“This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.” – Ron Paul (source).
If there’s anything Rand Paul can do well, it’s fire up debate among libertarians. As of recently, hilariously satirized by Steve Heidenreich on this site, libertarians are up in (theoretical, non-aggressive) arms in response to comments Paul made to a group of pastors in Iowa that some read as him “loving the drug war.”
“To some, ‘libertarian’ scares people. “Some of them come up to me and they say, ‘I kind of like you, but I don’t like legalizing heroin.’ And I say, ‘Well, that’s not my position.’ I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative”
Let’s crucify him today!
For God’s sake, let’s definitely not examine his comments with any degree of critical thought to see how well they line up with libertarian philosophy. Because if we step back from our hysterical Rand Paul hate, it is clear that, while not as strictly libertarian as some, Rand Paul’s views are very much in line with what they’ve always been – and with a small government philosophy.
Rand Paul has been very vocal in his support for ending federal drug laws. In April, Paul gave a scathing statement on mandatory minimum laws, one of the biggest travesties of injustice to come from the drug war. Telling the story of two men (George W. Bush and Barack Obama) who recreationally used drugs as young men, Paul argued that mandatory minimums, and imprisonment for marijuana use, can deprive the world of future leaders and ruin people’s lives unjustly. “In this story, both young men were extraordinarily lucky. Both young men were not caught using illegal drugs, and they weren’t imprisoned. Instead, they went on to become presidents of the United States. Barack Obama and George Bush were lucky.”
Wow, what a great voice for liberty he’d be if he’d only make a video of himself using illegal drugs!
Is it possible to not “love the drug war” and also not support legalization of all drugs on all levels of government? Of course it is. The term itself (Drug War) refers to federal prohibition, mandatory minimums, omnibus crime bills, and other such federal expansion over the area of crime laws traditionally left to the states, into which the federal leviathan began encroaching the 1970s and 1980s. Ron Paul, like Rand Paul, has always supported leaving such issues to the states. Both Pauls believe that states should be free to legalize drugs if they want. Ron Paul, like Rand Paul, is no supporter of drug use.
That’s not to say that Rand and Ron Paul are the same. There are differences among libertarians just as there are differences between any group of people. People – even fathers and sons – disagree, and we shouldn’t hold them to unrealistic standards of agreeing with us on everything if we are to consider them “intellectually pure” enough. If we do, libertarianism will continue to be persuasive only to those who already agree, and who, by and large, do not vote anyway. Winning is not compromising liberty. Self-insular irrelevancy should not be our goal.
Finally, it is very disappointing to see libertarians blindly accepting what the media says about Rand Paul just because they don’t like him. Libertarians should know better than anyone not to take what the media says at face value, but we blindly accept that Rand Paul “loves the drug war” now – a position completely different than everything he’s stood for in the past – based on the inference of a reporter who provides no quotes from Paul to back this up. The only quote in the article shows that he feels state governments should have the prerogative to ban drugs, just like his father. This is neither surprising nor new.
If libertarians are to ever shake the stereotype that we are basement-dwelling, pot-smoking, jobless college kids, we have to think carefully about our knee-jerk reactions to people who happen to hold more personally conservative views than some of us do. Critical disagreement is fine. Rejecting anyone who holds more politically prudent views than other libertarians is unwise. Blind acceptance of anything the media says, as long as it’s about someone we don’t like, is intellectual dishonesty.
Pingback: Reason Magazine accepts funds from White House | Liberty Without Apologies
Pingback: Is Libertarian the new political normal? » The Buell Review
Libertarians especially scare the crap out of Liberals because Liberals are losing control of the argument and narrative. Democrats now being the obvious drunk with power Big Brother, are losing younger voters under 35 who used to think Democrats were cool until the Obama Administration and the cool guys went all Richard Nixon on them. Now It’s Libertarians who are cool the way Democrats used to be cool and Republicans with they were cool. Republicans such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain came back to the party after Senator rand Paul made a 13 hour filibuster on the limits of government power. They were not happy and their whacko birds remark simply told the younger voters who looked at the Republicans like maybe they missed something worth taking a second look at, and instead of finding the welcome mat, McCain and Graham treated like they came home to a frat party and weren’t at all pleased with what the kids were doing while they were gone. Younger voters saw this and immediately noticed the “Not Welcome” sign was out a brightly lit. In short, the Republicans shot themselves in the feet by not shutting MCCain and Graham up and the kids noticed. Our younger voters are becoming more Libertarian meaning they are socially moderate and fiscally conservative and attracted to Senator Rand Paul and Ron Paul.
Whether the Republican Party can welcome their Libertarian friends and family will largely remain dependent on how quickly they can remove the Old, Stale, Moldy and Covered in Moss GOP leaders Rand Paul spoke of. They better do it soon.
Awful article…………Reason>this all day. And I don’t really even like them
Very articulate feedback; love the abuse of periods.
Pingback: Ron Paul 2016? | Liberty Without Apologies