Worldview Blog

Liberals and Ron Paul
18 December 2007

Ron is seriously antiwar, but are his economics antediluvian?

I consider myself a traditional 'liberal', though with some caveats to be discussed in the following. I just sent Ron Paul $100 (on his record-breaking day!), which is more than the $25 I sent Obama a few months ago. At the time, I thought Obama was a breath of fresh air, without a whole lot of substance. Since then, I have been disappointed to see him play a double-crossing game of courting AIPAC and the antiwar crowd simultaneously, as have the other leading Democrats. I now distrust him. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is by far the most sincere antiwar candidate, which is my primary concern. However, his economic views seem quite draconian and antediluvian to someone like myself, so I would feel uncomfortable actually voting for him. No doubt, a huge proportion of Americans would agree with me, which could quite likely doom his candidacy. So let us discuss his views a bit, based on his website.

I will discuss only his domestic policies, as I am substantially in agreement with his non-interventionist foreign policy. (True, as Noam Chomsky says, his 'ultranationalism' would destroy even the good done by the UN and other such organizations, but compared to all the other realistic candidates, his foreign policy looks very good indeed.) The guiding light of Paul's economic views is the libertarian philosophy propounded by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek. A cartoon summary of Hayek's views is that all forms of 'collectivism' lead to 'totalitarianism'. Any kind of 'socialism' will require central planning, which, combined with the usual evils of politics, will result in an overbearing government. Libertarians like Paul see government as such an evil that they want to do away with the income tax and perhaps even Social Security, if they could get away with it. (Of course, Paul is not so foolish as to advocated eliminating Social Security, but his philosophy implies it.)

My critique: A digression on health care

Notwithstanding my cartoonish summary of Hayek, I take issue with his central idea, which has inspired conservatives from Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan to the folks at Antiwar.com — my favorite website because it is, well, anti war. I deny that certain decent levels of 'socialism' require any central planning at all. I will explain through an example. My primary concern is health care, and I favor some form of National Health Insurance (NHI), which is anathema to the good Dr. Paul (an obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies). Health care costs are exorbitant. The working poor and even much of the middle class can barely afford them. A major illness could deprive your children of college and wreak their future. Unemployment can mean a death sentence. I just can't help but feel that this is a humanitarian problem which requires some form of NHI to ensure that everyone is insured. All employers should pay into a common fund, available even to the unemployed who are seriously looking for work, as well as to the elderly. A plethora of private insurance companies results in bureaucratic inefficiencies, and they will always cherry-pick the healthy and prosperous, to the extent that they can. A common fund would eliminate these problems, and Social Security itself shows that the government is indeed capable of administering such a program. And no 'planning' is required. NHI is simply a consolidation of insurance; it need not be a blueprint for statism. (It would also greatly simplify the paperwork of doctors, which has achieved hateful proportions under our current system.)

Now the power of such a fund could be used to negotiate better deals with the drug companies and with doctors. No doubt that is the main reason that NHI is opposed with such vehemence. But our present system puts all the cards in the hands of a few megacorporations and a small elite of plutocrats. The whole philosophy of 'free markets' is largely a myth, except perhaps for some simple commodities such as corn flakes. (And even that is dominated by agribusinesses.) Doctors and drug companies would have to be paid enough for them to remain in business. If we could only radically shrink our gargantuan and unnecessary military-industrial complex, there would be plenty of gravy left over to treat doctors well, even if some of them would have to give up living like princes. The drug companies will stay in business as long as they make a modest profit. The main reason the powers-that-be oppose NHI is, I fear, that a few want to be filthy rich. The other stated reasons are mostly a smokescreen, though it is true that political stupidity and cupidity can ruin any government program. I am assuming a responsible and intelligent electorate, which is a precondition for democracy itself. (Yes, I know, I live on some other planet. By the way, the rich should be allowed to pay for health care beyond what NHI provides. It would be foolish to deny this.)

Of course, health care is special, and I would like to see most of the economy remain as free as possible. To be sure, free trade is largely a myth, since efficiencies of scale inevitably result in the domination of a few megacorporations within most sectors of the economy. Besides, we don't even have a productive economy anymore, but one largely based on speculation and military spending. Milton Friedman seems to me like a charlatan, who made a nice living selling his convenient prognostications to the plutocracy, just like most economists. Nevertheless, I agree with the basic libertarian idea that any growth of the state is to be feared, if only due to the stupidity and cupidity of politics. To repeat, NHI is only an insurance fund; it should not manage the health industry, except to set rough parameters of cost. In fact, the US already spends the most per person and gets the least return of all industrialized nations. The problem is not so much one of money as of gross inefficiencies and an insatiable drive for profits on the part of the insurance racket (oops, industry). Let us remember that we don't shop for healthcare the way we shop for common commodities. Usually, we just get by with minor checkups (or less), until we are struck by some terrible illness, at which point the healthcare machine has us by the b**lls. And as I said, those who can afford it should be allowed to pay for extra care beyond what NHI provides, though doctors should not be allowed to reject NHI patients. NHI simply sets a floor of decency for the general population, so that we can have a society that honors rather than shames us.

