Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism
US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Photo: Jamie Rector / Getty Images
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do — but this doesn’t mean that his candidacy won't influence people for the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their support of him. The first and most important step in preventing that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
According to Ron Paul himself (via Brent Rasmussen)
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.
It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries "secularism" and "secularists," though he more often uses the label "secular Left." This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right.
The second thing to note is that there isn't a single word in the above that's true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.
No one has launched any court cases seeking to drive religion "from public view." There have been no organized efforts to prevent people from promoting religion in public, from having religious images on their front lawns, or engaging in religious evangelism in the community. What's actually been happening is that people have tried to stop the "public," which is to say public funds and institutions, from promoting, supporting, or endorsing the religion of just some of the citizens. Usually those offering dishonest claims about this rely upon ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded), but Ron Paul doesn't even do this — his is an unambiguously false claim.
A true libertarian would support efforts to stop the government from funding and supporting one religion out of many. Libertarians believe in less government combined with private action, which is exactly what the "secular Left" is seeking to achieve in the context of religion. Libertarians believe that the scope of government action should be limited to only that which the Constitution authorizes — and when it comes to religion, the government is not authorized to do anything.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian when it comes to his own personal religious beliefs — he seems to believe that in a "largely Christian society," the government magically acquires the authority to promote and endorse Christianity. Of course, this means endorsing and promoting one particular version of Christianity out of all the possibilities. Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind this — or perhaps he supports it in the hopes that his form of Christianity will be the one favored?
Church & State in the Constitution
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
It is true that the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, but Ron Paul makes two mistakes here. First, that fact does nothing to support this conclusion: being influenced by religion doesn't mean that one opposes church/state separation. Second, the religious beliefs of those men were not always consistent with the traditionalist Christianity of conservatives today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, denied the divinity of Jesus and that the miracle stories in the New Testament were true.
Many of the founders would be regarded as heretics according to traditional standards and that's why they supported removing from the government any authority over religious matters. It's bad enough when religious leaders have the power to harm those who dissent; it was deemed unacceptable for the state to have such power as well. Religion was conceived of as a private matter and not something which the state or any public institution to get involved with in any manner.
Ron Paul likes to make a big deal about having read the Constitution as part of an effort to create a contrast between himself and other politicians, but for someone who has read the Constitution he's incredibly ignorant of it's contents. The Constitution doesn't mention "God" at all — the closest it comes is the dating convention "in the year of our Lord." The Declaration of Independence also doesn't mention "God" in the sense of the Christian god — all references are standard deistic references to the Deistic god. The Declaration of Independence is a product of Deism, naturalism, and rationalism. It is not a Christian document.
Ron Paul is wrong when he claims that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the creation of an official state church, but he's doing a good job at parroting the talking points of Christian Right extremists like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. I'm surprised that they haven't anointed him as their own chosen candidate, given that his opposition to secular liberty is every bit as strong and twisted as theirs.
Church Authority vs. Government Authority
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.
Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.
It is arguable that the power and scope of the government creates alternatives and opportunities which make it easier for people to escape the power and influence of churches. Government welfare allows people to avoid relying on church hand-outs. Public schools allow people to avoid relying on church schools and church indoctrination. Civil marriage allows people to avoid having to marry in a church. Government social services of all sorts allow people to avoid being put under the thumb of priests and ministers in order to survive.
Opposing government provision of such services is, at least, consistent with libertarianism but libertarians take this position based on the principle that they are outside the scope of proper government authority. Agree or disagree with that, it's not Ron Paul's position: he opposes the government provision of such services because they prevent the power and authority of churches from superseding that of the government. Ron Paul thus appears to be using the "libertarian" label as a mask for his religious and authoritarian agenda: shrink the size of government so churches can step in and assume control.
To be fair, this isn't necessarily an easy issue for genuine libertarians who are also staunch secularists and supporters of church/state separation. If expanded government services and authority ensures reduced religious authority, thus ensuring the growth of secularism in society, then such libertarians are faced with a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, they would prefer to see government authority reduced; on the other, they don't want to see the authority, power, and influence of churches to fill all the vacuum left behind. Given how strong churches and religious organizations already are, it's difficult to imagine, though, that completely secular alternatives would compete very well.
Ron Paul Rated by Conservative Groups
Let's look at how various conservative and Christian Right groups have rated Ron Paul:
Family Research Council, 2005: 75%
John Birch Society, Summer '06, Spring '05, Fall '04, Summer '03: 100%
John Birch Society, Spring 2004: 88%
Concerned Women for America, 2005-2006: 62%
Eagle Forum, 2005: 71%
American Conservative Union, 2005: 76%
Christian Coalition, 2004: 76%
National Right to Life Committee, 2005-2006: 56%
Then there are these ratings:
Secular Coalition for America, 2006: 20%
Planned Parenthood, 2006: 20%
American Civil Liberties Union, 2005-2006: 55%
NAACP, 2005: 52%
Human Rights Campaign, 2003-2004: 25%
The ratings here for the ACLU and NAACP aren't too bad, but over all this does not paint a pretty picture. No one who can get 100% from the John Birch Society and 75% from the Family Research Council, but only 20% from the Secular Coalition for America, is a much of a friend of personal liberty.
For a "libertarian," Ron Paul is quite a moralist:
His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague.
Source: The New York Times
Ron Paul Defending Christian Privilege
Ron Paul has consistently opposed separating church & state and supported government actions in defense of Christian privilege. For example, he condemned the 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional:
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul promised to introduce legislation forbidding federal courts from taking cases where people allege their religious freedom was violated by government agencies. Why would a "libertarian" object to people suing the government for infringing on their rights? This became the First Amendment Restoration Act and Ron Paul insisted that federal courts should have no jurisdiction over protecting Americans' religious liberties.
