Pico and Savonarola
I find myself deeply conflicted when I watch the news of the financial collapse. There is a part of me which likes to see the wicked get their deserts. If I were to give this subpersonality a name, Savonarola would be as good as any. The United States is suffering today from its own love affair with an enjoy now, pay later, economy, a love affair which has turned sour as all worldly loves tend to do.
In Medici Florence at the end of the 15th century something similar occured. People who had been living beyond their means suddenly found themselves forced to make a virtue of poverty due to social upheaval. Enter Savanarola, your typical “mad monk” of the Black Legend. It would seem that this charming fellow, if the reports are to be believed, wanted to make a bonfire of the accomplishments of the Italian Renaissance. As soon as a revolution placed him in power he became the original “liberation theologian” liberating the Florentines from their priceless artworks and incunablia.
Burn baby burn! There is something purifying about a fire, an indeed any human calamity. When we see the sinners punished it gives a sort of vicarious thrill does it not? It must or, for example, CNN would not be featuring a TOP TEN WANTED LIST of America’s miscreant financial elite. The flames are cracking and the hour of revenge is at hand. My inner Savonarola is waxing rightous.
But there is another part of me which watches in horror at the destruction of my nation’s wealth. Fundamentally, I am not a Savonarola, but a Pico de la Mirandola. Like the latter man, a scholar and an epicure, I take a chivalrous attitude towards the works of human art. There is no production of the human mind so vulgar or pagan that I would not wish to salvage it for the critical inspection of posterity.
And in today’s bonfire there is much which cries out for salvation. As the mendacious mogels of mortgages go up in flames many an innocent bystander is being scorched as well. The psychology of markets, the interlocking of interest rates and the clearing of prices ensure that many people who saved and made sound, even ethical decisions are being hurt by the unscrupulous trend-setters. Hard working employees of mismanaged companies are the fired without notice as executives cushion their fall from grace.
But the flames are not easily appeased. Too much fuel has already been fed to them, and they are spreading through the forum. In the end Pico decides to his lot in with Savonarola. “Yes, let it all burn! These vanities have dragged us down into hell. Let them perish…if only we can escape with our naked souls and our freedom intact!”
And so it all went in…the paintings and the sculptures and the books. It will be sad indeed if the analogy holds true and America is stripped as bare as Florence was in the aftermath of Savonarola. But the tragedy didn’t end there, for eventually Savonarola himself went the way of the vanities, and Pico too disapeared.
We’ll just have to wait and see if history persists in repeating itself. Meanwhile, in my inner world, Savonarola and Pico are locked in furious struggle. And I suspect I am not unique in that respect.
The “remnant”
It seems as if everybody is a “libertarian” these days. Have you ever smoked pot…you’re a libertarian. Do you want to pay less taxes? You’re a libertarian. Do you think that after bailing out the financial class to the tune of 700 billion (which they maintain is necessary to avoid a crash) some inquiries should be made as to the propriety of golden parachutes? Congratulations, you’re a libertarian!
Libertarinanism is mainstream today. Ask Bob Barr…who thinks the US military should get out of Iraq…but not necessarily Pakistan or Colombia. Ask Tyler Cowen who thinks government should be allowed to expand at or less than the rate of growth of GNP. (With negative growth, that may be a proposal for drastic reduction in the near future!) Ask Joe the Plumber! And these are the good guys!
In contrast, a bad guy would, I suppose, be Alan Greenspan who masqueraded as both an economist and a libertarian on the strength of his personal relationship (not as tight as Nathaniel Brandon’s, but good enough) with Ayn Rand. Thank you Mr. Greenspan for almost single handedly destroying the American economy! No, we don’t expect you to know anything about the Austrian bussiness cycle theory…because you never studied Austrian economics. But you are a self described classical liberal aka “libertarian”…can you define that?
The oracle replies, “Yes, a classical liberal is someone who, at least at heart, thinks that it is best for the banks to maintain low interest rates.”
Thank you, we are astounded and illuminated, to the extent that we have no reply….except….