So could I vote for him?

Clearly, Ron Paul is dead set against all this. His website offers a rather airy prescription whereby miracles will occur if both big bad government and big bad corporations are taken off our backs. I am skeptical. So would I vote for him? For sure, if his opponent is war-hawk Hilary Clinton, who might as well be a (non-Paul) Republican. Would social services suffer without a Democrat in the White House? Perhaps, but the mass murder exhibited so frequently by our foreign policy is a greater humanitarian concern. Besides, our budget is way out of control and must be reckoned with sooner or latter. Without a doubt, our military-industrial complex must be sharply scaled down, or we are toast. Perhaps a libertarian like Paul, checked by a more traditionally liberal Congress, would provide the balance of power to stop war and get our economic house in order. And if Paul can compromise on Social Security, he might be willing to forgo the veto pen on NHI, provided it is only an insurance fund and not a central planning agency.

The other aspects of 'liberalism' that I should briefly mention are 'civil rights', such as abortion, gay marriage, racial quotas, gun control and the like. In general, I am in favor of personal freedom, which means abortion rights during the first few months of pregnancy, as well as gun rights. Clearly, I am no doctrinaire 'liberal'. Now libertarian Ron Paul is strongly opposed to abortion, which shows that he is no doctrinaire libertarian. Basically, it comes down to whether an embryo is a human life during early pregnancy. Since human consciousness is associated with a developed nervous system, I cannot accept that an early embryo is a 'life', and I do feel strongly that it is a great injustice to bring an unwanted life into the world. As for gays, I favor leaving them alone, though I have some qualms about gay adoption. (Frankly, I would not want to be adopted by gays, especially if they are male!) And quotas based on race rather than economic need do seem unfair and contrary to the spirit of our constitution. Sorry, liberals! But the important point is that the horror of war trumps all of these secondary concerns. Hence, I will vote for the most certifiably antiwar candidate. (And I haven't even mentioned the crucial issue of restoring the Constitution, where Paul also shines.) At worst, most of the contentious social issues would revert to the states, and I have no intention of moving to Alabama or Mississippi (though there may be some fine folks down there).

Maybe Ron Paul is giving progressives most of what they want

UPDATE (26 Dec 07): One of Ron Paul's remarkable attributes is his apparent sincerity and integrity, far more convincing to me than was ever the fake populism of a Bill Clinton. Now Paul's libertarianism rails not only against the welfare state but also against Big Business getting in bed with government, which, through massive tax breaks, plunders from ordinary Americans at least as much as the social programs. If Paul is serious about ending this gravy train for the plutocrats, he would go a long way towards satisfying half the domestic agenda of progressives — the other half being, of course, the social programs. And who knows? Perhaps the freed-up money would lead to a surge of charity, as he predicts, not to mention that welfare does often lead to a harmful dependency on government, as he claims. Combined with his clear determination to end American militarism, I would say that a Paul presidency would be giving true progressives a great deal of what they want. (I say 'true progressives', because many on the left are evidently prejudiced against him due to identity politics or some other kind of nastiness.)

Naomi Wolf: Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

Glenn Greenwald: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's

Justin Raimondo: Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters

You Tube: Ron Paul on Meet the Press (Dec 07)

GAO Comptroller General: Cost Of Bush: $32 Trillion

Murray Rothbard: Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal

Justin Raimondo: Ron Paul's Disgraceful Ad
        Gotta give Raimondo credit for uncompromising integrity.

Ron Paul will not invade Pakistan!

UPDATE (28 Dec 07): Benazir Bhutto has just been assassinated in Pakistan. Now everybody is worried about Pakistan coming apart and the Islamic radicals getting their hands on the Paki nukes. Fortunately, Ron Paul is keeping his head screwed on and telling Wolf Blitzer that he would not send American troops in (contrary to what 'antiwar' Obama has said in recent months). Unfortunately, Ron Paul failed to make an essential point made by Justin Raimondo in the article below: namely, that Pakistan's radicals are a fringe and are nowhere near getting those nukes, no matter which dictator rises or falls. (OK, I am, say, about 85% sure of that. A whole lot better than was the case for W's WMD 'evidence'.) Even if the radicals were closer to the nukes, we should stay out. It would be insane to invade a nation of 170 million (compared to Iraq's 27 million or Iran's 65 million), and this would only inflame support for radicals even further throughout the Muslim world. Instead, we need to work on the causes of anti-American hatred in the Middle East and South Asia, which include our military presence, our support for puppet dictators, and our unfailing support for Israeli expansion in the West Bank, as well as Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights. That said, Pakistan is a very dangerous and difficult issue which needs much more discussion.

