I have long been quite intrigued by the libertarian movement.
At one of my first I.T. jobs I shared a cubicle with a libertarian. He and I had long discussions over lunch in the company cafeteria sorting out the world’s problems.
At the time (~1998) I was a conservative, Christian Republican, and pretty much thought I had it all figured out… Until I met Terry (my cubicle mate). Many long one-on-one lunchtime debates with Terry left me far more open to mainstream libertarian thought – basically that popularly represented by Ron Paul.
I came to believe that libertarian thought far more closely aligned with the constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers. Small government with strictly limited power, minimal taxation and regulation, and maximal individual freedom. But even more compelling to me was that IT MADE SENSE. It was an extremely coherent, logical framework.
And later in 2008 when Ron Paul was making a run at the White House I remember the Republican Primary debates well. More than once other candidates were stumped on a question regarding what the Constitution said about a particular matter, and by default they yielded the floor to Ron Paul to answer these questions.
I thought at the time, “Well, if the whole point of the president is to uphold the Constitution, why not just elect the guy that they all go to to find out what it says?”
I thought that until he opened his mouth speaking about foreign policy, military, and national defense. For almost all practical purposes, he thought that what happened anywhere else in the world was not our business and we shouldn’t be involved. Libertarians call it “Non-intervention”, others would call it “Isolationism.” THAT seemed unworkable to me.
Specifically he said it wasn’t our business whether Iran obtained nuclear weapons, and that the whole reason they hate us is because we treat them like children (by not letting them have such dangerous weapons).
To me that was a deal breaker. And I’d really love to have heard him defend that thinking in a convincing way since I aligned so closely with him on everything else.
Having now followed Libertarian podcasters like Tom Woods, I even get that libertarian purists have a special category for those like me. They see us as “almost there” and just needing a little help getting over the “Interventionism” hump.
I would argue that they are the ones whose beliefs about foreign interactions (“non-intervention”, “isolation”) are inconsistent with reality.
While perhaps a beautiful theory, Isolationism doesn’t get along well with the reality on the ground.
Evil on a Global Scale
On many issues there is a superior libertarian alternative to big government. No government is better than too much government. Both ends of that spectrum have imperfections, but the flaws of too much government far outweigh the flaws of too little government.
But the less-government position DOESN’T have a good answer for EVIL GOVERNMENTS outside of our country.
Libertarian approaches to that problem disintegrate into farfetched, ridiculous, even silly directions, as perfectly exemplified by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul on Ukraine: The “See No Evil” Approach
One approach libertarians take to the question of how to handle industrial-scale evil in the world is to simply put on the blinders and not see it. When evil shows it’s ugly face, in normal people it stirs the very natural, moral urge to intervene if possible. But libertarians refuse to even see it. They try to explain it away in an effort to extinguish any moral clarity.
Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams (co-host of Ron Paul’s podcast) are perfect examples of this.
In the distant aftermath of WWII where the Nazis gassed millions of Jews, the world seems unified on recognizing the atrocities that occurred there. To my knowledge, no CREDIBLE historian disputes the general story of the Holocaust (but something tells me some Libertarians may disagree).
But in the aftermath of the Russian atrocities in Bucha Ukraine in the early days of the Russian invasion there was abundant evidence of Russian military torturing, raping, and executing CIVILIANS.
But Ron Paul isn’t so sure.
You see, in Ron Paul’s world there isn’t a good small government/isolationist answer to that other than to stay home, stick your head in the sand, and say about these Russian atrocities: “It’s none of our business. Who cares. Screw them. Let them die.”
Why can’t they just say that? I mean really, if evil is marauding across an innocent neighbor pillaging, raping, torturing, and murdering, and your answer is “That’s sad, but it’s none of my concern,” just say it. Own it.
Why even go through all the mental gymnastics in this 35 minute podcast arguing as they do that the reports of the barbarism are so suspicious? Think about that… given the isolationist foundation of their argument — i.e. that what happens elsewhere is none of our business — then what difference does it make even if Russia raped, tortured, and executed every Ukrainian civilian they could? Why spend a whole podcast hemming and hawing about how suspicious they are of the reports? Why not argue their real ideology, that it doesn’t matter what happens there – it’s none of our business?
Related follow-up question: IF all the reports of atrocities WERE TRUE and NOT SUSPICIOUS, would it change Ron Paul’s view? Would he THEN say we need to condemn Russia and support Ukraine? If not, then the previous question is all the more relevant… why go through the mental gymnastics casting suspicion on the reports of atrocities?
I have my own theory on this why Libertarians argue that the atrocities are not happening rather than just arguing that it doesn’t matter even if they are happening. Somewhere hard-coded in their conscience they recognize the blatant, unconscionable immorality of standing by watching pure evil devouring an innocent victim while maintaining their pure isolationist ideology. So, subconsciously they are driven to do any combination of the following:
- See the attacker as not that evil
- See the victim as not that innocent
- Deny that the evil is even happening
This placates their conscience and makes it easier to sleep at night.
