.jpg)
It’s a safe statement to make that when Mitt Romney is
finally crowned the GOP nominee for president during the Republican National
Convention, any vestige of liberty will be firmly wiped away from the ballot
box come this November. For those who
have followed his campaign in the United States, Congressman Ron Paul has been swindled out of the nomination through
various underhanded tricks at state conventions. The explanation is
straightforward: Paul’s views are
not comfortable within the Republican Party establishment. Today’s GOP is
a party of banker interests, imperialism, and clandestine state empowerment
while claiming to represent small, limited government. Romney embraces
this platform while Paul’s decades-long voting record stands in opposition.
For
towing the party line, Romney has been anointed the “electable” candidate while
Paul has been deemed an extremist. The GOP declares this
while the media parrots the message as it does every election cycle. To
the pundits and writers who cover political affairs, only moderation can win
over a large electorate. The people don’t look kindly upon radicalism or
so it’s alleged.
Ron
Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, has even gone as far as to discourage
dedicated Paulians from voicing their discontentment with the status quo. In a recent New York Times article, Benton shares his
disinterest with so-called “true believers”:
Some true believers want to “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state,’ ” said Mr. Benton, who is married to one of Mr. Paul’s granddaughters. But “it’s not our desire to have floor demonstrations. That would cost us a lot more than it would get us.”
The
often referred to rule of American political campaigns is that candidates should appeal to the party’s base during primary season
but once nominated, should strive to attract the “center.” This strategy is totally
befitting for a whorish game like politics because it allows those seeking
public office to change their rhetoric and tune in order to attract as many
voters as possible. In politics,
principle is placed on the back burner for the glory of supreme victory.
The “center” electorate is just a term used for the majority looking to
government for what they mistakenly believe to be a free lunch.
To
Benton, the political establishment, and the state-worshipping press,
moderation is the rational choice of anyone looking to be taken seriously.
But
what Benton and like-minded thinkers don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge
is that ideas don’t make a lasting impact unless they are logically
consistent. Ron Paul was unique in that he stuck to his message for three
decades and never wavered. He paid the price with being marginalized
while his beliefs were portrayed as archaic. Paul is by no means a
radical in that he recognizes a proper role for the state to guarantee the
liberties of people are protected yet he was rejected just the same. For all the abuse and concessions Paulians have had to make, the
Republican Party has awarded state delegations with large numbers of Paul
supporters “nosebleed” seats at the National Convention; just behind the
delegations from Northern Mariana. Benton’s advice of
toning it down and playing nice did little to change the reception from a
political party not the least interested in representing genuine liberty.
This rejection, while predictable, should serve as an important lesson for advocates
of individual freedom. Temperance in philosophy may be the less arduous road to
take but it will not bring a lasting change.
Because
of the forces pitted against it, the incremental approach toward a free society
has little chance of succeeding. For every step forward comes two or more
back towards socialism or its ugly cousin of corporate fascism. The
ratcheting effect of state power may not be readily apparent but it is in
constant motion. The heart of the state lies not with the legislature
that is still accountable to voters but within the multitude of bureaucracies
that are needlessly large and unaccountable. It is the bureaucracies that are
given the authority of law enforcement. They are usually staffed by
people who enjoy wielding state power and are always on the search for an
excuse to exercise more.
The
result has been various states grotesquely inserting themselves into all
aspects of Western society. Chipping away at their stranglehold
with half-hearted ideals helps little when the statist influence is
everywhere. It must be opposed without remorse on all grounds for any
headway to be made. Benton’s demeaning characterization of black-clothed
activists who refuse to buddy up with what they see as evil undermines
liberty’s very cause. It is the radicals, not the moderates, who hold the
water for the freedom movement. They provide the intellectual vision for
what could be achieved. And when push comes to shove, they will not sell
out.
Liberty
is far too important to be dumbed down, conceded, or sold for a marginal
victory. The case for freedom is to be unapologetic
because it embodies the great desire for justice above all else. The
ruling class within or closely affiliated with the central state operates
outside the bounds of moral law. Murder, theft, and fraud are all dear
functions of government. Behind the propaganda, aggression is always the
true nature of the state. While it is certainly true that easing the
burden of taxation or cutting down on the amount of imperial crusades are
laudable goals, they should not be ends in themselves. The goal is liberation
from institutionalized coercion and nothing less. Murray Rothbard once
likened the cause of liberty to the oppression faced by the people of Ireland
by the British when he wrote:
"the goal of ending English oppression — that could have been done by the instantaneous action of men’s will: by the English simply deciding to pull out of the country."
The
fact that of course such decisions do not take place instantaneously is not the
point; the point is that the very failure is an injustice that has been decided
upon and imposed by the perpetrators of injustice — in this case, the English
government. In the field of justice, man’s will is all; men can move mountains,
if only men so decide.
The
pervasiveness of the state is the most compelling crisis of our time and is not
limited to the Western world alone. Economically
and morally, those laws and freedoms which sustain civilized life are withering
away. Economists
speak in terms of government spending crowding out private investment because
the money squandered on political projects must come from the pockets of the
public. The effect also applies to the notions of self-responsibility, a
natural right to acquired property, and the unwillingness to employ violence
which have all been purposefully tamed and made acceptable through the actions
of the welfare-warfare state apparatus. In essence, the ability to live
life with little interference from Leviathan has become crowded out.
Countering
this trend is no easy task. Government attracts large amounts of
resources not just through theft but also by attracting power hungry
individuals. Those who earn a living through the police state, the
educational establishment, the mainstream press, and the central
bank-controlled financial system enjoy their state privileges and will do what
it takes to maintain them. Educating the public on both the benefits of
liberty and to withdraw “consent to its own enslavement” as Etienne de la
Boetie put it is difficult to carry on against entrenched interests. It
is nonetheless a fight worth carrying on with one clear objective in mind: for
all men to live free from coercion. It is a passion best embodied in a
quote from 19th century abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who when asked why
he spoke so fervently on the need to end slavery immediately, he retorted
“I
have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.”
No comments:
Post a Comment