In a perverse twist of logic and morality, Ron Paul argued that it would enhance religious freedom if the federal courts could no longer rule in defense of religious freedom. Moreover, he insisted that people's personal religious liberty would be enhanced by ensuring that government agencies would have the authority to promote, endorse, sponsor, and encourage particular religions, religious opinions, and religious beliefs. Ron Paul consistently advanced this position by voting to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, by voting in support of government-sponsored Ten Commandments monuments, and co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer.
Ron Paul supports a religious over a secular society on a number of other levels as well. He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul thus opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens. The libertarians supporting Ron Paul have either been duped into supporting an authoritarian, or are actually like Ron Paul in that they are really more authoritarian than they let on.
libertarianism is not averse to religion, nor does it equate to secularism. Beyond that, Paul is not a pure libertarian (in my view none but anarcho-capitalists are). The libertarian creed is based on non-interference of government in peoples lives and not aggressing against anyone but in defense of ones self and property.
If the state through democratic government is justified, then why not through religious means. As long as the apparatus does not infringe upon my natural rights why do I care?
Paul’s stance is on constitutional rights. The State is supposed to be superior to the Federal government except where specified in the constitution. This is important to a free-market libertarian as well, because at least if the states are making the rules on thier consitiutionally mandated areas of responsilibity then I can move to a different state if I don’t like the direction m ine is going. Also, it is much easier for the little guy to influence at the state level than the national level. Oh, and it is more difficult for large interest groups to fandangle 50 states rather than one large government.
I didn’t say that libertarianism is averse to religion, but libertarianism requires a secular government that is neutral in religious matters. Otherwise, the government will be involved in matters which libertarian political philosophy denies that it has any authority or competence.
And except where Paul’s personal religious beliefs come into play. He has no trouble with federal laws to enforce his religious beliefs when the states aren’t doing it.
For Ron Paul, “states’ rights” is a slogan of convenience in order to attract conservatives and libertarians who don’t think to look any closer at this real beliefs.
He may not be approved very nicely by atheists, but most importantly, atheists are not enough to matter anyway! If they did, we’d not have a problem staying on the Democratic side.
The point here is, that Ron Paul stands for the maximum liberty, against all else. Nobody can match this (so far who have declared to run)
When I first heard about Ron Paul, I must admit that I was very impressed with him, being a quasi-libertarian myself. I knew he had conservative religious personal views, which I disagreed with, but I figured that as long as he was a strict constitutionalist, he’d be alright.
Then a few weeks ago, I came across the article “Christmas in Secular America, and I think that’s the first time I ever really felt betrayed by a politician. Even if I did agree with all of his policies (I don’t), I’d still feel uncomfortable voting for him now.
Frankly, though, I’m glad that he supports a federal ban on abortion. It means I can strongly oppose his policy, not just his personal ideology. I can choose not to vote for him without feeling like I’ve given up on a potentially good candidate.
Still, I do have to defend him on one issue: Austin, you claimed that Ron Paul wants to ban gay marriage on the federal level. Unless his opinion on this matter has changed since October, 2004, what you say just isn’t true:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
@ Eric
“Frankly, though, I’m glad that he supports a federal ban on abortion. It means I can strongly oppose his policy, not just his personal ideology”
The above is hogwash. Paul does NOT support a federal ban on abortions. Paul rightly sees definitions as to conception, life and other morality as none of the federal government’s business. He proposes to leave abortion to the states.
As for this story, it is an overly-wordy hit-piece. I don’t care one whit which groups approve of paul. Give me a policy of his and I’ll respond. The man understands what the Establishment Clause says and what it doesn’t say. that’s it. Paul has never, to my knowledge, advocated a state religion or limiting religious freedom.
The author is wrong, and I suspect he knows it. but you know what? Even if he had a point (which he does not) I would still vote for Paul because this issue is wholly marginal compared to the sure path to destruction every other candidate seems so hell-bent (just an expression :p) on taking.
I’m an agnostic and I’ll be voting for Ron Paul.
Not to mention that Ron Paul seems to give approval to the 9/11 truth movement.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
Despite all that, I still think he’s the best Republican candidate (but that doesn’t say much).
Not so sure he is NOT about state supported religion. Why would one vote to “protect the Pledge of Allegiance” and to “ban gay adoptions” when all leading medical organizations say that kids in gay families grow up just as healthy and that gay families should be allowed to marry because it creates a much more stable environment for the children?
Why would he vote to keep judges from deciding if “god” in the pledge is unconstitutional when libertarian ideals are that children shouldn’t be forced to do anything that encourages one particular religion? People might say “oh…well “god” isn’t a christian thing, it’s universal” but it most certainly is. To anyone who isn’t monotheistic or theistic at all, it is. And asking kids to take up their parents war and giving rise to being picked on and treated as outcasts (trust me, I’ve seen it first hand and it’s not pretty) is reprehensible. This is very much against the libertarian principles.
The official libertarian national committee also states “Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.”
“Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration.”
Because Paul advocates a ban on gays from adopting, he is in direct violation of these principals.
“Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships.”
Paul things that amendments banning gays from marrying on the state level is okay. This is not along libertarian policies. It’s not okay to let the federal level to bash gays but it’s okay for the state? No so, says the libertarian party.
“End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation.”
Paul supports the DADT policy that forces out gays and lesbians if they talk about their orientation. Again, against the libertarian policies.
