part of the econo-gangsta creed. Put 'em up, Fluffy!
And, by the way, if we're going to reduce the moral debate about abortion into the reductionist "control of her body", I suppose libertarians would be better served for public policy purposes in spreading the meme "taxation is theft". The worst thing about ideologues on both sides of political debate is lack of acknowledgment of positions the opposition holds that are reasonable and debatable, at least after considering and understanding the opposition's priors. The primacy of the non-initiation of force principle over "liberty" has been expounded upon time and time again within the comments.
Posted by: Billare at Dec 27, 2007 2:06:01 PM
Rosser,
I know three (yes three!) devout Democrats who are somewhat racist and very, very blue collar populist. All three have a very folksy view of business, think unions keep workers from falling into slavery AND they make racial and sexist comments all the time. And they will vote for and support whoever the Dem nominee is...though doesn't like the idea of Obama winning.
What does their racial view say about the candidates? Not much.
I think my explanation of Paul's trade views are quite simple. He is an idealist who doesn't like special interest-laden trade agreements and doesn't want jurisdiction over such matters to go to supra-national body. He would rather just do away with tariffs and altruistic sounding barriers to trade.
Seen in this context, being against NAFTA and CAFTA does not have to be a protectionist position. And in Paul's case, it is not. In his mind, he has the free trade position because he views these agreements as corrupted managed trade deals. The problem is that we equate NAFTA and such to "free trade" in daily language when it really isn't the same thing.
Now, I admire Paul's purity on the matter. But I don't agree with his stridency. Managed trade, to me, is better than more protectionism. I would vote for NAFTA and CAFTA because a better alternative is not on the table. To me it's the lesser of two evils to vote for managed trade. Now, if I were in Paul's shoes and a bill was up for a vote to simply abolish all tariffs and protectionist barriers OR vote for NAFTA and CAFTA-like deals, I would take the former and vote against the later.
Posted by: John V at Dec 27, 2007 2:38:46 PM
Billare,
I do not have a problem with people commenting under phoney monikers
in general. I do when they start to engage in all kinds of personalistic
flaming, which "Fluffy" did here, despite his/her "pretty" moniker. I have
a new name for this gang of people who pull this stuff: AFJ, Anonymous
Flaming Jerks.
The abortion issue is difficult, with strong feelings on all sides. I would
agree with what I think John Dewey suggested, that this is not the time or
place to debate it, although I did somewhat. I fully recognize that there
are many people who oppose it for a variety of reasons.
My problem with Ron Paul on this, and his more fanatical supporters, is that
he is supposed to be a libertarian, and I do not see opposing a woman's right
to choose as consistent with libertarianism.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 2:42:40 PM
. I'm also bugged by his anti-abortion-right stand. And his position against gay marriage.
If a party adopts somebody so against important freedoms of the bedroom, I have trouble thinking of it as being a party of liberty, no matter what its name may be.
Posted by: Jon Kay at Dec 27, 2007 3:18:15 PM
Barkley Rosser: "I do not see opposing a woman's right to choose as consistent with libertarianism."
Ron Paul is certainly not the only pro-life libertarian. From what I've read, the difference in views on abortion is one of two main factors - the other being war - splitting libertarians as a group.
Ron Paul and I both believe life begins at conception. So, in our view, a fetus is a living being. And abortion is thus infanticide, just as deliberately killing a newborn would be.
I think most libertarians agree that people should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, so long as they do not harm or deny freedom to other human beings. Because Ron Paul believes that a fetus is another human being, a woman who chooses to abort a fetus has, in his view, violated that basic principle of libertarianism.
"Ugh, yuck factor" does not even come close to describing the horror that most pro-life people feel about abortion, Mr. Rosser. I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to describe my personal views about this subject.
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 27, 2007 3:22:57 PM
@Bernard Yomtov,
Liberty is lacking in the United StatesOh give it a rest. That's ridiculous.
Liberty may not be lacking for you, but for the 2+ million Americans in jail, I think it is. I also think liberty is lacking for the 600,000+ Iraqis which fell victim to trade sanctions (under Clinton), or the many who have died in the Iraq war.
So don't think about that. Think about the number of people killed and in jail from America's various wars (on drugs, Iraq, or whatever).
@Barkley,
Paul believes abortion is murder, which isn't a political position to have at all (so it is consistent with libertarianism). While I don't agree, I don't think there is much of a chance of his legislation getting passed. Most of his supporters are pro-choice, after all.
@Tyler,
Paul is by the far the most pro-immigrant, pro-trade, and anti-nationalist (in the Nazi sense) of any of the GOP candidates.
I can understand why intellectuals feel that Paul is insufficiently intellectual (I do as well). However, we should know by now that it is impossible for a politician to take good positions on issues PhDs spend their lives studying, for Hayekian reasons if nothing else.
Posted by: G at Dec 27, 2007 3:31:51 PM
John Dewey,
I apologize for characterizing your views on abortion. That
was inappropriate of me.
I shall only note that I consider what comes out of botched,
back alley abortions to be pretty horrific also, and given that
I do give far more weight to the humanity of a born human than to
an unborn fetus, a position that has strong Biblical backing as I
have pointed out, I am more apalled by that than I am by the
clearly horrific nature of aborted fetuses. (And, please do not
say that these evil women should not be getting these back alley
abortions; maybe they shouldn't but they do when it is illegal.)
In any case, this is not the time or place to get into a general
debate on abortion, which we all know is a topic that many people
have very strong views about.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 3:57:29 PM
Barkley,
Apology accepted. Perhaps I was again too sensitive.