Wolf Blitzer: Questions Ron Paul on Pakistan (27 Dec 07)

Justin Raimondo: Election '08: The Collapse of the 'Frontrunners'

WP: Pakistan's Islamic Parties Struggle for Support

Aziz Huq: Another Death in Rawalpindi

Is Ron Paul a bigot?

UPDATE (08 Jan 08): Does Ron Paul have 'appalling bigotry' in his past? Some dredged-up material from the 1980's and 1990's was printed in Paul's newsletters of the time, but apparently none was authored by Paul himself. Paul may have been negligent, and he certainly seems like a thoroughly decent person on TV (and YouTube) today. I'll keep an eye on this...

Andrew Sullivan: Ron Paul Exposed?

Andrew Sullivan: Ron Paul Responds

TP: Ron Paul's old newsletters filled with bigotry

Paul's response seems OK. He can point to a speech in Congress in 1999 honoring Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement — on libertarian grounds! (Actually, that makes a lot of sense.) Then again, he did let this go on a long time. He is not responsible for what others write, but he should have denounced it immediately, for the record. Then again, he and others claim that he has apologized for it for years. This may be a classic case of character assassination. All right, it's disturbing. But for crying out loud, he's the only really sincere antiwar candidate! I'm not giving up on him yet. And it just doesn't match with how he comes across on TV. Puzzling. Well, he never was going to win, was he?

George Kenney on Ron Paul

UPDATE (13 Jan 08): George Kenney at Electric Politics has posted an interesting article on how he, as a progressive, views Ron Paul and libertarianism in general. He said he'd probably vote for Ron Paul, running as either a Republican or an Independent, against Hillary Clinton. I share his low esteem for the hawkish Hillary in liberal feathers. (This article makes it clear that Hillary's foreign policy will be more of the same interventionism, tempered perhaps with some diplomacy.) Kenney points out that progressives and libertarians actually have much in common, especially regarding foreign policy and preserving the Constitution. And on the social issues dear to progressives and the general public, Ron Paul would most likely be powerless to effect major change.

A LIBERTARIAN SPRING
Electric Politics, 13 January 2008

Here are some comments I posted to this article:

George, I think I know what distinguishes libertarians from progressives like you and me. We have an idealistic view of human nature and what society could achieve. So we believe that a good government is possible, with enough public education and simple good luck. Libertarians may have a darker view of human nature, whereby any government will tend to be corrupt, so the less the better. They definitely have a point.

Libertarians and progressives can agree on foreign policy, since we want our nation to behave itself on the international scene and only respond militarily when attacked. We differ on domestic issues. But this doesn't mean that libertarians are mean-hearted towards the disadvantaged. Ron Paul seems quite sincere when he speaks of a hospital he once worked at which refused nobody. I don't think such a hospital would fly in today's money-driven economy. But the point is that libertarians like Dr. Paul really believe in charity, and I have no doubt that he's done more than his share of pro bono work.

When you add the ignorance of the public to the corruption of those who seek power, I am often inclined to become libertarian. But there's something about the idealism of using good government for a better society that just won't die in me. It's inspiring, and politicians like Obama use or abuse that impulse. And good things have been achieved before with government. I just can't understand the hatred of libertarians for FDR. He still seems to me like the right thing for the right time (pre-WWII that is), but they insist he's totalitarian. I always thought he was the rich guy who saved capitalism!

There is another point I wish to make. What most fires up my progressive instincts is the obscenity of our distribution of wealth. Per Wikipedia, 'In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.'

Ron Paul, I believe, lives in a small town world with nice country doctors earning more but not obscenely more. But the real world is controlled from the big cities by plutocrats. He just kind of blocks that out of his mind to some extent. Libertarianism only works in a healthy society not polarized into the rich and the rest.

The debate over the distribution of wealth is always muddied by raising the specter of a dreary collectivism, where everybody is the same. What we need is free markets combined with a serious progressive tax without loopholes. I also accept the view that the ruthlessness of our foreign policy and the greed of those who rule over us is not unrelated. But the public is ignorant and easily manipulated.

Justin Raimondo: Caroline Glick smears Ron Paul and others

Chip Berlet: Ron Paul and the Bigots

Back to the Home Page