There’s been, likely to the chagrin of Fox News and Donald Trump, a surprising amount of recent attention paid to libertarian congressman Ron Paul (Texas, R) and by extension the political philosophy he supports. It doesn’t seem as though he maintains a legitimate chance of usurping Mitt Romney as the apathetic GOP nominee for the 2012 election, but Paul himself is willing to jokingly suggest that is far from his intention. What Paul has done, though, is introduce a different dimension to conservative politics that perhaps, by its culturally liberal nature, stretches the party’s at times myopic set of values and renders it more accessible to independent voters.
He has affected the campaign discourse and fervently challenged the socially conservative aspects of the organization he is, perhaps begrudgingly, running as a member of. The central contradiction of his rivals (see Rick Santorum) reads like this: economic liberty through which consumers and companies enjoy freedom from the restrictions of government…but a personal life heavily influenced by governmental policy. Minimized domestic spending allocated to address the needs of American citizens…but inflated defense budgets utilized to pursue neo-conservative ideals abroad.
These contradictions may plague the Republican Party of today, but it is possible that Ron Paul’s influence on the base stands to mitigate its increasing unpopularity with centrist voters. The problem, however, exists in Ron Paul’s own contradictions. The man, ideologically pure as any, takes libertarianism too far-beyond, anyway, a point of symmetrical consistency.
Paul’s vision for a totally free market rejects the innate limitations that all libertarians must at some point explore. For example, life cannot be upheld as a right without outlawing murder and other life-threatening practices. So we give up some liberties in respect for the rights of others. This gives the government a fairly clear purpose: to protect our rights through regulations on those willing to infringe upon them. In Ron Paul’s world, the government achieves this objective partially, but for some reason, it is economically uninvolved, allowing consumers to be ravaged by the at times unethical world of a deregulated market place. How is it that he can ensure the right to economic opportunity while simultaneously refusing to regulate the behavior of financial firms? How does he promise present and future generations the right to a healthy lifestyle while dismantling the EPA?
The fact is that we cannot truly have economic freedom unless our rights are protected. It is the responsibility of the government to protect our rights and legislatively declare basic liberties that allow capitalism to exist and succeed. Libertarians should overcome this asymmetrical protection of rights by endorsing necessary regulation and devising innovative ways to decrease the deficit where government funds are appropriated to areas not specifically protective.
This would attract an even greater audience to the doctrine. Ron Paul’s economic theories, if practiced as they stand today, would indeed disadvantage consumers to the benefit of industry. This fundamental liability is devastating to the practical future of libertarian politics. The attractive element of the viewpoint, though, is its attitude towards spending. The American people generally identify with fiscal responsibility because, unlike federal governments, American citizens need to understand it just to make ends meet.
These assumptions combine to form a potentially mainstream, though still patently libertarian ideology. Politicians representing the brand should demand that all government spending prove necessary, but expand the definition of “necessary” to accommodate all measures (regulations included) protecting the constitutional rights of modern-day American citizens. All the while, a dedication to fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms and low taxes will differ the libertarian flavor from the established left and right of this decade.
That’s what the ideal libertarian philosophy is to me-the perfect mix of liberalism, conservatism, and pragmatism that American citizens can get behind because it emphasizes liberty while also actually protecting it.