I could go on and on but you get the point. He’s not a libertarian, by any stretch of the imagination. To see where you stand vs. the candidates see: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ for a comparison. Just because he’s the only republican complaining about the war doesn’t mean we should ignore the rest of the issues he poses. Actions certainly speak louder than words and what people are saying he’s for vs. what his voting record says he’s for are two totally different things.
Thank you so much for this article. Now i have great ammo for Fark with the Ron Paul weirdos arrive.
Heres a link I found when trying to find out what Paul really believes about the Bill of Rights. Its what I expected, but it’s not something I ever saw him say so directly before:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=259
He’s one of these people that doesnt think the Bill of Rights should be enforced on any of the states; he thinks it only applies to the federal govt, and even then in only the strictest terms. I think we’d lose alot of freedom if that was the case. States would have the power to pass all kinds of laws restricting peoples civil liberties.
Thats not my idea of libertarianism, and not the kind of country Id want to live in. I think most of Pauls supporters would be surprised to find that out though.
Politics makes people believe inaccurate things… this article is terrible. Ron Paul isn’t going to use the Federal government to ban gay marriage or abortion, or to set up a Theocracy. Period. He has his beliefs about how a solid society would be structured, but over a couple of decades he has proven that he has no ulterior motives or delusions about how to coerce the nation that direction.
Paul’s complaint with the secular left is that it has used the coercion of the government to marginalize and unnaturlly shrink the influence of religion from what it would naturally be in a state of true liberty. Only a true liberty loving person can understand this concept without making the bad faith assumption that disagreement with the secular left equals secret religious right political ambitions. The author just doesn’t get it.
Really bad.
What is the “true liberty” of being under the coercive influence of authoritarian religious institutions rather than democratic government institutions?
Thanks for your article as it helped me decide between 2 candidates. I must admit that you convinced me unequivocally to vote for Ron Paul in 2008. Thanks!
You could not be more wrong!
Ron Paul is about less federal government and more freedom. His own ethics do not allow him to impose his will on others.
Do some fact finding before writing such a thing, please.
“What is the “true liberty” of being under the coercive influence of authoritarian religious institutions rather than democratic government institutions?”
Ladies and gentleman! Behold, the straw man argument!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The author takes Ron Paul’s beliefs and politics way out of context, almost to the point of libel.. The author does not understand Ron Paul or Liberty in the slightest..
Brian (above) is very correct about liberty allowing a balance between religion and secularism.. Sorry, secular government can never be neutral, it is an extreme and exclusive concept..
Feel free to support this accusation.
Feel free to explain how and why government is “extreme and exclusive” when it is simply not religious.
So Ron Paul has as much a chance of being elected president as you do? Current odds where people actually wager cash have him at odds of 8-1. Not the favorite but by no means a longshot.
Watch and learn as the odds drop over the next few months. My guess is the odds will drop to 2-1 after he wins the New Hampshire primary.
Still think you have as good a chance to win the presidency as Ron Paul?
“Why would he vote to keep judges from deciding if “god” in the pledge is unconstitutional when libertarian ideals are that children shouldn’t be forced to do anything that encourages one particular religion?”
The court case wasn’t about forcing children to do anything. If children wish to say God during the pledge they should be allowed to. They have free speech and the first amendment protecting that right to exercise their religion. By banning people from saying it you are violating their rights.
Excellent drive by hit piece.
So you are for:
preemptive war
perpetual war
9 trillion dollar debt
850 billion trade deficit
obscene taxation
-etc
Because you don’t believe in the 10th amendment?
Ron Spends a lot of energy fighting for the dollar.
Im sick of my rights getting thrown away for non-enumerated stuff! This government has vastly overstepped its “powers” and given me no extra rights, taken some away and taxes me to HELL.
Im secular and pro choice, but I have a country that functions. And you think RON is scarier than Fred, Rudy and Mitt? You are an idiot.
Eric, hi there hillary bot, or is it a bush bot? Or a hannity bot.
“I’m glad that he supports a federal ban on abortion”
Wrong. Says reverse Roe v Wade and give the issue to the states via the 10th amendment.
He voted no on legislation banning the interstate travel to get an abortion.
Drive by hit piece.
Please understand that the “Christian” brotherly love goodwill towards men is an important piece of his libertarian philosophy. If the government wont take care of the poor/destitute, some system (charity and religion) needs to do it. You might find this proselytizing, or you could just get a detached bureaucracy that wastes 9 out of every 10 dollars to provide potentially worse care.
Compare any VA hospital to a foundation hospital for a clue.
“For Ron Paul, “states’ rights” is a slogan of convenience in order to attract conservatives and libertarians who don’t think to look any closer at this real beliefs.”
So you want to force Utah not to be mormon?
You might want to examine the idea that people might want to construct an environment for themselves they like. As long as the states are diverse, there will be something for everyone.
Feel free to explain how you arrive at any of those conclusions from anything I wrote. When you find that you can’t, I hope you’ll retract this.
I can do without that “love,” thank you very much. If we all have to depend on religion in order to get things done in society, then we are in effect under a system of religious authority and control — a system where power is unaccountable and undemocratic. In the end, then, reliance on religion for one’s libertarian philosophy leads one to actually support an authoritarian system of control of people. Of course, I pointed this out above and notice that you didn’t respond.
Drive by hit comment?
No WAY would the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson endorse Ron Paul! Those men are not Christians: they’re more like the Pharisees in the bible, and they support Bush and the war in Iraq.
