Dr. Paul's Final Speech and the Failure of the Libertarian Movement

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) epitomizes the American libertarian revolution against Big Government, leading the charge of individual liberty before Ronald Reagan entered the White House. Congressman Paul -- the man with many fans, both young and old, the phenomenon of liberty, limited government, constitutional rule, and free markets -- has served in Congress for 23 years, starting in 1976. Following a hiatus for a run for President on the Libertarian ticket, he returned to Congress, where he will complete his last term next January, following a spirited yet abortive final run of President.

His final floor speech in the House of Representatives contained a mixture of fancy, reality, despair, and warning. In the most telling remark from his speech, Paul repeated the long lament of many free-market economists and libertarians: “We have failed to explain our views.”  

The truth is that free-market economists like Dr. Paul and his intellectual mentors have done an exceptional job detailing the invisible forces which move markets, the inevitable limitations of central authority to command market forces, and the invincible subjective theory of value. 

Not in persuasion, but in premise the Austrians, the libertarians, the free market economists often fail make their case for liberty. Human nature is a constant which wars against liberty without proper education and development. Human nature craves security over liberty, self over truth, certainty over freedom. “Instant gratification” takes over following the lengthy peace which leads to prosperity. In many ways, libertarians are at fault proceeding from the faulty foundation which ignores man’s fallen nature.

Second President John Adams echoed this sentiment:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Man’s need for security is greater than his need for liberty, just as love means nothing without acceptance. In fact, man’s greatest need is respect, acceptance, not freedom; however, government cannot meet this need, cannot inculcate security and stability in the soul of man. A commitment to God, to family, to cultural elements greater than the state – these provide the identity that man longs for. Beyond protecting our rights, securing the safety of the citizen, and providing a level playing field based on the rule of law, a representative democracy only reflects the values of the voters. Today, man’s rugged individualism, stoked by unrepentant liberalism, has left him cowering before the gods of his own making, seeking approval and favor from government, which now stands just as insecure and needy as the men who depend on it.

Dr. Paul lamented: “The appetite for liberty quite weak” – the need for security and power is greater. Hence, men and women are drawn to powerful elites. Austrian economist Murray Rothbard admitted that free market advocates do not have the essential element of “persuasion” which statists and government advocates wield: force. Just as a mother cannot say that she loves her children by beating them into submission, so purveyors of free enterprise cannot coerce their hearers by force to accepting their views.

Before Paul lamented the gaining draw of the state over liberty, French Renaissance scholar Etienne de la Boetie had investigated this conundrum of security before liberty in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. The French diplomat explored the simple yet profound question: “Why obey?” His answer: as the masses profit through occupation or dependence on the state, the state receives greater defense from infiltration and revolution. The masses obey their government, with its policies inimical to the interests of the governed, because they “get something.”

For this reason, Dr. Paul indicts the progressive ideas of the early 20^th century, whose reforms of pure democracy fueled the greedy populist sentiment, a threat to liberty which the Framers opposed and the United States Constitution quarantines. The drafters of the Constitution sought to frustrate all interests -- elite, monarchical, and populist. As well-read adherents of history, they knew that masses move government so that they can receive more money from the public purse. An expansive example of “socializing the losses”, voters surrender their liberty for a handout from the state.

Dr. Paul and the American political process cannot be blamed for the fledgling platform of individual liberty, nor should anyone disdain divided government and gridlock which still holds these forces in check. A culture which refuses to find its source in something greater than oneself will depend on what one sees. Security triumphs over liberty, and the state grows in place of the individual.

The culture must change through recommitment to greater values than force and fiat. Only then will the call for liberty prevail in Congress once again.