From 6 to 8:15 p.m. EST, this webcam should be streaming our radio show, if everything works out as it should. You can click on the link beneath the webcam for the live radio stream, coming from 88.1 WBGUFM in Bowling Green, Ohio.
Our guest tonight is Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior legal analyst and author of "A Nation of Sheep." Check out our website: www.bgpoliticalanimals.com.
Call it crazy, call it maverick, call it quixotic, call it whatever you'd like. One thing no one can deny is that it's kind of, well, awesome. And occasionally awe-inspiring.
Ron Paul's presidential campaign is all of those things. But the critics of Ron Paul now have one more joke to throw in his direction: The Paul campaign is full of hot air. Well, maybe not the campaign, but the blimp. What? I said blimp.
Ron Paul's grassroots--more energized, more active, more committed than any other candidate in either party--have begun organizing a blimp advertising campaign. The blimp is to get off the ground by the 10th of December, flying over New Hampshire, Iowa, and then to Boston for the planned December 16th "money bomb" in honour of the Boston Tea Party (with stops in-between). On one side of the blimp will be written "Who is Ron Paul?" and "Google Ron Paul," while the other will sport "Ron Paul R3VO7ution" (that's "revolution" with "EVOL" in inverted letters to spell out "LOVE").
The blimp may not fly. Trevor Lyman, the guy who organized the Nov. 5th fundraising event raising a Republican one-day record 4.3 million dollars from 38,000 donors, has sunk his life's savings into Paul's campaign, and the blimp is still stuck without enough money.
Initially, he posted up a pledge site. Over $400,000 was pledged on that site. Now that the site is up as an actual contribution site, those pledges are not being fulfilled. Today is the last day before the blimp gets punctured, and they are still short roughly 30,000 from the initial $200,000 needed to get the blimp off the ground by the 10th of December.
The blimp is already getting somemediaattention. If it were to fly, it might generate a heap more.
(Do I think it will fly? Oh, I do, I do. I've learned not to doubt the Paulites. Or Paulinistas, Paulbots, Paulunteers, or whatever else you'd like to call them.)
This Wednesday, we interview none other than Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst and author of "Nation of Sheep." Napolitano's new book promises to be explosive, and richly libertarian. Check it out yourselves.
Listen live this Wednesday by clicking here (takes you straight to the 88.1 FM stream) from 6 to 8 p.m. EST. Call in, email, and ask Napolitano your own questions. You can also check out our podcasts by visiting our website here.
It is possible that our next radio broadcast will have a webcam. Much like this one. Right now it's at my house, and, if you're looking at my blog at around midnight on Wednesday, then you're staring at my mug. And I'm not doing much.
Is Ron Paul good for the broader libertarian movement?
He's making waves. His campaign is flush with money. There's talk of a blimp. And a Boston Tea Party might set another record for one-day donations.
But he's not only brought a widerange of diversepeople together, he is also the focal point of a widening rift: that between "liberaltarians" and "conservotarians."
The rift is partly a debate about branding and marketing. Just how should libertarian political ideas be bundled, packaged, and advertised? And what is the long-term impact of associating the broader libertarian movement with the nascent Ron Paul Presidential campaign?
To be sure, the word "libertarian" has not appeared nearly as often as it is being bandied about nowadays. This is wholly due to Ron Paul's campaign, since he is often called a libertarian in the media. Some think this is bad for the broader libertarian movement. One reason why this might be is because Paul's views on some issues (like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and so on) will be associated with libertarianism. His stance on immigration and "national sovereignty" are anathema to the open border libertarians (like me), while his stances on abortion and gay marriage (leave it to the states to decide) are not the positions this libertarian would take (I would say get the state out of marriage, and I'm pro-choice).
(For an interesting post on why Paul's stances might be inconsistent with his avowed "Constitutionalism," and why his stance on the 14th amendment is a position no libertarian should agree with, read my friend Terrence's posts here and here. Please ignore his ridiculously titled blog. He promises me he will change it.)
Broadly speaking, it's the association between culturally conservative positions, rather than culturally liberal ones, that worry some libertarians.
An illustration: The latest spat has broken out over Steve Horwitz' explanation for why he, a "very staunch libertarian... for over 25 years," is not on board with the r3VO7ution.
Why not?