Look, the war is costing us $12 billion a month and creating a record budget deficit, not to mention the horrendous causualties on both sides. Habeas corpus and posse comitatus have been killed and judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court who would just as soon use the Constitution for toilet paper as uphold it.
In the meantime, you’re quibbling about abortion rights, gay marriage and Christainity? I’ve seen no evidence Ron Paul wants to outlaw abortion or gay marriage on a federal level or create a theocracy. These are non-issues! They’re red herrings! The REAL problems our nation currently faces are too serious to be ignored!
Who do YOU propose we elect to end the war, balance the budget, save our economy and restore our civil rights? Hillary? Rudy? WHO?!!
I’M voting for Ron Paul.
Quibbling? Feel free to justify why these issues are irrelevant.
Or are they simply irrelevant because they aren’t The Most Important Thing to you?
I think that expecting any one politician to do all those things is a fools’ game. Indeed, I’d go so far as to argue that the very act of investing so much expectations from a single person is part of the problem because it entails investing a person with too much responsibility — and, ultimately, power. It’s Congress, an organization of many diverse people, which needs to have the power to take responsibility for such things; a president’s responsibility should be to encourage them and get out of their way.
That’s nice. Care to provide an argument as to how that will help?
Austin Cline – I’m not saying Ron Paul alone is the answer to all our problems, I’m just saying he’s our best bet. The simple fact is currently both the president and congress have record low approval ratings, and that’s because neither are carrying out or even paying attention to the will of the people.
All the legislation is in place. All the checks and balances our founding fathers wrote in the Constitution have become unbalanced. We’re only one terrorist attack, natural disaster or disease outbreak away from living under martial law. I don’t trust any of the “top tier” candidates of either party to refrain from taking full advantage of that. I’ve noticed you are not endorsing anyone at all for president, so I suspect you know they’re all about the same, too.
Let me put the issues in perspective for you: while war spreads through the Middle East and Queen Hillary has her jackbooted paramilitary marching in the streets, enforcing curfew and rounding up “enemy combantants” and putting them in “detention centers,” are you going to be taking comfort in the fact a woman can still obtain a legal abortion through her “Universal Health Care” program, under which every citizen in America is required to participate?! I’m pro-choice myself, but I sure won’t!
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, so he’s exactly who we need to help us restore our freedom and liberties after Bush declared the Constitution is “just a @#!damned piece of paper” and did his best to destroy it.
Don’t worry, if Ron Paul is elected, you will still have your abortions and gay marriages. These issues are not on his top priority list, and by your own logic, one politician cannot do all things. As long as your Constitutional rights are intact, you and your ilk will be able to lobby for whatever you want!
And I’m saying that thinking that a single person is even our “best bet” to answer all our problems is the sort of thinking which has gotten us to this point in the first place. That is, after all, just what Bush’s supporters think of him — give him the power to fight our enemies and make us safe again. No one person is our “best bet.” Strong democratic institutions, and in particular a strong democratic legislature made up of democratically-minded legislators, is our best bet.
Democracy, democratic institutions, and electing lots of democratically-minded representatives — that’s how we keep free.
No one person can be trusted not to take advantage of that — our system was created precisely because no one person is virtuous enough for that. Everyone has a different tipping point, but everyone does indeed have one.
I, however, don’t need to spin dystopian fantasies to justify voting for anyone.
There is absolutely nothing he can do because he can’t pass laws. He cannot give us our freedom. We have to take it by electing representatives who will pass the laws necessary to protect liberty.
At best, he can issue a few declarations to reverse those issued by Bush — which means he’s using the same tactics as Bush and they can be reversed again by the next president anyway. There is not a single thing a president can do which another cannot reverse on a whim. Bush has done what he’s done because Congress wouldn’t — and usually didn’t want to — challenge him. A strong, democratically-minded Congress could reverse everything Bush has done, do it in a democratic manner, and help ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
It’s simply another form of authoritarianism to want, expect, and hope for a single strong president to “take charge” and “do the right thing.” I don’t want liberty to be beholden to the assumed virtues and philosophy of a single politician. Our liberty needs to be enshrined in stable, institutions that can survive both corrupt and the misguided adventures of the virtuous.
OK, you guys. There is clearly some confusion on what kind of federal bans Ron Paul supports. But it is really easy…
HE SUPPORTS FEDERAL BANS ON FEDERAL BANS
This means congress should help to limit the power of federal courts over the states.
He wants to push power back down to the individual as much as possible.
A “federal ban” is an act of legislation (directly or indirectly). The power of the federal courts is a different subject entirely. If federal courts are limited in their power over state actions, then they are necessarily limited in their ability to apply the Constitution to state and local actions — hardly a positive outcome for liberty or equality.
Austin Cline, you are incorrect on one thing. Ron Paul, as president, can immediately end the Iraq war, without passing any laws or getting anyone’s approval, because the commander-in-chief has control over the military. No other candidate is likely to end the war, even the ones who claim they want to.
I find it appalling you would even dare to compare Ron Paul to Bush. If you are looking for a “democratically-minded” politician to elect, look no further than Ron Paul!
Where is all the crap about Ron Paul being same kind of authoritarian coming from? All I am saying is he by far the most likely candidate to propose and support the kind of legislation we need to put the checks and balances back into our government. He won’t veto any bill consistent with upholding the Constitution, nor approve any bill inconsistent with upholding the Constitution. The president’s job, after all, is the uphold the Constitution!
Why do you seem so convinced Ron Paul can somehow ban abortion and gay marriage on a federal level but won’t be able to persuade congress to repeal unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot, Military Comissions and Real ID Acts, all of which he voted against in Congress?