True Libertainism
(Or classical liberalism, if you will) is the belief that there is a natural law which superceeds any law promulgated by a parliament, congress, or diet. If a legislative body passes a law which, say, permits anyone to murder someone with red hair, then, according to a libertarian, that law is immediately void. It is not voided by judicial review. The extra-natural law edict is a dead letter and of no force.
The principle of obedience to natural law is, I humbly submit, of more fundamental importance than low interest rates, or even the principle on loans!
The mainstream libertarians are for the most part utilitarians, tinkering with the notion of limiting a government which has long since gone beyond any sane limit in terms of expenditure, infringement of civil rights, or executive centralization. Only a small “remnant”, to use the phrase of Albert J. Nock, has the historical perspective to realized that the natural law justification of the state has long since been violated.
The Man and the Party
The closest thing to a libertarian party in existence today is the Constitution Party, which is fielding the Baldwin/Castle ticket in this season’s presidential contest. There is a certain amount of odium attached to this party from the perspective of libertarians. It is rumored that it is a stalking horse for theocrats. But hold your Savanarolas a minute and take a look at the facts.
Yes, at one time there was a “theocrat problem” in the Constitution party. There was a point at which an extremist wing was trying to purge the party of all but Protestant fundamenalists. These people lost and they lost big. Today the Baldwin/Castle ticket is canvasing the support of all people of good will…Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jew….Righteous Atheist….anybody!
Like Thomas Aquinas seven hundred years earlier, Chuck Baldwin recognizes the existence of two layers of truth, natural and revealed. Whether god is a unity or a trinity, what direction to pray in, and the number of divine commandments, if any, are theological questions which can only be answered within the context of particular faith communities. However the existence of natural law, the inviolability of the person and property of one’s neighbor, is a manifest truth which doesn’t require faith in a theological sense. It is this principle of natural law, not any sectarian confession, which the Baldwin campaign stands for.
All the other parties are pushing utilitarian theories in accordance with the class interests which they represent. So what do you want…low interest rates, high interest rates….or are you acutally interested in in truth and justice? If the latter you are one of the “remnant” who will be voting for Chuck Baldwin this season.
You may not be voting for a winner, but to borrow another phrase from Albert J. Nock, you’ll be “Doing the right thing!”
Patronizing the Opposition, Loosing the Base
Just when you thought the McCain/Palin ticket couldn’t call its plays any worse…they’ve decided to pal around on the comedy circuit. Oh yes, we know what they had in mind. One of the strong points of the ticket is supposed to be the image of “just folks.” I’m not sure that military brahmin McCain can pass muster as a latter day Sad Sack, but the Governor of Alaska as Little Miss Average certainly was the real thing. But by going from the butt of prime time comedy to full time participants they may have finally overplayed the cracker barrel cousin card.
McCain apologized twice on the Letterman program for a previous no show. Is this supposed to demonstrate his humility? Any one who thinks so can also be excused for thinking that the momentary suspension of his political campaign had any effect on America’s economic debacle. As far as Palin’s humiliating appearance on Saturday Night Live is concerned, the less said the better.
Pehaps some people in their respective staffs remembered (giving them more credit for acuity than they probably deserve) the gracious and enjoyable appearace of Rep. Ron Paul on Comedy Central. If so, the analogy was a mistaken one. Comedy Central was sympathetic to the Good Doctor from the outset, and Paul’s genuine (not feigned) humility showed through in its usual light handed way. If there is a lesson to be learned here, and from Palin’s appearance on SNL in particular, it should be phrased as a general political rule: Don’t accept invitations from media where the chief intention is to humiliate your candidate. Of course Palin’s handler’s cant understand the distinction between a journalistic interview where their candidate might disgrace herself unintentionally and intentional degradation. That sort of thing is painful to watch.
And have not doubt about this: the base is sure to be offended too. The crackerbarrel cousin set has a fine nose for the distinction between “just josh’n” and being made a fool of. The SNL skit was of the latter ilk.
There are only two candidates major or minor who have the gravitas which contemporary Americans crave…no matter how much they may claim to love their MTV: Barry Obama and Chuck Baldwin. On various grounds I prefer the latter.
Barr? No gravitas there I’m afraid. Nader? Perhaps humorous in the sense of another SNL spinoff: ”Groundhog Day.”
