I was disappointed today to read that the “Lew Rockwell” faction of libertarianism is apparently involved in a knock-down, drag-out ideological fight with the “cosmopolitan” libertarians at the Cato Institute.
I wasn’t up to speed on the details of the rift before now, but I had wondered why the hell the Catos hadn’t jumped all over Ron Paul like Mike Huckabee over a tax hike. The Cato Institute seemed oddly silent on this whole “Ron Paul Revolution,” which struck this longtime libertarian as odd. I regularly receive mailings from David Boaz of the Cato Institute, and he talks about how we need limited government, lower taxes, adherence to Constitutional principles, and out of the war in Iraq, and I hear Ron Paul say all these things when no other candidate does, and yet, no endorsement or encouragement from Cato.
Frankly, after reading this article and the details of the two sides’ little spat, I think the Cato Institute is jealous of Ron Paul, plain and simple. Cato goes all liberal-type libertarian (“cut taxes and don’t spend quite as much” liberals, if you will) expecting to garner more mainstream acceptance, and it works for awhile, but damned if this crazy Ron Paul guy from Texas doesn’t come in running for President as a Republican and saying exactly the same libertarian things he’s always said, even when running for president on the Libertarian ticket, and he gets all the money, media attention, and fame that these Cato types wish they could get for themselves.
Brink Lindsey, apparently with the lofty position of the “Vice-President of Research” at Cato, has not done his research very well. He thinks that Ron Paul’s supporters have no “sustainable movement” and that we are a “weird group” who are “backward-looking” and not “leading anywhere.” I would say the same, but I would instead say it about the Cato Institute and Brink Lindsey. Apparently those who believe what Ron Paul believes “come from a different universe” than Brink Lindsey. The last I checked, a libertarian is a libertarian, and the definition is pretty easy. Brink Lindsey apparently isn’t one.
If the Catos aren’t going to support Ron Paul, who are they going to support? Rudy Giuliani? Mike Huckabee? Mitt Romney? Hillary Clinton, for godsakes? John McCain may be from Arizona, but he’s not even as libertarian as Barry Goldwater, and Goldwater wasn’t quite libertarian at all, but libertarian-leaning.
There comes a time in every libertarian’s life when he or she has to stand up and say: Am I a libertarian or am I not? Do I support libertarian candidates or not? Apparently that time has not come for the Cato Institute yet, or it has and Cato has said “No.” I’ll keep that in mind the next time that David Boaz sends me a mailing asking for money.
Tags: Cato Institute libertarian, Cato Institute Lew Rockwell, Lew Rockwell vs. Cato Institute, libertarian, libertarianism, Cato Institute Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell Ron Paul, Ron Paul libertarian, Lew Rockwell libertarian
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
The Political News You Need to Know » Lew Rockwell vs. Cato Institute: Which is Truly Libertarian?
December 6th, 2007
Perhaps neither Rockwell nor Cato are truly libertarian. Ron Paul is not even truly libertarian from what I can see. I’m a big fan of Ron but he leaves a lot to be desired in the arena of true personal freedom. For example he’d end the federal War on Drugs but has not lashed out against the cruel and unusual punishment doled out by the states for non-violent marijuana possession. In fact, he backs state power over that issue. There are a lot of places in his views where I want to point him to the “or to the people.” clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Chris
December 6th, 2007
Many of the Cato cosmopolitans would rather be DC insiders than freedom fighters. That’s why they moved Cato to DC. They want to be “relevant” at the center of power. And, if irrelevant, they still want to be near the center of power.
Lew, Ron, and my other friends at von Mises want freedom. They stand for principles. They don’t compromise on principles. Obviously, that makes them “dangerous radicals” to anyone in government, which includes many at Cato.
Cato does some good things and many in Cato are themselves great individualists and pro-freedom. It is a soup, like all liberty groups. Just go at it with a spoon and pick out the bits you like.
Jim Davidson
December 7th, 2007
I just want us all to get along, and yes, many in Cato are great. I have just been disappointed with what they’ve said about Ron Paul, though, with the notable exception of David Boaz. It’s not only as if they’re ignoring him, but going out of their way to portray him in a bad light. It’s quite annoying.
libertariangirl
December 7th, 2007
“Cosmo-libertarians” at Cato aren’t the only ones who aren’t buying into the “Ron Paul Revolution.” Most Pro-Defense libertarians are taking a pass on Paul, as well.
His stridently Blame America first views are repulsive to those of us who support a strong Military and Defense against Islamo-Fascism.
This is one libertarian who is proudly supporting Rudy Giuliani for President.
And note, Giuliani has more major libertarian backers than all other GOP Presidential candidates combined, including Paul. (See a list over at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com)
Eric Dondero, Chairman
Libertarian Defense Caucus
Eric Dondero
December 7th, 2007
Above, Did you mean Brink Lindsey, instead of Bruce Lindsey? I believe Brink is Vice-President of Research at Cato and Bruce is associated with the Clinton Library, CGI, etc.