One more question: If you’re so sure Ron Paul has no chance of becoming president, then why are you devoting so much time and energy into trying unsuccessfullly to discredit him?
You need to ask yourself why Ron Paul is such a threat to you, or maybe more importantly, why he is such a threat to the people who pay your salary.
It’s true, he can do that — and the next president can send the troops back or somewhere new. Ron Paul as president cannot change this. Moreover, merely having the troops abroad does not inherently harm liberty at home — it’s wrong, but it’s a separate issue.
Feel free to support this allegation.
Feel free to explain where my comments are actually mistaken.
I think I explained my position in the article. If you have specific questions about specific statements, just ask.
Unless we have a Congress that can and will pass the legislation, his proposals and support are irrelevant.
I’m not the least bit “convinced’ that he “can” do those things and I never said he could do those things. I described his positions, not his powers.
A single blog post isn’t that much time and energy at all.
I explained why his positions are a threat. Perhaps you could ask yourself why you feel the need to try to use an ad hominem (”threat to you” and “threat to the people who pay your salary” are ad hominem fallacies) rather than address my writings directly.
Fair enough, Austin Cline. Your description of Ron Paul’s positions in your article are inaccurate. Like I said before, I’ve seen no real evidence whatsoever Ron Paul wants to outlaw abortion and gay marriage on a federal level or create a theocracy. Even if he wanted to and did, the next elected congress could come along and reverse the whole thing. By your logic, there’s no reason to bother supporting or opposing any presidential candidate at all and it doesn’t matter in the least who’s president, because only congress has the real power. This article is such a waste of words!
Feel free to demonstrate this rather than just assert it. Keep in mind that your assertion is about my description of his “positions” generally, not just a couple – so you should be able to demonstrate that my description of all his positions is inaccurate, not just one or two.
Feel free to construct a logical argument which uses my premises and actually leads to this conclusion. I don’t think you can do it because, interestingly enough, that isn’t actually a valid conclusion that can be drawn from my position.
That’s an easy enough claim to make, but harder to support. The mere fact that you don’t like it and disagree with it isn’t sufficient to make it a waste.
“A “federal ban” is an act of legislation (directly or indirectly). The power of the federal courts is a different subject entirely. If federal courts are limited in their power over state actions, then they are necessarily limited in their ability to apply the Constitution to state and local actions — hardly a positive outcome for liberty or equality. ”
I apologize for the innaccuracy. As Austine Cline points out, it is only in the area of law that has already overstepped the limits of the constitution, that Ron Paul would act. There is no reason to think the federal government is any “wiser” than any state government…”and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Austin Cline, fine. You asked for it, you got it. Here are Ron
Paul’s postions on abortion and gay marriage, both straight from the horse’s mouth:
First abortion:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
Then gay marriage:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
In both, Ron Paul clearly states these issues are not mentioned in the Constitution and are not meant to be decided on a federal level. He is against Constitutional amendments to ban either.
Our founding fathers felt strongly about everyone being able to worship as they pleased, so freedom of religion is written into the Constitution. Setting up a theocracy would violate the Constitution, and Ron Paul, being a constitionalist, would do nothing to interfere with how people choose (or don’t choose) to worship.
How come when I bring up an issue you apparently agree with, like restoring our civil liberties, Ron Paul can’t do that because Congress won’t let him, but when you’re talking about abortion, gay marriage or religion all of a sudden he’s an “authoritarian” and “a significant threat to secularism and liberty?” That makes no sense! He would have to go through the same processes to change any one of these issues, and it seems to me he’s have a great deal more success overturning a bunch of unconstitutional acts than overturning Roe vs. Wade! So which is it? Does the president have the power to influence congress or not?
I’m really amused by how you trivialized how he would end the Iraq war by saying “the next president can send the troops back or something new.” As if four years, or more likely eight years of peace is completely meaningless!
The reason I believe no other candidate would end the Iraq war is because all the other republican candidates have made it clear they don’t want to, and all the democratic candidates (with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, who both have far worse odds of winning the Ron Paul does on the gambling sites) are “centrists” who are afraid of being pegged “soft on terror” and are gullible enough to believe our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a “bloodbath.”
I stand by my statement your article is a waste of words. So you don’t like Ron Paul, I get it, but how many Ron Paul supporters, or even borderline Ron Paul supporters do you think have bought into your lies and dropped their support? My guess is one could easily count them on one hand, and for good reason: Ron Paul is by far the best presidential candidate I’ve seen since I was eligible to vote in 1980.
I don’t agree 100% with everything he stands for either, but so what? In what utopian world is there such a thing as a presidential candidate anyone completely agrees with?
Ron Paul voted to ban “partial birth” abortion. Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoptions and supports don’t ask/don’t tell. He said that if he were in Congress in 1996, he would have voted for the Defenese of Marriage Act. In 2004, he co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act which would have denied federal courts jurisdiction over challenged to the DMA.
The Ten Commandments isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but he voted to support government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments. Clearly, Ron Paul is very selective when it comes to what is “meant to be decided on a federal level.” It doesn’t matter so much whether it’s in the Constitution, but whether he wants it — just like every other politician.
Yes. A person can be an authoritarian even if they don’t have the inherent power to do very much about it. Of course, a Presdient Paul would be able to do things if the Congress is weak and compliant — and this is the situation we currently have. Is that what you desire? Is it truly the case that you are searching for a Strong Leader to right the wrongs and restore what you think is America’s correct path?
It didn’t prevent Bush from sending them in to begin with, did it? So long as Congress is weak and gives the president carte blanche to do as he wishes, he’ll be able send troops anywhere on any pretext. Is that what you want?
