« 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