1. Paul's opposition to abortion ("Granted, Paul's argument to give it back to the states is better than a constitutional amendment banning it, but I think that forcing pregnant women to carry to term is akin to slavery, and in the same way I would not tolerate a state that permitted slavery, I am unwilling to tolerate the banning of abortion at the state level.")
2. Paul's opposition to illegal immigration ("Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world? Why are some to be excluded? Don't people from other countries have the "natural right" to emigrate? Do we believe that people should be free to move or not? And why are libertarians, of all people, so concerned about the fictional lines drawn by politicians?")
3. Paul's stance on free trade ("My problem with Paul's position is that it's too focused on the impact of these agreements on the US, ignoring the fact that they do much good for the rest of the world, whatever the effects at home. I think the effects are positive for us too, and I don't fear any "loss of sovereignty" from them. The inward looking aspect of his stance on free trade (and immigration) is a real problem for me.")
In general, it's Paul's failure to be more cosmopolitan and more progressive in spirit, writes Horwitz, that is discomfiting. "Paul's cultural conservatism and several of his positions push in the opposite direction and, in my view, might do long-term damage to libertarianism even if it reaps some short-term benefits in this campaign."
Horwitz is, clearly, a liberaltarian. That word, by the way, is a neologism invented by Cato's Brink Lindsey in a hugely popular article by the same name, are culturally liberal, and politically libertarian. Politically, they support both economic and civil/political liberty. Culturally, they don't merely tolerate, but approve of and sometimes celebrate gay relationships & gay culture, pot smoking & "cannabis culture," and open immigration and emigration policies.
Their constellation of views also tend to include a general tendency to pacifism (including opposition to the War in Iraq), suspiciousness of organized religion, and pro-choice views on abortion.
You might, with Steve Horwitz, call it "cosmopolitanism" if you want, or "progressivism," but I prefer the less loaded "liberaltarian" label. In this camp, along with Horwitz, are the writers of Reason magazine, the policy wonks at the Cato Institute, Penn & Teller, and Drew Carey. (And me. But this isn't about me.)
Horwitz' posting has resulted in a bitter rebuke from the equally staunchly libertarian--but also staunchly pro-Ron Paul--folks at LewRockwell.com. They're eager to sleep in separate tents. And they don't go in for niceties.
"It is that hipper-than-thou sanctimoniousness, I submit," writes "a reader" in a post submitted by Lew Rockwell, "that is the real danger to the libertarian movement, rather than the fact that many of its adherents embrace unreconstructed anti-statis[m] while also remaining stubbornly - and contentedly - bourgeois."
"It sickens me that people like Horwitz LIBEL Ron Paul with SLANDEROUS remarks like "states rights is a 'signal' to neo-Confederates." A signal to do what? Bring back slavery? Lynchings? And just who are these "neo-Confederates" who the "cosmopolitan" Horwitz (as he describes himself) doesn't want to associate with? Furthermore, how does he know that when Ron Paul uses states' rights language he is not merely associating himself with such heroic libertarians as Lord Acton and Jefferson himself -- as opposed to diabolically sending "signals" to the KKK?
As Lew says, thank goodness there are only a few crackpot "cosmopolitan libertarians" like this."
I like to call the view espoused by Paul, and mentioned approvingly on LewRockwell.com, "conservotarianism." Conservotarians, a word I just made up for the sake of symmetry, are politically libertarian, but culturally conservative. In general, they frown on gay marriage, disapprove of abortion, tend to shrink from open borders, and believe that religion should be encouraged, fostered, and promoted.
Good examples include the scholars at the Acton Institute, the bloggers and writers at LewRockwell.com, and possibly the majority of libertarians on this blog.
I'm of the opinion that all these people just need to get along when it comes to politics. It's amazing to me that while liberals and conservatives can get together in spite of some very serious disagreements, libertarians will part ways over minor philosophical issues. Like herding cats, people often say.
This was only especially true when it came to Objectivist libertarians (and they *are* political libertarians, I don't care what they say) and non-Objectivist libertarians, but a new divide is beginning to show.
I brought up the topic (poorly and clumsily) on Free Talk Live yesterday. Here's that clip:
William Cohen, the former Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, is interviewed on the radio show I co-host. We also get into it on the topic of abortion near the end of hour two.
This Wednesday, we interview none other than Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst and author of "Nation of Sheep." Napolitano's new book promises to be explosive, and richly libertarian. Check it out yourselves.
