Ron Paul, Libertarian Dreams and Corporatist Realities

I'm still undecided about Ron Paul. One thing can be said, however; whether you like him or not, he has brought the concept of libertarianism into the consciousness of mainstream America. Unfortunately, libertarianism is viewed as an antisocial philosophy by many (sometimes with justification), and in the case of Ron Paul, it has attracted many unsavory and antisocial people, including white supremacists and other denizens of the far-right lunatic fringe. Before continuing, I can say that as a Jew, the neo-Nazis are particularly offensive to me, but I still realize that their right to express their views is the same as mine. So does the ACLU, which is why they call themselves civil libertarians. But the Nazis and nutcases certainly are a political liability to Ron Paul and the cause of libertarianism in general. This can only help to further public misconceptions about libertarian ideology.

To get a balanced view of libertarianism, it becomes necessary to include all of its advocates and thinkers and view it within a historical context. A basic overview of libertarianism would include the following:

1. Libertarianism is, in fact, an American political tradition that was best expressed represented by Thomas Jefferson.

2. There is also a left wing of the libertarian movement. Some assert that the terms "Libertarian Socialism" and "Anarchism" are synonymous.

3. Libertarians of the left and right usually agree on one thing; that all violence, by both individuals, corporations, and the state, when used for anything other than defense against a direct physical attack, is a violation of the rights of both individuals and nations. Ron Paul's foreign policy objectives seem to be based on this principal.

Thinkers of the libertarian right include objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand(1905-1982), who actually denied being a libertarian and distanced herself from the libertarians of her time, characterizing them as muddle-headed right wing hippies and dreamers. Her contempt for the conservatives of her time was even more pronounced. Rand was opposed to the draft, and had nothing against labor unions, choosing only to advise them against involvement with the Soviet Union and the U.S. government. When one reads her "radical capitalist" doctrine, libertarianism appears to be the obvious applicable term. Harvard Psychiatry Professor Thomas Szasz and economist Milton Friedman are two other intellectuals of this wing of the movement that come to mind.

The libertarian left is best represented by authors such as Howard Zinn, Daniel Guerin(1904-1968), and most prominently, linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky. Historically, the IWW, and radical anarcho-communist-feminist Emma Goldman and her lifetime companion Alexander Berkman could arguably be included in this group, among many others not listed here, for the sake of brevity. Perhaps the most important mystic and visionary of the libertarian left was the late Robert Anton Wilson, a founder of the Discordian movement and the author of The Illuminatus Trilogy.

Corporatism

Corporatism is a term that was coined by fascism's inventor Benito Mussolini, to describe the relationship of big business and big government necessary as a precondition for the establishment of a fascist state. This phenomenon has been duly noted by just about everyone among the modern libertarians, spanning the whole political spectrum within the movement.

Chomsky has described defense spending as a form of state economic control charging that the US economy has been a mixed economy for a long time now, with massive and wasteful government expenditures functioning as a kind of "corporate welfare," and also as a form of economic control of workers and jobs by the state, much like the variety practiced in Stalinist-style socialism. Rand's critiques of the military industrial complex of her day were equally harsh; and strangely similar to Chomsky's in some way.

For the most part, corporations (with a few exceptions here and there) are totalitarian structures, and the fact that people are allowed to leave them means nothing to middle class Americans facing bankruptcy, homelessness, and possibly even drugs, alcohol, prison and suicide. Furthermore, protections and assistance for the victims of corporate crime remain woefully inadequate. When CEOs steal, people get hurt. (Jim Carrey's "Fun with Dick and Jane" is a humorous depiction of this very real problem.)

While in some ways, none of this is any newer than the ancient Egyptian and Roman empires, with their huge armies and ridiculous expenditures on government projects, it's not something that is particularly healthy for an open society. Mussolini modeled his fascism after the beliefs and symbols of the Roman Empire.

Global Corporatism

What appears as corruption on the national level translates to total domination on the international level. Multinational corporations and international banking interests dictate social and economic policies to governments. When a government is unwilling to cooperate with these interests, they simply take their business elsewhere, and call in their loans. Without loyalty to nations, ideologies and religions, international capital functions solely as a tool of those who control it, often degenerating into chaos and economic mayhem. Some say that this is the natural order of things; others such as conspiracy theorists argue that the initiation and management of crises is a completely intentional and effective form of profiteering. Whatever it is, people get hurt by it too. Terrorism often results from both the fear and resistance to this modern world by feudalists and fundamentalists, and from manipulation of these same individuals by more cynical interests, motivated not by nationalism or religious sentiment, but by the more mundane considerations of money and power. The international trade in illegal arms, and its hard currency, hard drugs, are as much a part of the global economy as Coca Cola, Microsoft, and McDonalds. Ron Paul's view of unnecessary wars and his historical contextualization of the current American predicament do shed light on this problem. During a recent interview of Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly's attempts at suppressing what sounded simply like an overview of historical facts, and contradictions in American policy, particularly surrounding our support of Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, and the measurably bad results of American interventions in Iranian politics, echo the collective denial and nearsightedness of the American mainstream. After all the bodies are counted, without regard to who wins or loses the same global power elites seem to profit again and again whatever happens. A global totalitarian system, an idea once relegated to the far right and left lunatic fringes of the conspiracy research scene, is now visible to all who bother to look, in the reality of global corporatism. America's tendency to support vicious and bloodthirsty dictators for purely strategic and economic reasons is a visible result of the global elite's undue influence on foreign policy.

