There was a time when I could turn the other cheek, if only to laugh at extremists. Now extremism has a more ugly face. Does it serve a purpose is the question.
I’ve known that Libertarianism existed as a political philosophy for some time, but I’ve chosen to ignore it. I’ve known of Congressman Ron Paul (mainly because of a giant billboard on I30 that I pass on the way to my ranch), but I’ve chosen to ignore him also. I now know of his son, Rand Paul, the aspiring Senator from Kentucky, and his whacky statements about the Civil Right Act of 1964, and I now I just can’t ignore it any longer.
I used to think that saying or being known for really far out ideas would get you excluded from consideration for high public office, now it seems it may be a prerequisite. When Paul defeated Trey Greyson in the Republican primary with a margin of over 20%, it sent shock waves throughout the body politic. Greyson, who is currently serving a Secretary of State in Kentucky, has about a strong a resume as one could hope for in political office. An A.B. in Public Administration from Harvard, and an MBA and JD with distinction from the University of Kentucky. Paul, a Texas transplant to Kentucky got his undergraduate degree from Baylor (my alma mater), his medical degree from Duke, and has had a busy career doing assembly line lasek surgeries in Bowling Green. Perhaps that’s why he has not had time to find a good barber…..maybe he should check with John Edwards. We know now, and are provided evidence once more, that credentials matter little in political contests. But when Paul wins in the face of his repeated assertions to the effect that personal liberty is more important than liberty for all and that the first and second amendments to the Constitutions trump all else, I start to scratch my head. What are we thinking? What is going on? Where does this come from.
In order to bring any order to this, one must suffer my brief primer on libertarianism. While there are Libertarians of all stripes, libertarianism is generally accepted to be a political theory that advocates the maximum of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimum (or even the abolition) of state. This doesn’t seem to be a particularly extreme or dangerous dogma until the theory is tied to specific political ends. To wit: the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, it’s principle spokesperson, and one assumes Rand Paul, the son, seriously advocate the following:
1. Abolish the Departments of Education, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Do away with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (of Katrina fame), Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Federal Reserve.
2. Withdraw from the United Nations, World Trade Organization, NATO, International Criminal Court, and the Law of the Sea Treaty.
3. Withdraw all financial and political support for Israel (after the events of the last 24 hours, this doesn’t look quite so loopy any more).
4. Repeal the 16th Amendment which creates the authority under which the federal government imposes the direct income tax.
5. Repeal all laws implementing the separation of church and state
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators)
7. Repeal the American Disabilities Act.
8. Repeal the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
9. Do away with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
Ok. Number nine isn’t true, but it might be. I could go on, and on, and on…..but I don’t think more is needed to reinforce my message. This is political extremism in the extreme. Get it? Extremism in the extreme. We gotta come up with a name for it. Aha, you say. There is a name for it. It’s called anarchy. As you will remember, anarchy is at the other end of the political spectrum from totalitarianism and suggests the absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of a supreme governmental power; i.e. political disorder. Hmm…do we see any examples of that today. Somalia, seems to fit here.
Reasonably, one might ask…from whence commeth this stripe of political ideology. Dig back deep and you will remember the oft read and oft quoted British empiricist, John Locke (1632-1704). Locke, in his virtually unreadable but seminal book Two Treatises on Government, popularized social contract theory and classical republican liberalism. Wow, I bet you’re surprised to see republican and liberalism in the same sentence. It probably wouldn’t play that way at your local Tea Party pep rally and barn burning. More importantly, Locke effectively postulated the notion of a minimalist state in order to protect individuals and groups from injuries perpetrated by (big bad) government. Sounds like Ron Paul to me. Interestingly, not only Locke is credited for laying the foundation of today’s Libertarian Party, he was cited as a major influence or such American luminaries as Hamilton, Madison and even TJ himself. Unlike the fringe element political ideologues that dominate news cycles today, Locke was an ardent support of the separation of church and state and a heavy investor in slavery.
Locke is often contrasted to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who is considered by most to anchor the other end of the political spectrum. He also is given credit for developing social contract theory. But his approach is a little different than that of Locke. He says that a strong central authority is necessary to “avoid the evil of discord and civil war”, and that in the absence of a state, each person would have a right or license to everything in the world. In effect, “a war of all against all would ensue”. He believed that men must accede to a social contract wherein is established a sovereign authority and that man must cede rights to this authority even to the point of suffering abuses as the price of peace. He believed in unitary government with the civilian, military, judicial, and religious institutions under one control. Hmm….do we have any of these around. So whaddya think. Doesn’t Kim Il Jung and The Peoples Republic of North Korea represent the best of this thinking when carried to far.
Zowie. Let me get this straight. The two biggies of 17th century political thought. The heavy thinkers and influencers of our founding fathers. These providers of building blocks in the the foundation of the American political system. I read one, and I lean in his direction; I read the other and I reverse my field. Yet, their ideas, taken to their illogical extreme have led to the creation of states like Somalia, a la Lockean anarchy or totalitarian North Korea, or worse yet, a state characterized by Orwell’s 1984 or Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Egads, isn’t there some room in the middle.
I subliminally realize that even these extremes of the political philosophy are necessary and must be tolerated in order for a middle to exist however painful it might be to do so. Indeed, without agitation from the outer limits of political thought, the middle would be frozen in place. The question is will enough of us agree to find the middle and will we like it if we ever get there.
