Walter Block: The Libertarian Case for Rand Paul (Revised Version)

Prof. Walter Block Emails: 

Dear Bob:

Could you please post this on target liberty.

I sent the first draft of my essay on Rand Paul to my research assistant, Luis Rivera. I didn’t tell him to keep that to himself. So, he took the initiative, and posted it on facebook which I didn’t want him to do, since it was incomplete. This error was entirely my fault, not Luis’.

Previously, I said this:

Best regards,

Walter

Note: Below is the updated version that  Dr. Block has forwarded. I have already responded in two posts to the draft version:Walter Block Endorses Rand Paul  and A Challenge to Walter Block. I expect to have at least one more response to the endorsement. -RW

“The libertarian case for Rand Paul”

By Walter E. Block

I am a libertarian. I have been one for a long time; since about 1963. I like to think that my libertarian credentials are about as good, among the living, as anyone else’s on the planet. I support Rand Paul for president of the U.S.

Yet, even I must admit, thanks to the sterling work of Robert Wenzel, Justin Raimondo and many others, Rand’s claim to libertarian support has been somewhat tarnished of late in my mind.

Previously, I gave Rand a mark of 70 on my own personal libertarian-o-meter. For comparison purposes, I gave myself a 100 (hey, I have to do so, since this metric measures conformity with my own views), Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard 97s (since I disagree with each of them on only a very few issues), and Gary Johnson, the likely standard bearer of the Libertarian Party in 2016, also a 70. But, thanks to Rand’s changes of policy, typically in a direction away from libertarian purity, I have demoted him to a 60. By the way, no other Republican candidate gets more than a 30, and Hillary weighs in at 5 out of 100. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and the other Fox-ers do not break the 30 mark either despite the fact that they sometimes, rarely, have something nice to say about free enterprise.

Why, then, do I support Rand Paul for president of the U.S.?   I cannot go as far in the defense of this man as Andrew Napolitano ("Rand Paul Is Every Bit As Libertarian As His Father”), but, I insist, there is a strong libertarian case for Rand’s candidacy. Let me count the reasons.

First of all, it is a matter of comparison; the choice for presidency is a relative matter, not an absolute one. Yes, Rand is no pure libertarian, but he is the best candidate with a reasonable shot at winning. When I mention the other likely Republican candidates, any fair-minded libertarian must acknowledge he stands head and shoulders above them all: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Perry, Rubio, Santorum, Walker. Some of them have done a few good things, many bad ones; none of them is in the same league as Rand Paul. It is not even close.

If the master allows his slaves to vote between Overseer Goodie (who beats them once per week) and Overseer Baddie (who does so hourly), and they choose the former, they are making a reasonable choice. Goodie is not great but Baddie is horrid. Rand Paul is no Murray Rothbard, he is no Ron Paul.  But the other Republicans, from a libertarian point of view are vile, disgusting, despicable. There is simply no comparison, even fully acknowledging all of Rand’s flaws from a libertarian point of view.

Yet, some libertarians are so disappointed in Rand that they have publicly stated they would vote for Hillary rather than him. This, surely, is pique, not rationality. This is the case for preferring Baddie to Goodie. This is psychological perturbation, not sensible libertarian strategy. This is barking madness.

Secondly, thanks to Rand, the dreaded “L” word is continuously mentioned. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the major electronic media are continually using this nomenclature. There is hardly a day that goes by that the word “libertarian” is not bruited about. How are we to promote liberty when those with gigantic megaphones refuse to even utter our philosophical name? I don’t credit Rand with all of this publicity. I have not conducted any statistical study of the matter. However, it is my strong impression that before his candidacy the word was hardly used. I expect that if and when Rand Paul drops out of the race, the major media will go back to red and blue (states), left and right, and once again ignore libertarianism, which does not fall into either of these categories.

Third, against thanks to Rand Paul, the name Ron Paul is once again in the news. Again, this is just my subjective impression, but I am a news hound, the major media would dearly love to shove Ron Paul down the memory hole. But with Rand on the scene, they simply cannot. This story, the relationship between father and son, is just too good to be completely ignored. If Rand does nothing more than focus attention on his dad, his candidacy must be counted as a net benefit to our movement.

