Aren’t libertarians the logical folks? So why are so many irrational now?

By David McElroy · January 22, 2012

In South Carolina, Ron Paul finished in last place — fourth out of the four remaining candidates. This isn’t exactly the “revolution” that my friends have been expecting. So how are they dealing with this dose of cruel political reality? And where do libertarians go from here?

If you’ve read much here, you know that I believe Paul has no chance of winning. None. Zero. Nada. It’s not that I don’t like him. He’s probably my favorite statist. But he can’t win, because he’s advocating things that the majority just plain don’t want. After the complete collapse in the first southern primary, I thought I’d skim through what my Facebook friends were saying about the situation. Without calling any names, here are the sort of things that were being said Saturday night among my Paul-supporting friends:

— “Obama must go, so no matter who our nominee is, he’s far better than the current occupant of the White House.” Really? In what ways is Mitt Romney — the father of RomneyCare — an improvement over Barack Obama? In what ways is Newt Gingrich — the man who wants to attack Iran — an improvement over Obama? As bad as Obama is, when it comes to substantive issues — not rhetoric — how are any of the other GOP choices an improvement over Obama?

— “The MSM [mainstream media] is silencing Ron Paul’s message, so that’s the only reason he’s not winning.” Actually, Paul has gotten a tremendous amount of television time over the last year or two, especially compared to the percentage of the electorate that supports him. He’s had plenty of chance to make his case and he’s spent millions of dollars on ads, too. Anyone who believes he’s being silenced isn’t paying attention. It’s just not true.

— “The election was a fraud. The networks were already calling it for Gingrich before half the votes were counted, so it was obviously rigged.” Networks call elections based on exit polling and projections based on how key precincts are going. It’s a combination of art and science that’s pretty accurate in predicting what’s going to be a result when the rest of the votes are counted. They’re projections. They have nothing to do with rigging elections.

— I stumbled upon one discussion of a convoluted conspiracy involving the establishment funding both Gingrich and Santorum in order to stop Paul — who they’re afraid of — before they let Romney win. I’m only mentioning this looney theory because it shows the lengths to which people will go to find reasons to explain what’s going on. Instead of just accepting that others don’t support their candidate, they make up things that have no evidence to support them.

— “The campaign is just about educating people and I’m sick of people who don’t get that. If you don’t support Ron Paul, you’re opposed to liberty.” I saw a lot of that general sentiment last night. There was a good bit of anger toward those relatively few of us who have withdrawn from the system, as though we somehow caused hundreds of thousands of South Carolina voters to flock to Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Ummmm, no. We’re not responsible. (And we’re not responsible for following whatever path you believe is the right one. You do your thing. We’ll do ours.) Besides, anyone who believes that a campaign is an educational mission is being fooled. An effective campaign is about finding people who generally already agree with you and organizing them to collect others who generally already agree with you. Some tiny fraction of people change their minds in campaigns — every election. A statistically tiny number of people will become libertarians because of this campaign, but not much will change. Roughly 10 percent of the public was generally libertarian 10 years ago. That’s still true today, after countless libertarian “educational” campaigns.

— The other things mostly fell into the category of denial and boosterism: “Ron Paul will still be the president, so just relax,” and, “We refuse to accept anyone but Ron Paul as president.” No, Paul isn’t going to be president. Not this year. Not in four years. Not ever. It’s a fantasy. Refusing to accept that is stopping you from spending your time looking for alternatives that might work.

I’m sympathetic to what Paul supporters want, so I’m not opposed to them and I’m not one of those trying to paint Paul as a crazy uncle who wants nutty things. (My biggest concern is that he doesn’t go far enough toward individual freedom.) But libertarians are supposed to be the hyper-rational people of the political world. What I’m seeing from them right now is just as irrational and conspiratorial as the worst of the people of the major parties.

At some point, libertarians have to accept that most people don’t want what we want. They have to accept that continuing to talk and hand out literature and put up signs isn’t going to change the world. At some point, they have to admit the reality that neither Paul nor any other libertarian is going to get elected to change the country or the world.

So the real question is when the alleged rationalists are going to get rational and join those of us who are trying to figure out how to prepare for the coming post-statist world. The evidence is all around you that you’re not going to elect someone to save you.

Share on Social Networks

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Related Posts