Libertarianism and Persuasion

Congressman Ron Paul has pushed a cause.

Has he demonstrated a capacity to push his candidacy?

He has not fared very well in the last three primary states. Is he running for President, or is he running a prominence for libertarian philosophy?

This seems to the be the greatest liability for those who favor free markets, free enterprise, and competition as opposed to state directives.

Congressman Paul has pushed for a rapid withdrawal of the United States' Armed Forces stationed all over the world. He wants to cut spending, cut waste, and cut government as much as possible. He is a candidate who supports doing less and doing as much with as little as possible, at least according the United States Constitution.

Yet when it comes to advocating his stance and his electability, he also does conspicuously less. He is not a fiery orator. He does not challenge the questionable record of his GOP opponents very solidly, either.

His stance on foreign policy has not persuaded many. There are those who take offense at his reported reserve about the assasination of Yemeni Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last year. Libertarianism to an extreme may cast the Congressman as a politician of integrity, yet also one who has failed to integrate disparate voters throughout the country. Politics is about building consensus, which means consenting to compromise when needed. A philosophy of rigid limitation without recognizing the facts on the ground of a hostile world reflect an out-of-touch naiveté which has failed to ignity all but a core following of youth, armed forces, and disaffected voters who normally disdain the political force. Such ragged elements do not an electoral victory make.

Libertarians struggle with persuading voters that their views are not fanciful, that domestically they may bear fruit without harming constituents who have grown dependent on the state. Freedom is attractive, certainly, but also has its price. For some, it means living without the certainty of a handout from the state. For others, it means the end of a career and benefits subsidized by the overstretched and underfunded state. The pain of breaking away from the state is hard, and many do not relish the necessity of getting less for doing nothing, or getting paid to do very little. Persuading the average voter that less government is better for all requires tapping into the patience of privation, an arugment which most parents are currently failing to make with their own children.

Saying "No" has not been a strong point for federal officials. The argument has won a dutiful following among the youth who long to spend their own money instead of subsidizing the retirement and health care of a rapidly ageing population. However, the elderly vote consistently, and they are not likely any time soon to stem the tide of benefits which they expect to fall towards them.