Social and Cultural Libertarianism

On a personal level, I just don't feel that the democrats and the republicans represent my interests effectively, if at all. As an underpaid laborer, owner of a struggling small business that has somehow survived for 5 years now, and an ex-addict who still believes in the legalization of marijuana and hard drugs, these parties lost me a long time ago. As a former resident of the American Gulag, I can say that the policies towards prison conditions during the late 90s gleefully supported by both parties inspired outright hostility in me. As a Jew, I find the alliance between the religious right in America and their right wing and ultra-orthodox counterparts in Israel disturbing, and I believe it to be damaging to both the Israeli cause and to the interests of American Jews. Interestingly, Ron Paul has his Jewish supporters, who believe that the military entanglement of America and Israel gives America an undue influence on Israeli policy.

I don't use illegal drugs because of the medical risks associated with them (another prison sentence would be very bad for my health). I still have a vaguely countercultural view of society, and I believe drug prohibition to be perhaps the worst and most damaging domestic policy of all. I find it depressing that the only elected officials with enough guts to publicly take a stand against the disastrous "War on Drugs," recently have been for the most part on the far right. But to the extent that these people represent my interests more than any of the so-called moderates, I have some sympathy towards them. All of my online stoner friends seem to support Ron Paul with a revolutionary fervor, but he doesn't seem like much of a hippie to me. I reserve judgment on this issue for the time being too.

I use the term "social libertarian" here because I'm not really much of a "socialist" and the term "libertarian socialist," as I noted earlier is interchangeable in many people's minds with the dreaded "A-word." But are there libertarians who care about other people, the rest of the world, and American society as a whole? I believe that there are quite a few of us. Libertarians can be pro-social. Meanwhile the name-calling goes on, with liberals calling Ron Paul's supporters "Paultards," and conservatives accusing him of being a "dope fiend."

All I can look at is what I agree and disagree with him on. He has the right idea about the new prohibition, and regulation of vices in general. But with "state's rights", individual jurisdictions could go in any direction on these issues. I disagree with him on the abortion issue; whatever I believe about abortion, it is a women's issue, with many women arguing both sides of the issue. Let the women of America decide this one; males should stay out of it. Immigration is a bit more complicated than either the left or the right makes it out to be, and even Pat Buchanan, another supporter of Ron Paul who I believe he'd be better off without has talked about population shifts being a natural part of the historical process. It also seems that Ron Paul recognizes that government involvement with globalization (for instance, tax breaks for "outsourcing") is a form of corporate welfare which poses as much of a threat to the wages of Americans as illegal immigration.

Liberals say that a libertarian government would "turn America over to the corporations," which may be true to some extent. But without an intrusive interventionist state, corporate bailouts, and corporate subsidies in the form of defense spending and mass imprisonments, the wealthy and powerful will be much more vulnerable to the efforts of ordinary Americans to defend their interests. Massive strike and boycotts could be a "death penalty" for some corporations. American workers need to defend their own interests as aggressively as the elite defend theirs. As to the problem of corrupt and self-serving union leaders, workers need to take some responsibility by electing more effective leadership.

Change of the status quo, whatever direction it may take requires a level of unity, willingness to endure discomfort, and to take risks that people just don't seem to have right now. The corporate media's tendency to ridicule or ignore "protest candidates" like Ron Paul makes my hope for any real change decline further. My own interests do not seem to really be represented accurately by anyone at this point. After considering all of these things, I'm still undecided about Ron Paul.

Recommended Reading

In keeping with AC guidelines I've avoided verbatim quotes of the authors mentioned in this piece. However many of the ideas I've presented are discussed in depth in the following books, and readers unfamiliar with these authors may find the following to be helpful.

Noam Chomsky: Secrets, Lies and Democracy (1994)

The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)

What Uncle Sam Really Wants (1992)

Published by Odonian Press
PO Box 32375,
Tucson AZ 85751

Daniel Guerin: Anarchism: from Theory to Practice
http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/guerin/contents.html

Ayn Rand: The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism for A to Z (1990)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(1990),
Harry Binswanger, Ed.
Published by Meridian, an imprint of Dutton Signet
A division of Penguin Books
375 Hudson St. NY, NY

Thomas Szasz: Our Right to Drugs: The case for a Free Market (1992)
Published by Syracuse University Press, Syracuse NY