Tag Archives | Democracy

It Is A Sin To Write This

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

Okay, I’m going to give myself a demerit every time I post about Mary Ruwart’s candidacy (starting now – my previous posts don’t count), as an (admittedly feeble) check against the tendency of electoral politics to infect my blogging’s mostly-anti-electoral perspective. But this post is also about me, so I don’t feel too guilty about this one.

Last week I grumped about the omission of Ruwart from Ken Rudin’s story about the LP presidential race. I also dropped a note to Rudin himself – who quotes from my note in his latest piece. So, see, this post was about me, like I said.

Agorist Demerit Count: 1


If You Vote, Vote for Ruwart

Okay, I promise I don’t want this blog to become Ruwartcentric in the way that LRC for a while was Paulocentric; but bear with me for a moment. I just want to note that I’ve offered the Ruwart campaign the following endorsement, or quasi-endorsement-ish thingy. (Whether they will post it on their endorsements page I don’t know.) See my clarificatory note afterward, below.

I was delighted to learn that Dr. Mary Ruwart has declared her candidacy for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.

We sometimes hear that in choosing a Libertarian Party candidate there’s a necessary trade-off between consistency and persuasiveness – that an unswerving adherence to libertarian principle is incompatible with presenting libertarianism to newcomers in a non-off-putting way, so that candidates must either be thoroughgoing libertarians who alienate voters, or else wishy-washy moderates who water down the ideas to win people over.

Alliance of the Libertarian Left logo superimposed on Mary Ruwart Mary Ruwart’s candidacy represents an ideal opportunity for the Party to avoid both horns of this dilemma. On the one hand, in her longstanding commitment to liberty she is uncompromising – arguably more so (and certainly no less so) than any previous LP presidential candidate. But on the other hand, she is extraordinarily gifted at presenting radical ideas in a compelling and non-threatening way; in this respect she contrasts positively with all too many LP candidates who present far more moderate positions in a manner that makes them sound far more extremist!

A crucial part of Dr. Ruwart’s effectiveness as a libertarian communicator is her ability to bring out the pro-common-people, anti-privilege aspect of libertarian economic ideas. Because, let’s face it, libertarianism has a reputation problem. Many non-libertarians see it as a philosophy for those who glorify the corporate elite and have little concern with poverty, racism, or the environment – and libertarians’ own rhetoric can all too often contribute to this perception.

I can’t think of any candidate who could do more to combat this stereotype than Mary Ruwart. In particular, Dr. Ruwart is better than any other candidate I know of at dispelling the charge that free market principles benefit the rich at the expense of the poor; in fact, nearly every chapter of her excellent outreach book Healing Our World (buy lots of copies and distribute them widely!) has a section explaining how in fact the “rich get richer” and “poor get poorer” thanks to government intervention. Her approach might best be described as the pursuit of Green ends by Libertarian means – and it’s an approach whose attractiveness she has a remarkable ability to convey.

Thanks to Dr. Ruwart’s decision to enter the race, there is no need for the “Party of Principle” to choose between principle and practicality. I enthusiastically urge all Libertarian Party members to support Mary Ruwart’s candidacy for the presidential nomination.

Roderick T. Long
Philosophy Professor at Auburn University,
and Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies

Does this mean that Mary Ruwart has lured me back to believing that a focus on electoral politics is the most effective strategy for the libertarian movement? Nah. But I think self-identified libertarian political candidates definitely affect public awareness and perception of libertarian ideas, and thereby have an impact on the success of non-electoral libertarian strategies as well, so as long as there’s an LP it matters who its candidates are. And as an effective communicator of a (relatively) left-oriented, Green-tinted, “bleeding-heart” version of libertarianism that is nevertheless at the same time fairly radical/consistent/plumbline/purist, Mary would help to build and shape a libertarian movement that is all those things as well – which is the kind of libertarian movement I want. Moreover, as Less Antman points out, Mary’s campaign should also boost sales of her books and thus help to spread radical libertarian ideas, a welcome result even for anti-electoral libertarians.


Good Cult, Bad Cult

The supposedly moderate Cato Institute is promoting a book called The Cult of the Presidency, even as the supposedly radical Libertarian Party quakes in perpetual terror of the phrase “cult of the omnipotent state” in its own platform for fear it will make the party look immoderate. Go figure.


You Can’t Spell RUWART Without WAR

Healing Our World - old and new editions Mary Ruwart’s candidacy is a great opportunity to promote her book Healing Our World. (Obviously her book can also be used to promote her candidacy, but for those of us whose chief strategic focus is social transformation in the long run rather than winning votes in the short run, the first way of putting it is more salient.) Buy the new edition, Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression (plus extra copies to inflict on your friends, especially your liberal/lefty friends), or read the earlier edition, Healing our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, for free online (and send the link around). (By the way, although the new edition is a fair bit longer than the old one, it’s not quite as thick as the accompanying pic would imply.)

This is an especially good book to introduce to people who think that free-market policies benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. (Plus Ruwart manages to make radical positions seem friendly and unthreatening, unlike some libertarians spokesfolk who manage to make even fairly moderate positions sound alarming.)


Barr None

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

“Bob Barr … probably will seek and get the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party,” opines George Will. (Conical hat tip to Lew Rockwell; italics mine.)

Vote for my hands or else they will shoot each other! Is Will right about the “getting” part? Will the delegates in Denver really choose as squishy a libertarian as Barr (who, for example, has been saber-rattling over Latin America and favours banning drugs at the state level) over more consistently libertarian candidates like Ruwart or Kubby? I’m inclined to doubt it; I know that the LP has grown less radical over the years, but it’s not my impression that the corruption has progressed that far.

Of course I could be wrong; I’m not as involved with the LP as I used to be, so maybe I’m out of touch. And certainly one could point to the gutting of the platform as evidence of how far the LP has slid. But it’s my impression that the platform-gutting was put through as something of a stealth measure; moreover, the relative radicalism of the last two nominees, Browne and Badnarik, suggests that radicalism still sells in the Party. (Badnarik was less radical than Browne, but still more than Barr, and at least as much as the other major contenders for the nomination that year.) So although I wouldn’t have been surprised at Ron Paul’s getting the LP nomination if he were to seek it, I’m betting against Barr.

Incidentally, a question for my fellow Rothbardians: Ruwart is clearly the most Rothbardian candidate in the race, so why do I detect so little Rothbardian love for her candidacy? All the talk on LRC, for example, is about Paul and Barr; according to Google, nobody on the LRC blog has so much as mentioned her apart from Anthony Gregory. (The question I asked Walter Block at the end of this post still stands.)


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes