Monthly Archive for February, 2010

Libertarian philosophy is among the most robust and developed among political philosophies because it practices what it preaches: ruthless competition in the marketplace of ideas, especially with itself. Libertarianism is a big, big tent – much bigger then mainstream political movements. But this is also the feature that causes it the most problems when trying to unite into a sustainable political movement.

Just as in a free-market, eventually a branch of the philosophy wins out and begins to effect real political power: see Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign and the emergence of Austrian Economics as the current big things going on the libertarian movement. For a while, a lot of differences are set aside and the movement unites in a push to gain political traction. However, like any political movement, it begins to be plagued with confusion over what to do with this new found power, and the competition for how/what/who to wield it erodes its base and plunges it back into radicalism.

I fear we may be seeing this now with the current libertarian surge. At the very least it is being set up by the emergence of several “under-leaders” who have already began to quibble:

• Rand Paul: Ron Paul’s son has ticked off many of his father’s supporters by embracing some standard conservative foreign policy, including support for Gitmo and more socially conservative values.
• Alex Jones: I think Jones’s ideas are nutty, but he is in the libertarian movement, albeit on the fringes (yes, he’s on the fringes of an often fringe movement). However, he recently lambasted Debra Medina who has spent the last week rabidly denying that she thinks 9/11 was any kind of inside job. Jones evidentially believes her and is withdrawing his support for her.
• Debra Medina: Assuming she doesn’t win the Texas governorship, I wholly expect that she can win a senatorial or congressional election. But her deep philosophical convictions about questioning government have muddled her answers to the 9/11 truth question and alienated her from some supporters.
• Glenn Beck: A rift exists between Beck and Medina, and Beck and Jones. In fact, all three do not like each other. beck has made a lot of friends in the libertarian movement, but he has also made enemies with what has happened with Medina and his occasional ideas about killing terrorists rile up the more anti-war in the libertarian movement.
• Reason Magazine: They just came out with this piece absolutely slamming Ron Paul as having “half-baked crusades” and “silly books.” Reason has had a veiled acceptance of Ron Paul over the past few years, but this seems to be wearing off. The same article offers praise for the CATO Institute as a “serious” libertarian organisation.
• CATO: Cato has also begrudgingly accented to Ron Paul for the sake of unity. But their decades old spat with the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics eventually puts them at odds with Pauland more ideological libertarians.
• Mises Institute: They represent the most ideological libertarians, often embracing anarchism. With Ron Paul emerging and promoting Austrian Economics like crazy, they have seen a surge in readership and interest. However, they despise monetarist and Chicago School libertarians and have very little tolerance for the political process.

All of these groups and leaders have began to see alliances forming for control over this well of power created by Ron Paul. I believe they are starting to look as follows:

1. The rEVOLution Purists. People who will defend the more radical ideology and philosophy of libertarianism:
   Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mises Institute, Tom Woods
2. The Pragmatic Club. People who will promote a “bread and butter” libertarianism in the media, academia and journalism:
   Reason, John Stossel, Rand Paul, CATO, Peter Schiff, Libertarian Party
3. The Republitarians. People who will promote some degree of a watered down version in politics/punditry
   Debra Medina, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Bob Barr
4. The Pet Projects. People who will use libertarianism as a means to advocate conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated hypotheses or untenable:
   Alex Jones, Ayn Rand Institute, Jesse Ventura

Currently, people in these wings would still unite around Paul. I could pull Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff and Judge Napolitano out of each group, and all of them love Paul. But without Paul’s leadership, these groups suddenly have more overpowering differences then they do similarities. It’s like a wedding where all kinds of friends and family of the bride and groom come together for a time – but without the marriage, these people suddenly have much less reason to be together.

A valid political movement needs a big tent, but also a unified vision and goals. Ron Paul has provided that and called a lot of disparate elements into a common group. But that unified front may be fracturing again as Ron Paul ages. As an ideology and philosophy, this process is what makes libertarianism so strong and vibrant. As a political movement, it is the seed of destruction.

UPDATE: Tom Woods has now issued a counter-attack against Reason here.