Fourth, the complaints emanating from libertarian quarters that Rand is not a libertarian are highly problematic. He never once said, to the best of my knowledge, that he was a libertarian. Yes, he characterized himself as a libertarian Republican, as a Republican libertarian, as a conservative libertarian, as a libertarian conservative, as a libertarian constitutionalist and as a constitutionalist libertarian, and several other variations on this theme. He did not, ever, declare himself as a libertarian, plain and simple. So, it is rather harsh for libertarian critics to use this as a measure of the man and to declare him not only wanting, but as a fraud. If his name was Paul Rand, not Rand Paul, and his dad had nothing to do with politics, I warrant that libertarians would be drooling all over him. For, clearly, with the exception of Gary Johnson, who I maintain is cheek by jowl with Rand Paul on any reasonable libertarian-o-meter, there is no one else who even comes close. And, consider Ron Paul’s experience running as a Libertarian in 1988, and then again as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. This shows that the one, in terms of garnering publicity is the major league, while the other is the minor league. Don’t we libertarians want publicity?

Fifth, if libertarians are so venomous toward Rand, they can have little or no influence on his future behavior, his future stances. He has already shown himself as flexible on the issues. If he changed once, or twice, ok, ok, more than that, he can do so even more. John Maynard Keynes famously wrote, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Perhaps the facts of a gigantic, stupendous unemployment rate for black male teens will convince him to come out not only against an increase in the minimum wage, but in total opposition to this pernicious legislation. Perhaps the facts of wildly disproportionate incarceration rates for African-Americans will turn Rand in the direction of favoring elimination of drug laws, at the very least those for marijuana. Perhaps his experience with his fellow senator from Kentucky will teach him not to rely so heavily on mainstream Republicans. Perhaps the vicious way he is now being treated by the neo-cons will bring him back closer to the libertarian fold on foreign policy. In these and all other such ways libertarians might possibly play a role, but not on the basis of this totally dismissive stance they have so far adopted.

Sixth, the longer Rand stays in the race, the more publicity garnered by libertarians; see above. The more money donated to his cause, the longer he can endure in this venture. So, I urge my fellow libertarians to not only financially contribute to his candidacy but to offer him any and all support they can. Suppose Rand Paul stays in until the bitter end. Even if he does not win the nomination, he will thereby increase his chances of being picked for vice-president. This would be yet another gigantic boost to our cause of publicizing liberty. And, happy day, suppose he somehow wrests the nomination away from his Republican competitors. I’d give my eye teeth to witness a series of debates between him and Hillary Clinton, wouldn’t you?

I stand with Rand, and I urge my fellow libertarians, particularly those who have been most dismissive of him, to reconsider their position on this man. The acorn has fallen too far from the tree in this case in my opinion. But, he is by far the best we have. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It cannot be denied that Rand is pretty darned good from a libertarian point of view – compared with the realistic alternatives, and Gary Johnson is not one of them.

Let me deal with an objection to the foregoing.

People who hear Rand Paul for the first time and note his association with libertarianism will garner a false idea of our viewpoint. They will associate the freedom philosophy with his perspective, and this will not help the promotion of private property rights, free enterprise and free association, the bedrocks of libertarianism. Instead, they will think that the Kentucky senator’s watered down views constitute the Rothbardian – Ron Paulian perspective we have all worked so hard to promote.  At best, confusion will prevail; at worst, libertarianism will be seen by all too many as a very weak reed indeed.

Let me say before rejecting this objection that if I thought it had great merit I would not support Rand Paul. I think it is imperative to place before the world uncompromising libertarianism in all of its glory. Looking back at my own career, I think it fair to say that I have devoted a great proportion of my efforts in an attempt to put forth the purist version of it that I could. Much of my writing has focused on criticizing the supposed libertarian credentials of those I deemed not worthy of them. For example, I have maintained that the following are not really unadulterated libertarians, despite being consider so by many others, and, all too often, themselves: Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein, David Boaz, Randy Barnett, David Friedman, Randy Holcombe, Peter Boettke, Dan Klein, Ronald Coase.

Why be so harsh on these others, and yet so forgiving of Rand Paul’s deviations from the One True Political Economic Philosophy? It is simple. In a word, well, a few words, Rand Paul has never ever claimed the mantle of libertarianism (see above). Certainly, he has not once held himself out as any kind of libertarian purist. Yes, there is a danger that some superficial people will equate Rand Paul’s views with libertarianism, and thus come away with a rather erroneous understanding. And, yes, this is always a danger. But, as against that, if they are at all interested in libertarianism, even the Rand Paul version of it, they will likely very quickly become acquainted with the unadulterated viewpoint of his father Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and the writers associated with the Mises Institute and others. Rand Paul, in other words, will likely serve as a gateway to a very pure laissez faire philosophy.

This just in, as I put the finishing touches on this essay (see also here):

“NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field.

“Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"‘The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over,’ Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

"‘There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more,’ Paul said.”

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Junior Senator from Kentucky were named Paul Rand, his taking on of the war mongers in the Republican Party would have critics like Raimondo and Wenzel jumping up and down with glee. Ok, Rand is no Ron. He is no Murray. He has flaws. But he is often pretty darned good.

I stand with Rand.