Can Europeans be better NeoConservatives than Americans? Yep, they’re gonna Party like its 1787!
The European council has just finished its deliberations “with complete success.” What a contrast between the long faces of Bush, Paulson, Bernake and Co.. and the smiling faces of the representatives of Europe’s technorati. Since the gloom and doom has pretty much spread itself around the world in equal measure, what strange variable has caused this burst of euphoria among Europe’s unelected leaders?
In the US of A, the economic contraction only facilitates the further entrenchment of the federal government as the arbiter of human destiny, through the Economic Stabilization and Recovery act of 2008. But in Europe where a federal system is still nothing more than a gleam in its wannabe founder’s eyes, the economic crisis is creating the kind of precedent that Shay’s rebellion offered for the US federalists in 1787. The gloating techno-elite is talking in only slightly veiled terms of a reinstatement of the Lisbon treaty, Europe’s equivalent of the document which, produced by the constitutional convention, became the constitution of the United States.
Someone lightheartedly suggests, “I am sure that President Sarkozy would like to become the first leader of Europe.” Sarkozy makes no objection.
Somewhere in the North Atlantic an entire country is sinking. Nobody pays any attention to the distress signals. Sarkovsky continues with his Cartesian sang-froid. ”We should be thinking about many things…how many currencies we should have in the world….” Everything is up for grabs, the time of the great promulgations is at hand, a time to utter edicts which will decide the course of future generations. The European Commission acting as a Committee of Public Safety…who’s head will stay on who’s head, and prevail to think the thoughts of the future human race…if we decide, indeed, to call it “the human race”?
And, (this being in the thoughts, not the spoken councels, of the Eurocrats) as for that small country sinking in the North Atlantic. That too can be made use of! Even the American federal government could not come about without making examples of certain recalcitrants. These Icelanders…how much they resemble South Carolina in the time of DeToqueville! Let them become an Autonomous Republic of the Russian Federation! That will teach anyone who refuses the terms of our Union! And while the American incident was post facto to union, ours will be ex ante! You see, we will outdo the Americans in the end!
“The Lesser of Two Goods”
Author and writer on moral theology Lawrence Vance has penned an incisive analysis of presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin’s politics on the Lew Rockwell site:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance151.html
I would like to say that this is an endorsement by Vance of Baldwin, but for technical reasons only fully comprehensible to theologians in Pensacola FL, Vance eschews the formal term “endorsement.”
Let’s face it, for us ordinary sinners (libertarians and whatnot) Pensacola FL is a pretty scary place, stuck as it is out on the Gulf Coast between the hard place of military discipline and hard rock of its flourishing and fundamental churches. So Mr. (I think he is a lay-theologian not a Rev.) Vance has come to the aid of us backsliders and philistines, with the assurance that his fellow Pensacolan not only has no intentions of establishing the Kingdom of God by edict…but that his version of liberty under the constitution is actually more reasonable and practical than anything that the Libertarian Party has managed to come up with in recent history.
Let’s face it, a lot of hand holding and reassurance is in order. If you have ever been to Pensacola you’ll realize that it is nothing so much as a miniaturized and modernized version of ancient Constantinople. It was said that in Constantinople of the fifth century that if you went to a baker, in stead of the price of bread you would have to defend your understanding of the Trinity, if you went to a barber the small talk was all about the economy of the Incarnation, and if you had your shoes repaired you were liable to stumble on the cobbler’s opinion on valid apostolic succession. Likewise a rigorous Pensacola lay-theologian like Lawrence Vance does not allow loose language like “endorsement” to pass his lips, for it might put the rest of us under obligation to vote for Chuck Baldwin at penalty of near-mortal sin.
Endorsement or none, one gets a very edifying view of Baldwin from Vance’s article. Interestingly enough the two Pensacolans are not close friends, which eliminates the “favor” factor. And Vance being Vance: he rails against military service in wartime as intrinsically evil and sinful…that in a town crawling with naval service men, we can eliminate the “fear” factor as well! So Vance’s quasi-endorsement (remember the Ron Paul’s was really only “qausi” as well) is not only made without fear or favor…but is an attempt to overcome fear itself. The fear, by libertarians, of Pensacola Baptists.