I doubt that Tyler wanted this thread to evolve into an emotionally-charged discussion of abortion, so I'll leave that for another day.
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 27, 2007 4:18:15 PM
Let me be the one to crack comment #100, and I would surmise that that is all the proprietor wants, activity. Else he'd not post Ron Paul commentary (posts that don't really say much anyway).
Ah, but it's not a pseudonym. It really is Fluffy. He's the first free market populist tabby cat.
"The debate over monetary policy happens to be an intra-Austrian debate"
Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that investors and bankers aren't debating every day whether the Fed should tweak interest rates and whether those rates will cause inflation or a recession? Surely not!
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 27, 2007 4:44:57 PM
Liberty may not be lacking for you, but for the 2+ million Americans in jail, I think it is. I also think liberty is lacking for the 600,000+ Iraqis which fell victim to trade sanctions (under Clinton), or the many who have died in the Iraq war.
Well, yes. Liberty is lacking for those in prison, and I agree that our drug laws are far too harsh in many respects. Indeed, there are probably other aspects of our criminal justice that are too harsh as well. I also agree that liberty is lacking in Iraq, but Tyler's statement refers to the US.
However, I interpreted Tyler's statement differently. I took it to mean that society and especially our economy should be organized much more in accordance with libertarian thinking, and that the fact that they are not causes "liberty" to be lacking. I think that's silly. To the extent that personal liberty in the US is under threat it's not from OSHA.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Dec 27, 2007 6:32:07 PM
Andrew,
I mean the debate over the sort of ideas that Ron Paul advocates, introducing gold as a
competing currency. This is not discussed daily by bankers and investors, being viewed
by most as an out-of-date dead issue not worth talking about. Interest rates? Yes. Gold
standard? No. However, some Austrian economists do support various schemes for free banking
or competing currencies. The idea of some major changes to the monetary system is a major
Austrian idea, but there is disagreement about what that should be, hence, an "intra-Austrian
debate" (and there are others reading this who are much better qualified than I to comment on
this matter).
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 27, 2007 11:31:20 PM
I would disagree with your assessment that Ron Paul is too entrenched in his own ideals. First, I would say that his ideals are very broad and cover a large philosophy. Freedom is generally popular as well as peace. People like that. Second, Ron Paul himself has made a 180 degree turn on immigration from 1988 to 2007. He used to be for completely open borders, now he wants to control illegal immigration through economics and legislation. Don't tell me that a smart intellectual like Ron Paul cannot change his mind/policy on key issues. Come up with a compelling argument and I am sure that he is willing to take it into account and even change if it is warranted.
Posted by: Chris at Dec 28, 2007 1:55:48 AM
On the abortion issue, Ron Paul stated to the ladies on "The View" that as President he would abide by the law of the land (Roe v. Wade)even though he personally disagreed with it. He was also very emphatic about the fact that in his profession as an ob/gyn doctor his job was to make certain that once his patient came to him after conception he had to do everything in his power to bring that child into this world as a healthy human being. He said that he could get sued if he made a mistake in his care of the mother and infant, so abortion was not something he took lightly. He did say that if abortion is what the patient wanted, then it must be done in the first tri-mester. 2nd and 3rd tri-mesters was murder in his eyes. I live in a home with a "pro-choice" woman, but I respect Dr. Paul for his views on abortion and his reasons for feeling that way. Other than following the law, this should not even be an issue in a political campaign.
Posted by: Bob Bowen at Dec 28, 2007 4:53:02 AM
It's naive to take the tack that the President's views on abortion are irrelevant. Of the most lasting legacies of any president's tenure are his Supreme Court appointments which can be heavily influenced by issues of this ilk.
Posted by: meter at Dec 28, 2007 9:48:03 AM
It just trips me out that here we are again receiving reports of yet another financial crisis, arguably (for myself undoubtedly) Fed-induced, and without a doubt the current system hasn't solved the problem. So, I agree, the discussion of real solutions is intra-Austrian and the discussion of whether the Fed should have raised or lowered rates a month earlier or a month later is everyone else.
And to Bernard, of course liberty is under threat from Osha. I get the sense from folks that talk like you that liberty is like a coin. It's either heads up or heads down. Yes, we are one of the most libertarian countries. But it's a matter of degrees. People like me simply believe that a little more is a little better.
In my little sphere, I'm a graduate student, a job which has a lot of freedom in some ways and suffers under authoritarianism in a lot of other ways. And all I get from programs like Osha is more work. Noone does anything for me, so when something is deemed "unsafe" guess who has to fix it. So, the expectations aren't reduced when I have to put time into something like fixing a hood or whatever. Which makes me have to take shortcuts other places. So, even though they do coerce me, no they don't make me feel safer.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 28, 2007 10:42:15 AM
Again, all we have to choose from are available alternatives.
So, who are the "intellectual" candidates so open to new ideas?
Rudy ("I've never heard that retaliation might be a motivation for 9/11) Giuliani
Irregardless of Osama's fatwa mysteriously entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." You gotta admit, it would take a scholar to interpret an anti-interventionist motive from that title.
Maybe it's Mitt Romney. Open to discussing the idea of medical marijuana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
Perhaps John McCain-Feingold, known for his easy-going intellectual demeanor, always rational not appealing to authority or emotion or a sense of duty.
Fred Thompson? Well, the flip side of being open to compromise, is being completely two-faced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/politics/07thompson.html?ref=politics
So, hmm, someone principled yet willing to compromise. I guess it's got to be Huckabee who recently said "The greatest challenge we face in this country is understanding the war that we are in from the perspective of the enemy, not from our own Westernized perspective..."
http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/10/huckabee-