Why We Need Libertarians

Despite the absurdity of Rand Paul's interpretation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as pointed out in the Panalver post), and the impracticality (to say the least) of abolishing environmental and food and drug regulation, the libertarian antiwar stance is a valuable addition to public debate. 

As The Week recently observed, "Just two years ago, it seemed unthinkable that Paul’s admittedly radical constitutionalism and non-interventionist foreign policy could even gain a hearing in a Republican Party so strongly identified with the Bush administration."

When I was a new assistant professor at Rice University in the 1980s, I foolishly joined another young colleague in circulating a petition among Rice faculty opposing U.S. aid to El Salvador, where death squads ran rampant under a brutal government backed by the U.S. We got only a few signatures on our petition from Rice faculty, but sent it to our congressional delegation anyway. The only response we got was from Rand's father, Ron Paul, who heartily agreed with us on ending aid to the reprehensible government. One might object that Paul (and his son) want to abolish ALL foreign aid. But given the costs of U.S. wars and interventions, and the difficult-to-establish results of our paltry foreign aid (half of which is military assistance), that might not be a bad trade. 

If Rand Paul manages to sell his antiwar policy to the Tea Party, that will say something very remarkable about the movement. But this seems rather unlikely.

ES

Comments

[Robert Hockett]

Seconded!

All best,
Bob

[Michael Perry]

Great first post, Elizabeth (unless I've missed an earlier post).

Thanks much.

Michael