Given that our choice in the major parties is between a stealth Socialist and an aging bipolar militarist, it is time to confront our fears. So listen all you lifestyle libertarians out there, take a swig of Jack Daniels or a puff of marijuana, screw up your courage and vote for the preacher man!
The republic you save may be your own.
With Two Shooting Wars still Roiling and the Economy Tanking, Media Managed Politics Has Ceased to be Amusing
In some quarters the last Obama/McCain debate is being called the worst in history. It was certainly the most boring. Even the much ballyhooed Biden/Palen event was little more than an exercise in damage control and image management by tacit agreement.
The yokels who constitute the Republican base are finally wising up to the fact that this election is a joke, and seem willing to blame anyone but themselves. They demand “tough talk” from McCain, and even get it from his accessorized pit bull on occasion, but they know not whereof they speak. All that these Republican wowsers are asking for is more ad hominum attacks against Obama, nothing substantive. How could they demand anything substantive when the fight for substance was already lost during the Republican primary. It never occurs to them to ask for anything ideological, because they are (to borrow an epithet from the Randians) totally “concrete-bound.”
Think of that for a minute! With the biggest financial crisis since 1933 on our hands, the only thing that the Republican base can agree on is Obama’s connection with Ayers! Now, I’m not minimizing what Obama’s past association with Ayers and others of a more or less leftist-to-communist ilk indicates about the basic ideological preferences of the man who is almost certain to be the next president of the United States. But there is nothing to be done about it at this point, and furthermore Obama long ago decided that “Paris is worth a mass” switching from radical leftist to Fabian socialist…a move that allowed him to buddy up to the financial elite.
But more importantly, we’re not in Kansas anymore Dorothy! The way the economy is going an increasing number of Americans are going to be attracted, rather than repelled, by Obama’s lurid radical past. Its pitchfork time and radical populism is on the agenda again. The tragedy is that when America lurches left, as it is almost sure to do, it will be through a combination of fiat and stealth…not reasoned political discourse and decision.
There will be no injustice if Obama trounces McCain in November. Obama has worked harder for the job as well as having a better temperament for it. The tragedy is the the political process has been short-circuited by a combination of party bosses and media moguls. In the Democratic and Republican primaries, whenever it seemed as if there might be some substantive discussion of issues, these were quickly sidetracked by matters of style and personality. Obama certainly does have a kind of agenda, but he was able to triumph only by keeping nine-tenths of it (like the proverbial iceberg) out of sight. Democrats, awed by his youth and his race, were not inclined to question him on specifics.
McCain, on the other hand, never had any specifics to offer in the first place. He has always been a military man, who’s fit into the mufti of politics is as painful to watch as his stiff walk in a business suit. No doubt the Keating five episode soured him on any deep cognitive involvement with questions of economics. So during the era which lasted from 9/11/01 to last month he hunkered down in his comfort zone as a loyal representative of the military-industrial complex. That has all changed now, to such an extent that one begins to wonder if he even wants the office that he is running for any more. I know that sounds incredible, but numerous slips of the tongue and body language would seem to indicate it. To an ardent Black Republican supporter he replies “You are more likely to be rewarded in heaven than on earth.” True of us all hopefully…but hardly the sort of thing that anyone in their right mind would say stumping for the highest office of the land! But then of course, its never been entirely clear that McCain is in his right mind…which is all the more reason why those who nominated him as the Republican candidate richly deserve an Obama landslide.
So has it come to that? Will the anger and fear among the American electorate be channeled into the creation of a United Socialist States of America? If we are to have demagoguery, can’t we at least get a clash of visions and a choice before going under? Are there any minor party contenders who could make a break for it when the Republican party implodes? And make no mistake about it, at this moment the Republican party is every bit as sound as Wall Street…perhaps more so.
One interesting phenomena is that recent polls have shown that when minor parties are factored in they take more votes away from McCain than Obama. This even applies to Nader for some reason, although I am not sure that it applies to the Greens. Of course there is Bob Barr, who might take enough votes away from McCain to swing Georgia to Obama, much in the way that minor party candidates are already eroding McCain’s support in Florida.