Ron Paul provides a great example of this rationalization, employing all three techniques. He denies that it’s happening, splashes in a little distrust of media, a little moral equivalence (“both sides are guilty”, “war is always bad”), and a little projection (“since we’re reasonable and rational, Russia probably operates the same way”). If he actually let himself believe that the evil atrocities ARE actually taking place, and that there is an INNOCENT VICTIM, adhering to his isolationism could cut into his sleep (if he had any moral conscience – which I actually assume he may, hence the creative mental gymnastics).
The Podcast
Here are some excerpts from a conversation between Ron Paul and his co-host, Daniel McAdams about the Bucha massacre. I transcribed this myself, but they’re very difficult to transcribe because they often mutter, or change thoughts in the middle of a sentence, and so on. But the link to the whole video is below so you can listen to the whole context for yourself if you doubt me.
It looks bad BASED ON WHAT THE MEDIA IS SAYING…
I’D BE VERY SUSPICIOUS OF WHAT WE’RE HEARING…
ALL I KNOW IS I DON’T LIKE WAR AND I DON’T LIKE THE KILLING…
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED in [Bucha]…
WE DON’T KNOW WHO DID IT… immediately, of course, it was blamed on Russia. Could the Russians have done it? Absolutely. War is disgusting. War is ugly. It’s despicable. BUT WE HAVE TO AT LEAST RAISE SOME QUESTIONS…
…before leaving [Bucha to redeploy to Donbass, the Russian troops] tie up a few hundred people at random and kill them, and take all the time to do that, and all the effort…, before departing. Again, all possible, war makes people insane, because war is insane. BUT at the very least… we should be suspicious, take a deep breath, and try to figure out what’s going on…
Maybe [there’s] a little bit of blame – or a lot of blame – for BOTH SIDES in this. Most wars are started because there are warmongers on both sides, and these things happen…
[Bucha] has huge propaganda value for the Ukrainian side, and that’s probably why Zelensky rushed out there for some photo ops. But there’s zero upside for the Russians [in doing this]… There’s no military reason. The only reason would be if they had gone insane and decided to kill a bunch of people. And that happens. Crazy things happen in war…. it does happen, but, it’s a huge upside for Ukraine and downside for Russia. Again, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, but we’re suspicious…
Source: Bucha Massacre: War Crime Or False Flag? (these segments are in sequential order spread out over the first 13 minutes)
So basically they don’t trust the stories that seem to indicate that anything bad happened. The thing the media is reporting can’t really be that clear. We don’t REALLY KNOW what actually happened. Russia can’t REALLY be THAT bad or unreasonable or irrational. Surely there’s bad on BOTH SIDES.
Notice that NEVER is any thought given to the OBVIOUS, FACE-VALUE possibility that we are simply observing evil incarnate attempting industrial-scale genocide against an innocent neighbor. There’s a saying, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” Ron Paul isn’t so sure, and thinks maybe it’s actually a horse.
Time Travel Discredits Ron Paul’s Model
I can reliably discredit all Ron Paul’s libertarian framework in these areas using time-travel technology.
The Ron Paul podcast quoted above was on April 5, 2022.
Let’s rewind a few months prior to this podcast — prior to the Feb. 24, 2022 attack — and see what Ron Paul was predicting would happen based on his understanding of Russia.
BEFORE Russia’s invasion started, and before the podcast quoted above, Ron Paul and other prominent like-minded libertarians were CERTAIN Russia wasn’t REALLY going to attack and that all the “fear mongering” in the media was politically driven fake news.
When I was LIVING IN KYIV before the invasion began I desperately wanted to believe that, and even took some comfort in Ron Paul’s confidence that the Russian threat was not that serious. While Ron Paul’s opinion was certainly not the only factor – or even a significant factor – in a way I bet my life on some of the same beliefs and predictions held by Paul. I remained in Kyiv despite all the “fear mongering” media reports.
Then on the early morning of Feb. 24, 2022 I woke to air raid sirens. Ron Paul and all his like-minded libertarians were wrong and my life was in danger.
Ron Paul’s predictions were demonstrably WRONG, which logically means that the presuppositions that led to those predictions (i.e. that Russia is a generally reasonable, rational player) were wrong. One might hope that seeing how wrong he was he might question whether he really understands Russia, the situation in Ukraine, or ANYTHING. Based on his podcast quoted above clearly he hasn’t done this.
I have friends in Kyiv — both Ukrainians and Americans — who prior to the attack believed much as Ron Paul did, that nothing would happen. I BELIEVED THAT TOO. They believed that based on their understanding of Russia, Ukraine, and world affairs in general. Then the air raid sirens and bombs started, and instantly their eyes were opened, and they saw the truth and revised their world view to accommodate the disturbing new data.
