[Rand] Paul’s challenge is to seek a smaller state while not advocating cuts to anything anybody’s grandmother cares about, to sell a live-and-let-live social policy to busybodies and bluenoses on both sides and to articulate a foreign policy that is less reliant on the projection of national strength without projecting weakness instead. Trouble is, he has to do all that to the satisfaction of an electorate whose members mostly think that a libertarian is somebody who works in a library, courting the debased descendants of Patrick Henry as they shout with one voice: “Give me liberty, or give me a check!”
In 2016, they’re going to vote for the check.
His argument is that when it comes to how they actually cast their votes, the American electorate is opposed to libertarians. If he is right, and I tend to think he is, then the feeling is mutual.
I remember in the 1960s, the opponents of the Vietnam war were divided between those who wanted to work within the system to change policy and those who believed that your best bet was to stay outside the system (“tune in, turn on, drop out”). The folks who took the latter approach started communes. Now, years later, I see libertarians facing the same question. The modern equivalent of communes would be seasteads.
His comments about how liberals don’t really want tolerance on social issues, I thought, were the most insightful and depressing.
I suppose the best strategy, then is to follow the example of Hungary’s conservative party in recent years: win one set of elections, then
unilaterally alter the rules so that it becomes difficult for any other party to supplant yours as the majority ever again. A bloodless coup, as it were. All Roosevelt had to do was threaten to pack the court to overthrow decades of jurisprudence. I’ll bet you wouldn’t even have to go that far today. A sternly worded email or two would probably be enough.
I’m afraid I’m half serious about this.
Taking a political position in order to promote liberty would be like taking a position at United Airlines in order to promote travel by bus.
I think it’s worth the fight, even though it will not be won today. Older people are already more sympathetic to libertarianism, because they are cynical about what Washington can usefully do. As such, all libertarians need to do is accelerate this learning process.
Kevin Williamson mentions checks. It would be vastly more libertarian if it Washington restricted itself to giving out checks. For example, Medicaire doesn’t just pay for medical services and drugs, but comes with gargantuan heaps of regulations and accounting. Many older Americans are quite worried that as regulation around health care gets more complicated, it is easy for common cases to fall through the cracks; that’s an opportunity for a libertarian message that if you get a disease, we’ll send you a check.
I think that he is right but that some technological change could make it difficult for Governments to collect so much in taxes.
Nuance in voting is a limited quantity. After voting for government policy in a city of one million, your gone, nothing left and leave it to the oligarchs.
Voters are wrong. The money just hasn’t run out yet. When it does they will pretend to chose libertarianism.
Isn’t a bit odd to be saying such things about a senator?
Does anyone pick an ultra liberal and tell him it is hopeless? And do they seem to mind?