Of course eroding McCain’s support as a protest move is one thing, providing a viable alternative is something else again. As I have mentioned previously, Chuck Baldwin has the true voice of a populist…and if Chuck were to unleash the kind of rhetoric in a national forum that he usually reserves for kerygmatics people would be stunned into the realization that they had another William Jennings Bryan on their hands. So far this hasn’t happened, partially due to obstacles set up by the MSM, and (this is just a strong suspicion on my part) perhaps due to the fact that the amateurish and divided Constitution party hasn’t been able to put together the kind of human and financial resources which are necessary to sustain a serious run for national office.
So the choice for anyone who wants to see some sort of alternative is to act now and come out with strong support for their favored third party. Either that or pull the covers over your head and not get out of bed until Inauguration day.
WWJD vs. WWHLMD
I was hoping to hear more from Chuck Baldwin, who was scheduled for an interview on the Gary Baumgarten show, but the Constitution Party candidate for the American presidency failed to appear, creating a minor “snubgate” on Baumgarten’s air time. Recall that I, like many Ron Paul enthusiasts, am supporting the candidacy of Rev. Baldwin in part because of the shoddy treatment given to Dr. Paul by another third party candidate. No, I am not switching back to Bob Barr of the Libertarian party, but I am saddened that Rev. Baldwin was not able to get the kind of exposure which the rough and tumble of an open on-line mike would have provided. I believe that he would have acquitted himself well…but then of course I can only speculate.
In the absence of Rev. Baldwin, the show was reduced to a generalized discussion of the prospects of third parties in American politics. The only way that Mr. Baumgarden could maintain a focus for discussion was by invoking discussion of the more odiously theocratic points of the Constitution party’s preamble. At that point the die was cast, and the tone of the discussion became increasingly critical, or at least dismissive of the Baldwin candidacy.
Personally I think a secularist can vote for Chuck Baldwin in good conscience, if by a secularist we mean someone who believes in the separation of church and state. It is true that the platform of the Constitution party has definite theocratic overtones, but (as was pointed out on the show) Rev. Baldwin is using the Constitution party as a vehicle for his candidacy, and independents or members of other parties (such as myself) are voting for the man, not the party platform. So the question becomes: what kind of man is this?
That is one reason why Baldwin’s no-show was so disappointing…I think he would have represented himself much better than a mechanical interpretation of his party’s platform. None the less, Chuck Baldwin has written extensively on a wide variety of topics, and there is nothing difficult about getting a well rounded acquaintance with his views, which are posted on many Internet venues, including, but not limited to, that of the Constitution party, the Baldwin/Castle campaign, and the home site of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola FL.
At the outset there is much material which would not sit well with anyone who is not a fundamentalist protestant Christian. For example, it emerges that Rev. Baldwin was closely mentored by the famous (or infamous, depending on one’s point of view) Rev. Jerry Falwell in his formative years, being a member of the first graduating class from Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg VA.
Personally, I could never have voted for Jerry Falwell if he had decided to run for President of the United States of America. Theological questions by themselves would have made me skeptical of him. But the proper question here is not WWJD (What would Jesus do?)…because if you wait to vote for a politician who is in 100% of agreement with one’s theological and moral beliefs one is likely to forfeit the franchise entirely! For better or worse, modern democracies work on the principle of theological compromise. We who believe in religion find ourselves in the position of the monarchists during the French 3rd Republic. They could never agree among themselves which king to restore…the prince of Bourbon, of Orleans, or of the Bonapartists. In the end they had to admit: “a republic divides us least!”
Likewise, even those of us who put religion at the center of our personal life find out sooner or later that “a secular republic divides us least.” In the political sphere we can’t afford to think in terms of what a perfect man would choose to create a perfect society. We have to lower our sights and contemplate what a flawed man, albeit a flawed man who wanted to live in reasonable harmony and cooperation with others, would choose. I can’t think of anyone more flawed, more secular or more tolerant than H.L.Mencken…and if we go off the political gold standard of theocracy and regroup around the silver standard of a libertarian commonwealth, such as Menken might have approved of…then we will be doing well, since the realistic alternative is the fiat standard by which a dictatorship of social engineering and radical egalitarianism will gradually install itself. We would do well to ask ourselves WWHLMD: What Would H.L.Mencken do?