Be honest about which you would prefer: simply having a president willing to remove the troops this time from this quagmire with no concern about future troops under future presidents getting sent into new meat grinders, or a Congress able to firmly establish that the president doesn’t have the authority to do that and make it stick? Which has the best long term consequences for America: a strong president or a strong Congress?
Doesn’t matter if Congress is strong enough to do something about it.
Fine. To be intellectually honest, though, you have to support the claim.
So, I’ve lied? That’s a pretty serious allegation. Please support or retract it.
Anyway, why do you assume that I’m speaking to Ron Paul supporters? It might not have occurred to you, but there may be undecided people out there who can benefit from more than just propaganda from Ron Paul supporters.
Austin Cline, Bush started the Iraq war illegally. Under the Constitution, a president is not allowed to start a war without the approval of 3/4 of Congress. That is exactly why restoring the Constitution is so important!
You keep ignoring the fact that currently, the president DOES have have powers beyond what our founding fathers intended. It’s true Congress still has the power to repeal unconstitutional legislation (for now), but that’s going to be much easier with a president who isn’t going to veto their bills, and infinitely easier with a president who doesn’t find an excuse to declare martial law!
It’s true the Constitution isn’t always cut and dry, and what one person might consider unconstitutional another might not, but what other presidential candidate is even bothering using the Constitution as their guide?
Ron Paul is unique in that his political career has always been grassroots: lobbyists avoid him like the plague because they know he can’t be bought. His campaign is being funded solely by private contributions and fundraisers.
Yes, I do want to see a strong Congress, because that is one of the checks and balances written into the Constitution, but I want to see a Congress whose members strive to uphold the Constitution and carry out the will of the people. Currently, we have a Congress full of politicians beholden to the special interest groups who fund their campaigns. It’s true Ron Paul isn’t going to be able to do much to change that, but maybe he can at least help set a new standard for what we demand in our politicians.
The simple truth is people are hungry for a president who stands for peace, prosperity and freedom. Your qualms with Ron Paul seem trivial in comparison to what could happen to us under another warmongering, power crazed president, which is exactly what we’ll get whether a republican OR a democrat is elected, barring Ron Paul.
True, some undecideds might take your article to heart, but they are doing themselves a grave disservice if they take your opinions as their only source of information.
And so can the next president, even Ron Paul, without a Congress that is willing to take action. There is nothing Ron Paul can do to prevent it from happening again.
I’m not ignoring it; I’m simply pointing out the simple fact that only Congress can truly change the situation. Even if a President Ron Paul could change it, it would be via powers he shouldn’t have — thus creating an irresolvable contradiction.
Yes, it’s easier for Congress to act if the President isn’t being a pain, but first you need a Congress that will act because there is nothing positive the President can do anyway. So, it’s best to focus on the Congress and getting enough good people in there.
To put it another way: you can achieve the goals without the president you want; you can’t achieve them without the Congress you want. Ergo, focus on the Congress first and president last.
And we all know that money from private contributors and fund-raisers can’t lead to any sort of collusion, corruption, and undue influence? The key is ultimately the number of contributors and the percentage they contribute. I honestly don’t know what those numbers are for Ron Paul, but they are what you should be looking at.
I distrust all political movements that invest so much in the way of hopes, expectations, and needs in the person of single leaders. In a democracy, our hopes, expectations, and needs should be invested in democratic institutions.
Unless, of course, we elect a Congress that is willing to act. As I pointed out above: with a good and strong Congress, a bad president can be restrained. I don’t think that there is a single thing Bush has done wrong that couldn’t have been mostly if not completely checked by a strong Congress. With a strong Congress, both good and bad presidents can be kept in line; with a weak Congress, both good and bad presidents can do bad things (do keep in mind that Ron Paul isn’t perfect — it’s not just that you disagree with some of his positions, but that he is susceptible to error, vice, and misdeeds like all the rest of us).
Ergo, we are better off with a strong Congress no matter what sort of president we end up with. This means that ensuring Congress is strong must be the priority. Even better, a strong Congress is one that persists across multiple administrations while even the best president is only around for two administrations. Ensuring we have a strong Congress is a fix that is more secure, more reliable, will do more for us, and will last longer than the election of any one person no matter how good.
So, now we come back to my article being a waste of time because you don’t like it rather than because it won’t accomplish anything.
Austin Cline, you keep on saying we need to concentrate on getting people in Congress who will make it strong so it won’t matter who the president is or what he or she stands for. Exactly how is your article promoting that? Are you hoping Ron Paul doesn’t become president because you think he’ll be more effective staying in Congress? Remember, he may have voted for some bills you don’t agree with, but he also stood up against Bush’s war and unconstitutional legislation from the very beginning.
Here is the most recent information I could find on Ron Paul’s campaign finances: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00005906
This article isn’t about that issue. I keep pointing out that Congress is more important than the Presidency for protecting liberty as a response to your claim that we absolutely need Ron Paul and that any other option would be atrocious.
RE: finances — it’s not clear to me how many different people contributed the $3 million of individual contributions. One the one end of the scale, if it were a single person (and I know it’s not — I’m just speaking hypothetically), then he’s be very beholden to that one person; on the other end, if it were 3 million people, he’d be equally beholden to them all. The closer it is to the latter, the better. I don’t think that someone who gets a few really huge contributions from a few really wealthy people is in any better state than someone who gets large amounts from a few PACs.
By law, the most any individual person can contribute to a presidential campaign is $2,300 (I think they limit it to help prevent third party candidates from raising enough money to become competitive). That means the fewest possible contributors Ron Paul could have is somewhere around 1300, assuming my math is correct, since that’s not my strong suit. I don’t think it’s possible to know for certain the actual number, other than it’s certain to be more than 1300!