Patrick
December 7th, 2007
Patrick– yes, thank you. I’ll correct that.
Eric– I guess I’ve really made it when I have Eric Dondero commenting on my blog. I must say, though, that I respectfully disagree. I believe Ron Paul is pro-defense and the best choice for President, not Giuliani. Here is what I think of Giuliani: http://www.libertariangirl.com/rudy-giuliani-tax-and-spend-liberal/
How exactly are you calculating that Giuliani has more “major libertarian backers” than Ron Paul?
libertariangirl
December 7th, 2007
Cato is an establishment group. While it has some true-believing idealists within its ranks, the organization itself is more tied to the Republican Party for acceptance.
And though I’m not a Paul backer, or even a Libertarian, I want to encourage all true believers to stick with their beliefs. Of all movements, libertarianism shouldn’t be concerned about “major backers” — at its heart, libertarianism is all about the so-called little people not having to take their orders from someone else.
Wickle
December 7th, 2007
Excellent point, and I agree completely, Wickle. That’s why the Cato Institute’s position strikes me as so odd.
libertariangirl
December 7th, 2007
New article in National Review magazine about Giuliani’s “libertarian brain trust.” They trace all of the surrounding advisors for Giuliani, who are likely to be in his Cabinet, and surprise, surprise, 90% of them are “Milton Friedmanite libertarians.”
People like Sally Pipes of the very libertarian Pacific Research Inst., and Property Rights/Anti-Eminent Domain champion Clint Bolick, and son of Ron Paul’s former mentor William E. Simon – Bill Simon, Jr.
But of course, the leftist lapdog libertarian media including the Paulist Blogs will just completely ignore this news, or at best pooh-pooh it.
Or, maybe they’ll try to claim that “Clint and Sally aren’t real libertarians.”
Eric Dondero
December 9th, 2007
I’ll have to check out that article. I didn’t know William Simon was Ron Paul’s mentor. Thanks Eric!
libertariangirl
December 9th, 2007
Chris- Ron Paul simply has those positions because he holds a federal office and is running for a federal office. He can’t tell states what to do, because that’s also a breach of the federalist system.
Philosophically, I believe Ron Paul would think that a free market approach to drug regulation (legalizing it and collecting taxes, regulating it like alcohol maybe) would be much better for society as a whole. But he believes that states have the right to decide this on their own, just as with medical marijuana.
A good first step is definitely to end federal intervention in a lot of these issues, and then allow states to decide whether to get involved in them or not.
libertariangirl
December 13th, 2007
Though I’m often nonplussed by what comes out of the Rockwell camp, I have to say I am disappointed at Cato as well. I think Jim basically nails it – Cato has been too subject to the beltway mentality and become too dependent on establishment supporters.
As far as having “really made it” by having Dondodo comments, I would guess that is because he has been banned from most sites with intelligent and reasonable readers. I would suggest that you do the same, except for the humor many of us get from watching him and the fact that by reversing his positions you end up with a good idea of what the best positions are.
bil.
December 18th, 2007
Well, I like a little entertainment every once in a while. Censorship is for the government
I know he’s been banned from most sites. I like the way you put it– reversing is useful.
libertariangirl
December 18th, 2007
[...] What does the Cato Institute have to say? [...]
Libertarian Girl » Blog Archive » Libertarian Files to Run Against Ron Paul in 14th District, Texas
December 23rd, 2007
I’m sorry, but RP’s isolationism just leaves me cold. It’s foolish to believe that if we stay out of international affairs, nothing bad will happen to us. There’s always gonna be ambitious madmen out there. Diplomatic isolationism is like the Maginot Line. It makes us feel secure with its impenetrable appearance, but its enemies always find a way around it. The bottom line is: by jumping off the world stage, we set ourselves up for a massive attack that we could have nipped in the bud abroad. That’s why I dislike Ron Paul and his buddies at LewRockwell.com.
Jacob Stuckey
May 2nd, 2009
There’s a difference between not inserting yourself in other countries’ affairs at all– isolationism– and maintaining positive relations with countries and not interfering with them– what Ron Paul wants.
For instance, I can say I don’t like you because your name is Robert. But since your name is Jacob, my argument makes no sense and is irrelevant to any discussion of whether I like you or not. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is untrue, so it’s an immediately irrelevant argument.
libertariangirl
June 8th, 2009
This is a very informative read. I’ve always found it odd as well that they’re very silent about the whole Ron Paul revolution. I don’t understand what the whole fuss is about when both parties want to reduce the size and scope of government anyway and they won’t be able to achieve it by having these petty fights.
Harry Santos
December 14th, 2011