While it is quite impossible to imagine H.L. Mencken as a Jerry Falwell enthusiast, Chuck Baldwin and his mentor are very distinct people. Granted, the difference in their style of thinking is so nuanced that most secularists will have neither the patience or the inclination to discover it. It would be like asking people who have no interest in Christian theology to explain the difference between Augustine and Aquinas…yet as with the ancient doctors of religion, these modern preachers harbor some very fundamental differences, albeit the latter being partially dependent on the former. It would seem that Baldwin, in contrast to the snap-judgements which some evangelical pastors, notably Falwell, have occasionally confounded with the certitude of faith, has deliberated long and hard (he would probably say prayerfully) on the question of what a just political society would look like…and this reflection has brought him an authentic appreciation of what might be called “liberalism” in the sense that Hayek, or Mencken, might have used the term. Needless to say, “liberalism” is not a term which Baldwin uses, for his views have nothing to do with either the social liberalism of the Democrats, or the lifestyle libertarianism of those who have usurped the term. But the essentials are all there: peace in foreign relations and minimal government at home. This is an abbreviated version of the Ron Paul program…and by extension something which a latter day H.L. Mencken could embrace.
But what about all that odious theocratic stuff in the party platform? First of all, we ought to recognize by now that party platforms are more often honored in the breach than upheld as guides to policy. It is the man, not the document, which should be our concern. None the less, we can re-frame that concern by asking if an evangelical pastor, once launched on the stage of national politics, can be anything else but a demagogue. Certainly Falwell came across as a demagogue to his antagonists. However Baldwin has evolved beyond Falwell’s rhetoric of public accusation, and has honed the fine art of enunciating moral principles in irenic and reasoned tones. When a pastor enters politics, whatever his views on the establishment of religion might be, he dooms himself if he fails to understand the separation of his church pulpit from public fora. There must be two ways of speaking, one of which must remain strictly confined to the congregation and the denomination to which he ministers. From the evidence that I have seen so far, it appears that Baldwin has mastered the art of reasoned public discourse, a mastery which is certainly superior to John McCain’s, and rivals even that of the supposedly flawless Obama. Again, it would have been interesting to hear Baldwin’s response to the rough and tumble online at the Baumgarten show, if only to verify the Baptist preacher’s facility at turning the rhetorical cheek.
Like all virtues, the Rev. Baldwin’s (at least hitherto) irenicism comes with a price tag. We are now at turning point in American history, one at which the art of populist demagoguery is likely to experience a grand revival. I would love to hear Chuck Baldwin torch the beneficiaries of the 700 billion dollar bailout in the same hellfire and brimstone accents that he uses when he denounces the rich elites in his church. Moreover, a lot can happen in the month before the election, and we may still see this champion of the Lord, slingshot in hand, march out to challenge the Goliaths which now have this nation in their loathsome grips.
If that should happen, I would hope that our gentle secularists will not take fright. After all, it is certainly true that Rev. Baldwin is a kind of “extremist” and there are all sorts of excuses for not giving him one’s fullest support. Why, according to our latter-day follower of Mencken, should I support Baldwin who I agree with only 60% of the time, when I could support Barr who I agree with 90% of the time? Why indeed, except to put a premium on solidity and constancy, since Barr’s convictions may change tomorrow while Baldwin is a solid, and perchance as stubborn, as a rock.
So what would H.L. Mencken do in 2008? Of course I don’t know. Perhaps he wouldn’t vote at all, which is a legitimate reaction to the political realities of this election where our choices have been so dictated and circumscribed. But I wouldn’t put it past him to vote for a southern evangelical populist, someone akin to his great courtroom charactature of William Jennings Bryan. I suspect this could happen, not just because Mencken was an eccentric, and eccentrics take delight in doing the unexpected, but because we are now in the odd situation where a candidate fielded by a nominally theocratic party offers a platform which is closer to the original program of Menckenian libertarianism than any other ticket, including, disgracefully enough, the Libertarian party itself.