I’ve said everything I came here to say, and then some. Best of luck to you, Austin Cline. Goodbye.
Wow. What a terribly written article. Full of inaccuracies. Do you actually call yourself a journalist?
Wow. What a wonderfully written comment. Full of corrections, empirical information, and constructive criticism.
No, I don’t actually. Therefore your attempted ad hominem simply falls flat.
He’s right. You’re wrong. The things you point to and say, “SEE?!”, are the very reasons I support him. If you truly want to see the problem, look in the mirror.
That’s easy enough to say; can you support your claims, though?
You support an authoritarian political agenda?
Examples, please?
Ron Paul supporters:
Do not expect Austin Cline to understand libertarianism. It is an individualist philosophy. A practical one at that: libertarians know that democracy is an inherently corrupt institution (see Hoppe’s book on democracy vs natural order). Cline is approaching this issue from the opposite side of the fence, and his ideas seem as alien to true libertarians as ours are to the likes of him. Engaging him in debate is simply not productive-he is too set in his ways.
That said, RonPaul is no authoritarian. That is a baseless claim if you check his voting record. If anything, Paul is a minarchist conservative with a bit of a nationalistic bent. I will support him because his actions show him to be a consistent supporter of civil liberties as well as the republican ideal that first defined this country.
Rather than insinuating that I do not understand libertarianism, why not demonstrate how this is so? Then again, you don’t trouble yourself to dispute anything I have written, so perhaps no one should expect you to know how to construct a systematic argument to defend what you say?
It would also appear to be too much to expect you to realize the extent to which libertarians themselves not only doubt Ron Paul, but are recognizing that he is more of an authoritarian than he admits to. His recent refusal to return campaign donations from a neo-Nazi fascist was very telling, though.
Hey Austin,
Been a while. I’ve read these comments and, of course, the entry itself. In regards to the entry: your references speak for themselves. When Paul speaks to the immersion of state into church, both morally, and–with an albeit misguided sentimentality on the good ol’ Christian Right Founding Fathers God Is In All Of Our Paperwork Myth–to the liberties which he may very well intend on revoking and/or pursuing revocation of, I feel a bit shocked.
Not everything that one candidate says is idiotic. I find, more often than not, that Huckabee makes a good point or two: public speaking being his forte for a while and all. Also, I think Paul does a darn good job trashing the war in Iraq. I began getting that feeling: “hey, this guy sounds kinda like a libertarian, what with all his constitution talk and the like”, but your article really changed my mind on him. I will be more weary of him as his campaign continues.
Here’s to hoping that we actually do, one day, get a libertarian candidate into a youtube debate, if at least to watch the sparks fly.
Also, it was truly delightful to read how you handled your comments.
Thanks
Even if Paul is a Libertarian, we wouldn’t have a libertarian administration or judiciary. Most of his appointments would be run-of-the-mill Republicans since there aren’t enough Libertarian-minded people to fill the posts. In the case of judges, no non-Republican would live up to his religious standards. He certainly wouldn’t appoint a pro-lifer. Nearly by definition, his judicial appointments would be strongly conservative. This would color all their decisions, including the many that have nothing to do with religion. That’s why Paul’s religious zeal is of concern to any moderate who otherwise likes his freedom-and-peace platform. Another round of ultra-conservative judges and another administration with Republican conservatives in major posts is the last thing I want, even if I like many of Paul’s positions. So I’ll take any Democratic candidate over Ron Paul and join Austin Cline in hoping for a strong Congress.
Austin, it would be great if you could write an article on exactly that: why voters must focus on electing the strongest possible congress people.
Johnny_eh said:
Not to mention that Ron Paul seems to give approval to the 9/11 truth movement.
No, he doesn’t. Why do you listen to Michelle Malkin?
Today he denounced the 9/11 truthers on the record on the Glenn Beck Program.
Austin,
Why do you insist that if government does not provide services, that there are only churches that will? Are you saying there are no people outside of government or church that care about poor people? There are plenty of non-religious humanitarian organizations that would benefit greatly if donors were not forced to pay federal income tax. Do you really enjoy giving 25% to 30% of your hard-earned cash to the federal government, where you have no control on what it gets spent on? If you really want to educate the world and make an impact, wouldn’t you feel better sending that money to an organization you agree with 100%?
I didn’t write that.
Do any receive anywhere close to the donations received by religious organizations?
Whereas I would have control of the money donated to an unaccountable private entity?
There is no such organization, and never will be unless it’s an organization of me alone — and even then, I’m always questioning and reconsidering my ideas.
I didn’t write that.
No, you didn’t, but it sounded like you implied it when you wrote these words:
What is the “true liberty” of being under the coercive influence of authoritarian religious institutions rather than democratic government institutions?
….
If we all have to depend on religion in order to get things done in society, then we are in effect under a system of religious authority and control — a system where power is unaccountable and undemocratic.
What federal institutions would be replaced by religious institutions?
As for your question:
Do any receive anywhere close to the donations received by religious organizations?
Probably not. However, more and more people are getting fed up with religion, but still want to help out society. Since there are already donors to the non-religious organizations, I would hope that those donors would give more if they were not paying federal income tax.
