Mike Shipley at Outright Libertarians Blog:
I want to point out the historical point addressed by this meme: an ideological critique to the notion of inherited power in what is supposed to be a merit-based individualist society. Having power pass from father to son was the legacy of aristocracy and monarchy … It’s impossible to be a Constitutional conservative and want to be ruled by an aristocracy.
The error in reasoning which leads people to believe that Rand must surely be like his father, is the same one which led humans to submit to hereditary transfers of power for thousands of years, and which leads people to believe that entire families of evil human beings named “Clinton” or “Bush” must be great ideas for President!! Confronting that core idea is totally fair game for libertarian activism within the context of a constitutional republic which our founders absolutely never meant to become anything like what they fought to overcome.
The fact that this escaped nearly everybody who saw the meme is just proof of how far we’ve strayed from one of the most important concepts that fueled the revolution that led to our founding. Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist documents if you aren’t aware of what a huge thing that was to both sides of the question – all were agreed that aristocracies were to be avoided no matter what; that power should no longer be passed as inheritance, but that it must be earned by merit.
I believe it is very clear, Rand has not earned by merit the loyalty he claims through his father, and a dialogue about that is useful not only against Rand, but against the Clintons and Bushes as well. The thing they have in common was really important to our founders … It should be important to us, too.
re: disliking political dynasties, everybody says that, and then nobody cares when it’s a candidate they agree with on the issues.
As much as fan as it is to poke fun at the Republicans for considering yet another Bush and the Dems for nominating a candidate who’s been on the national scene since the early 90s, the two aren’t really even comparable to each other in the details, nevermind the Pauls.
Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton was born into some kind of political family. Neither is the child of politicians or millionaires. There is no extended clan and multiple generations of Clintons running for and holding offices in multiple states. They’re one married couple, both of whom have run for and held high office. That’s not nepotism, or dynasiticism, or some kind of American monarchy in the making, or really anything like the Bushes, or Kennedys, or even such lesser American political families as the Udalls and Romneys. It’s just Bill and Hillary Clinton, an ex-President whose spouse successfully pursued her own political career.
Of all the many, many reasons to dislike Hillary (and Bill) and what they stand for on the issues, the fact that two people who share the same last name both ran for President is pretty far down towards the “petty” end of the list.
I like this meme. I don’t political dynasties, and Rand Paul is undeserving of Libertarian support.
I think the point was more that it’s not a reason to support them than that it’s not a reason to oppose them, although I can see it in either light.
As for the principle of the matter when it comes to political families, just because somebody is related to another elected politician, isn’t a reason to oppose them. It’s not a reason to support them, either. But it’s also not a principled libertarian reason to oppose them, which is what the meme claims. If a member of the Bush or Clinton family declared their conversion to radical true-north libertarianism and joined the Libertarian Party, would we turn them away based on their genetics or name? Would we refuse to nominate a good Libertarian candidate because one of their parents was a major-party elected politician? I would certainly hope not, and we wouldn’t have any Libertarian basis for doing so.
Exactly!
“Scott Lieberman said ” Many Libertarians value being right more than being effective.”
At first, I took this to mean “Many Libertarians value being right in their political leanings more than being effective”;
Oh, wait–.
But let’s get to the really important question: is the Rand Paul meme white and gold, or blue and black?
Either one, depending on how you look at it 🙂
I am so glad this is happening and I trust the libertarian community to have the resilience to come out of it stronger than when we went in. I see this controversy as bringing to the surface a lurking resentment that has fueled factionalism for a while now, and it’s going to lead to a new kind of unity that has the resolve to confront and defeat our opposition.
But let’s get to the really important question: is the Rand Paul meme white and gold, or blue and black? 😉
As for the principle of the matter when it comes to political families, just because somebody is related to another elected politician, isn’t a reason to oppose them. It’s not a reason to support them, either. But it’s also not a principled libertarian reason to oppose them, which is what the meme claims. If a member of the Bush or Clinton family declared their conversion to radical true-north libertarianism and joined the Libertarian Party, would we turn them away based on their genetics or name? Would we refuse to nominate a good Libertarian candidate because one of their parents was a major-party elected politician? I would certainly hope not, and we wouldn’t have any Libertarian basis for doing so.
I’m all for good Libertarian criticisms of Rand, like both Johnson and Sarwark have been producing, and I’m also for letting our social media volunteers having the latitude they need to do what they do, which means having some hits and some misses. This one was a swing and a miss in my opinion, but it happens. More time has already been spent debating this one FB post than it merits. Should have posted it, shouldn’t have posted it: at this point, what difference does it make? I would hope the LNC members and state chairs all have more important things to work on.
Yep!
https://olddominionlibertarian.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/rand-paul-severs-ties-with-libertarian-community/
“Take a stand now (grow a pair) and let the chips fall where they may.”
Exactly. “Grow a pair” is what I’ve been thinking throughout the whole thing, I’m glad you finally put it into words.
I’m not in favor of coddling Republicans, which is exactly what we’ll be doing if we take down the meme.
Rand Paul isn’t going to go away (even if he doesn’t get the GOP nod). And his supporters are not going to go away either. He will be endorsing and campaigning for whoever the GOP puts up. And his supporters will have a myriad of excuses for why that’s OK when the time comes.
What are we going to do if he wins the nomination? Endorse him? Ask half our membership to endorse him and the other half to endorse our candidate?
Take a stand now (grow a pair) and let the chips fall where they may.
I’d agree with that conclusion. But it all depends on what you want to be effective at. See my comments on the previous thread
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/gary-johnson-rand-pauls-no-libertarian
For why I do not believe that sucking up to or ignoring the Rand Paul idolaters is good for anything we want to be effective at.
As many of you know, the above meme was “shared” on the Libertarian Party’s Facebook page.
Way back in 1997 some very smart Libertarian Party members figured out why the Libertarian Party was so ineffective. This was at the SLAM meeting in Dallas, TX:
“The group unanimously concluded that their best approximation of a root cause is:
Many Libertarians value being right more than being effective.”
La plus ca change, la plus c’est la meme chose.
Scott Lieberman