Jesus and Mencken voting for the same ticket? Will miracles never cease? I’ll bet’cha Chuck Baldwin thinks they won’t!
A Scholar and a Gentleman goes Ballistic “American Gothic” in Response the Sellout
Yes, the House has capitulated to the new, improved, pork laced version of the bailout bill. Proving, with Euclidean clarity, that the American political system no longer represents the people but is beholden to the financial elites (plus some other elites, oil, military…the list goes on.)
Economist and scholar Thomas DiLorenzo, writing on the Lew Rockwell blog has expressed a reaction that goes a tad beyond his usual mild (guffaw) scholarly rebuffs of the federal state:
“I just returned from Home Depot where I bought the biggest pitchfork that they had. I’m soaking some rags with kerosine, to be wrapped around a broom handle and then set on fire. Then I’m heading down to the Baltimore-Washington parkway to D.C.. I’m hoping a large crowd will follow my example.”
Unfortunately I live far from the Baltimore-Washington D.C. parkway…but if the weather is as nice there as it is here today it would be a wonderful time to go for a stroll!
From Snubgate to Substance…Free at Last!
After a long hiatus Friends of Ron Paul in Japan is bloging again.
A major reason for the hiatus was that Ron Paul slowly withdrew from the race, sending mixed signals to his supporters as to what he was recommending as the next move for friends of liberty and peace. Although there were plenty of Ron Paul sponsored or approved events and activities, non of these really made up for the lack of a clear endorsement. That has all changed now: Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin’s candidacy for president, albeit in his usual understated and gentle way.
The endorsement actually came about as the result of a two step process. Indeed, in lieu of a specific chain of events the endorsement, such as it is, might never have come about at all. From the beginning, Dr. Paul was bound by his own high sense of honor and understanding of friendship to be noncommittal, since, on the one hand, he has been a past Libertarian party candidate and still remains friendly with elements of the party which nominated Bob Barr, and on the other hand has a high regard for many of the principles espoused by Chuck Baldwin, the nominee of the Constitution party.
To solve this moral dilemma (note:the very notion of a moral dilemma is a rare thing among anyone involved in the political process these days!) Dr. Paul decided he would give a generic endorsement to any and all third party movements. To this end he gathered all the remotely viable candidates, left and right, for an interview, establishing a kind of concordat of solidarity against the monopoly of the two major parties. The Constitution, Green, and Naderite candidates were all present…and of course Bob Barr had been invited as well.
What ensued has now been called “snubgate” by critics of Bob Barr. On the very day of the meeting Barr went back on his previous commitment to attend. In Bob Barr’s view, all minor candidates might be equal, but some were more equal than others…the “some” in this case being those fielded by the Libertarian party. True, there is evidence that the LP is the biggest frog in the rather small pool of minor party competition, but there are at least two mitigating factors. First, the LP itself was, in the eyes of many of its founders, never intended to “sieze the power of government” but only permitted to exist (in the eyes of its anarchist wing at least) to further the political education of the electorate. Second, Bob Barr himself seems to be a libertarian (small initial) more out of opportunity than conviction.
If so, he lost a golden opportunity when he refused to show up at Ron Paul’s press conference for minor party candidates. If my reading of Ron Paul’s motivations is correct, the good doctor was trying to be more than fair to a man who, from the begining, was only his second choice for an endorsement. But snubgate freed the Republican representative from Lake Jackson to go beyond rejecting Sen. McCain, and beyond even a vague expression of solidarity with minor partys. He had done his best to conciliate the Libertarian candidate, and the conciliation had been rejected in as rude a fashion as could be imagined.
He was free to say…”I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin.”
I suspect that Ron Paul was intending to vote for the Constitution party candidate in any event, but that had planned to keep his preference moot…knowing that revealing his vote would have the force of an endorsement. Of course, knowing that telling your vote has the force of an endorsement, and then telling your vote anyway constitutes an endorsement.
Partly, although not entirely, on the strength of Dr. Paul’s endorsement, I have decided for Baldwin/Castle in 2008. Further blogs in this space during the coming month will be dedicated to explaining why, among the remaining choices left on the ballot, the Baldwin/Castle ticket offers the best option for advocates of peace and freedom.