Now I understand that donating to a private organization does not give you any more control of the money than when you pay your taxes. But you at least have a better handle on what kind of thing your money goes toward by making a contribution to an organization that is focused on an issue that you feel strongly toward. Our income taxes paid to the federal government are not donations or gifts. We are criminals if we choose to not pay them. The government is supposed to be accountable to me, but what can I say when I see how much we pay for simple items like keyboards ($400) and monitors($1500)? Sure, the info is out in the open, but I am still forced to pay this organization to keep doing what it is doing.
Sorry, I don’t see the implication. Perhaps you can explain?
The services like welfare, job training, and education are all currently performed by government entities and which some would like to see performed by religious institutions instead.
And I don’t see that changing. That’s why I wrote: “Given how strong churches and religious organizations already are, it’s difficult to imagine, though, that completely secular alternatives would compete very well.”
Sorry, but I see no reason why that would be the case.
That’s right. So?
If you don’t like what it’s doing, work for change.
The services like welfare, job training, and education are all currently performed by government entities and which some would like to see performed by religious institutions instead.
Those services are performed by local government, not federal entities. I’ve never seen a federal public school.
If you don’t like what it’s doing, work for change.
That’s exactly what I’m doing. The problem is, people like you are afraid of freedom, so you are hindering progress. Communal societies worked for small villagers, but it isn’t going to work for a large country.
Libertarians object to government at every level on an equal basis. I guess you aren’t actually a libertarian. Sorry, my mistake. I’m guessing you missed the fact that my critique of Ron Paul and his faux-libertarianism didn’t specify federal government and federal institutions in any way.
I am indeed afraid of the faux-freedom libertarians and their pseudo-libertarians have in mind. Replacing the power of democratic government with the power of un-democratic private institutions would create “freedom” for the powerful on the backs of the majority of the people.
I am indeed afraid of the faux-freedom libertarians and their pseudo-libertarians have in mind. Replacing the power of democratic government with the power of un-democratic private institutions would create “freedom” for the powerful on the backs of the majority of the people.
- I came to this same conclusion. (By myself, no forums or blogs necessary.)
One thing I noted when I read your article and all the refutations and rebuttals was concerning the abortion issue as it relates to the bigger “picture” of what appear to be RP’s underlying principles.
He has voted on legislation that would ban federal funding to clinics that do abortions, but also voted to GIVE federal funding to clinics that don’t.
http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
My interpretation is that this is one element that shows RP’s selective application of limiting federal powers. He claims to preach that the federal government shouldn’t be funding health care, but it appears to be fine as long as the place involved is in accord with his owm personal beliefs, which doesn’t seem very Libertarian to me.
To be honest, the more I read on RP and research him, the more my conclusions follow your article.
When one has a constitutionalist position, that the Federal Government should not impose the religion of the president, then even if Paul were a creationist (which he is not) or a theocrat (which he is not) then, even aftar all of that, he would be safe.
So why do you really feel so poorly about Ron Paul? Are you using religion as a vehicle to attack since if you honestly comment that you have policy disputes you know you would get nowhere?
I think I explained in some detail why I think — think, not feel — so poorly about Paul. Feel free to actually engage any of the arguments I have made. Or, if you’d rather not, feel free to engage some of the arguments made by the many other people who have come to realize that Paul is not so much a libertarian than he is an authoritarian-minded paleoconservative.
Ron Paul is only a threat to the current agenda and administration, not to the country.
He is authentic and has his personal religion and beliefs, but he will not impose those on his country as president.
If there is something he stands for the most it is Liberty, that is the LAST thing he threatens, this article is just another attempt to smear the good character of Ron Paul.
Vote for Freedom, vote for Ron Paul.
Read for yourself what he stands for, www . Ronpaul2008 . com
I just have to day Austin Cline, that I thoroughly enjoy reading your articles every time I come to your site. As an Atheist myself, I have found a lot of your essays to be illuminating and inspiring.
As a Canadian, I really had little opinion on any of the political candidates in the United States. That was until I was presented with a You Tube video of Ron Paul claiming that evolution was just a theory. Here was a man who has graduated from Medical school, and yet claims to believe in Creationism? There seems to be a contradiction here.
Then I began to notice more and more contradictions in what Ron Paul was saying. As you have pointed out, Ron Paul seems to be trying to unite the Libertarians and the Theologists under his platform.
As we might say in Canada, Ron Paul is a man who has both his feet in two separate canoes. Pretty soon, he’s going to have to jump into one canoe or the other.
Since I have read your article, I have written several posts in newsgroups such as Tribe.com and using this post as a reference. Understandably, I have encountered opposition from ‘both sides’ of the Ron Paul camp. I have also come across people that claim they voted for Ron Paul merely as a protest vote.
I have to say though, many of the comments made by Ron Paul supporters on this comment blog are a lot more convincing than those I have encountered. This might just be due to the amount of people coming to your site.
Austin Cline, you are the flickering flame of a candle in the darkness of the storm. Keep up the good work!
After following all this carefully,and being athiest I have to vote ron paul!!!
This article is rubbish, Discreditted on many levels. Just another pathetic liberal fascist. Anyone with an extra ten minutes can see that the guy is lying on many fronts.
Feel free to show how, instead of just claiming it.
Who, exactly, misled you into thinking that fascism was a phenomenon of the left?
Then you shouldn’t need more than two to support the accusation.
you sir, are making your bed. one day you will get to sleep in it. Heir Obama is making the rounds right now. This country is headed full steam ahead towards heavy authoritarianism. The government big enough to legislate everyone into equality (at least on the surface), is powerful enough to police the world, and bitch slap it’s own people into a state of acquiescence. when this country goes down the tubes, the smart individualists will be gone. the crazy christians, the gays, the skinheads, the atheists, the bubbas, and the latte sipping elitists will still be here. morons.