I’m sure that’s exactly what Zelensky meant in his New Year’s Eve address when he said “We woke up on February 24. Into another life… The first missiles finally destroyed the labyrinth of illusions. We saw who was who. What friends and enemies are capable of…”
That was the time-travel technology looking back to the past (from the view of the quoted segment). Now let’s zoom forward into the future, after the Ron Paul/Daniel McAdams podcast quoted above.
If the evidence of Bucha was a bit too ambiguous and suspicious for Paul and his libertarian ideology, and if there were too many unanswered questions there, and if maybe it was a case of “bad things happen in war”, WHAT ABOUT MARIUPOL?
Mariupol was a major city of nearly a half million residents. It has been almost completely reduced to rubble. Is Ron Paul suspicious about THAT? Does THAT now possibly prove to his satisfaction that this isn’t a “both sides have blame”, or “there’s no propaganda value for Russia doing this”?
Or, if this news raises many questions and suspicions, perhaps Paul should visit Mariupol and report back to us whether Mariupol is still standing there, unharmed, with Ukrainians happy to be liberated by the Russians from their Nazi Ukrainian government. Maybe he can tell us if there are as “many unanswered questions” about Mariupol as there were in Bucha.
Don’t the events that followed the podcast quoted above PROVE beyond ANY DOUBT that ALL of their suspicions were FALSE, that Russia/Putin really are THAT EVIL. That it isn’t just the good ole “fake news” from the “mainstream media”? Sometimes it’s just exactly what it looks like.
And there is one quote in that podcast that perfectly captures the whole libertarian “non-interventionist” view of foreign affairs, national defense, and war, and screams “naivety” and “pollyannish” on the surface: “ALL I KNOW IS I DON’T LIKE WAR AND I DON’T LIKE THE KILLING…” (3:30 in the video).
Yes, Dr. Paul. We agree. War and killing are bad. And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are good, no one should ever suffer, and everyone should win the lottery.
War and killing are bad, but they are an unfortunate REALITY.
Libertarian non-interventionism is “a beautiful theory beaten to death by a gang of brutal facts”, OVER AND OVER throughout recorded human history.
Russia and Putin are EVIL, and must be stopped, and they DID commit the atrocities in Bucha, Mariupol, and many other places, and we SHOULD get involved. This view matches the facts on the ground better than libertarian naivety.
I stopped listening to Ron Paul after that podcast episode, so maybe real world events that contradict his pollyanna views (the “gang of brutal facts”) have caused him to modify his position. But I doubt it.
It’s not Russia’s fault
Another trick libertarians use to shun moral culpability is to suggest that even if Russia is really doing all these atrocities, it’s not really their fault. They’re just acting reasonably in response to WHAT THE U.S. DID.
Yes, you heard that right, it’s OUR FAULT, because we meddled in Russia’s sphere of influence, expanding NATO into Russia’s “back yard”, and by effectively sponsoring a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2005 and 2014 to try to overthrow the “duly elected government” and install a US-approved leadership.
It’s all complete bullshit that has been thoroughly addressed elsewhere.
For the NATO argument, just read Memo to Macron: Russia doesn’t need security guarantees but Ukraine does.
As for “the U.S. sponsored coup d’état”… It’s ridiculous, and clearly has it’s source in the Kremlin propaganda department.
See Warrant for an Invasion: The Myth of the “American Coups” in Ukraine. 3. Did the U.S. Organize Euromaidan? and What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since Then: A close look at the lies and distortions from Russia apologists and propagandists about the roots of the Ukraine war.
But even if the NATO and coup d’état arguments were true – which they aren’t – how does THAT reduce the responsibility for aiding Ukraine? Wouldn’t it INCREASE that responsibility?
The Verdict is in
As I mention above, people like Tom Woods see a category of libertarians who agree with them on almost everything domestic, but just can’t quite get over the hump of being “pro-war” (like me).
The funny thing is that there was another U.S. leader who actually embraced almost exactly the ideology that I hold: Libertarian at home, hawk abroad. That guy was RONALD REAGAN.
While it may not exactly serve as proof of anything, Reagan’s “domestically libertarian, internationally engaged” (my label) won him two landslide presidential victories (really three if you count his successor’s victory on his coat tails), ended decades of iron clad leftist control, and took down an evil empire – ironically the same evil empire rearing its ugly head now.
See my article What Would Reagan Do? Looking at similar world events during his presidency it’s not hard at all to know what he would do regarding Ukraine.
Libertarian candidates for president can’t garner more than a microscopic sliver of popular support.
There’s a reason for that.
Maybe Libertarians are the ones who have to get over the isolationism hump.