I believe Ron would have done better running as a democrat (maybe not against an incumbent though). Social issues are much easier to understand. And it is clear this election was about social issues. One must give a lecture on Austrian Economics for someone to understand his economic theory. Most people to not have the attention span for this. Ron would easily win on his social policies compared to any democrat. The economic side would be too much for the voters to understand and most likely it would be underplayed anyways.
But yes, libertarianism identifies with the right more. The old right and libertarianism were very similar. But in todays dumbed down society, social issues win elections.

True. And on liberties and foreign policy, apart from people like Glenn Greenwald, I would say they’re not actually that great.

Do a search on this site for Latvia, and you’ll see a piece I posted on the success they’ve had with austerity. Of course, most European austerity amounts to tax increases, and we’ve never claimed that would be good.

Well, it might wake up some of the idiots at WND, but Joseph Farah is still a puke. Where was he in the last two Presidential elections? Not supporting Ron Paul.

I know that some on the left can be reached – because I was one of them.

Please forgive me, but this is going to be a little long.

Tom often talks about he used to be a neo-con because he felt he had to be one since he knew he wasn’t a leftist. Well, that was exactly true for me as well, except reversed. I grew up in a fairly left-leaning household. Bill Clinton was the first president I can remember following in any kind of way. I remember some things about the last few years of Reagan’s term and the George. H. W. Bush years, but I was just a kid then and didn’t follow politics at all (I was more concerned with more important stuff like Super Mario Bros.). With both of my parents being left-leaning to start with, I was willing to cut Clinton a tremendous amount of slack. I also knew that I wasn’t a Rush Limbaughian (as the man has never appealed to me), so (like Tom) I felt that made me a Democrat by default.

What I saw during the Clinton years only strengthened the Democratic Party’s “control” over me. I saw a Democratic president who was balancing the budget, cared about civil liberties and seemed to have a restrained foreign policy. Of course, I now know that the Clinton surplus was nothing but smoke and mirrors, that his civil liberties record leaves a lot to be desired and that his foreign policy was anything but restrained. I also saw the Republican Party acting like children throwing a temper tantrum (not much has changed there has it?) who only cared about their ability to remain in power. They seemed to have a thirst for war as well. The Monica Lewinsky scandal drove the last nail in the Republican’s coffin for me. In my mind, they were clearly out to get Clinton no matter what the cost and it didn’t matter what it did to the country.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 – the first time I was eligible to vote in a presidential election. I did it because I honestly believed that Gore would continue Clinton’s policies. When Bush “won” that election, I was devastated, much like how Tom says he was devastated when Clinton beat Dole in 1996. The next eight years did everything to confirm my absolute worst fears. The Republicans came into power in all branches of the government and proceeded to go against everything I stood for. They shredded civil liberties with things like the PATRIOT Act, became the most interventionist party I could imagine and exploded the national debt with massive deficits. All the while, the Democrats were raging against Bush’s acts – from his clear violations of the Constitution to his outrageous spreading sprees. So, in 2004, I gladly voted for John Kerry because I knew that a Democrat simply HAD to be better than any Republican. I was again devastated when Bush won re-election.

Then, in 2006, I hoped and prayed that the Democrats would win the congressional elections. I’m not kidding. I remember literally praying for God to grant the Democrats victory. When they were swept into power in Congress, I was ecstatic. Finally, I thought, we could get back to what I believed the Democrats stood for – limited government, balanced budgets, a respect for the Constitution and an end to the wars. Boy how wrong I was!

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats did everything in their power to show me their true colors. I quickly learned that they couldn’t care less about the Constitution, limited government or balanced budgets, as they exploded Bush’s already monstrous deficits and refused to curtail his civil liberties abuses. By the time the 2008 election rolled around, I had one foot completely out of the Left’s camp and only the big toe of the other foot remained there. Barack Obama did everything he could to convince me to let go of that toehold. For the sake of full disclosure, I’ll admit that I voted for John McCain simply as a vote against Obama. “What was the worse that could happen,” I thought, “they’re both the same and at least Sarah Palin is smokin’ hot.” Not much of a reason to vote for someone, I know. LOL! I finally left the Left’s camp completely and for good when I heard Nancy Pelosi say “Are you serious?” I think you all know to what I’m referring.

It was around this time (somewhere around 2007) that I was first exposed to libertarianism. Looking back, I realize I was an oddity – being a leftist who believed in limited government after all. But something else that made me an oddball was the fact that I was a history buff who was always a little skeptical of Abraham Lincoln. As I was becoming disenchanted with the Democrats, I happened to stumble across an interview Thomas DiLorenzo did for C-SPAN (yes, I know, I’m a huge nerd LOL) on his Lincoln books. I was stunned. Finally, I thought, here’s someone who is articulating all the doubts I’ve always had about Lincoln, secession and the like. It was by searching for more articles/videos/etc. by DiLorenzo that I was first exposed to the Mises Institute. From there I was exposed to Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block and a host of others. It wasn’t long before I was convinced that libertarianism was the way to go for me, as it was the only political option that was consistent both with itself and my already held beliefs.

I haven’t looked back since and haven’t regretted it for a second.

I would also agree that the Right is more sympathetic to libertarianism. I was one too. I too believed in the Neocon theory of spreading democracy throughout the world, and that we must conquer the “savages” of the Middle East.

I think the Left is receptive to libertarianism in some ways. The hardest part to convince Leftists on is free market capitalism. And the hardest part about convincing people on the Right is on non-terventionist foreign policy.

I think if we run down each political issue one by one we’ll find that the Right has more in common with the libertarians than the Left does.

@0d23f02792c9a60b9b3c3b879c37022c:disqus

Actually, the whole Kosovo thing during Clinton’s tenure was all his doing. Congress was strictly opposed to intervening in Kosovo. It was the the first time a President actually sent troops into a war with direct Congressional opposition.

And don’t forget that the Iraq war was supported from Republicans and Democrats from the get-go.

The old left/democrats was also quite similar to libertarianism!!!! Read up on political parties when the republic first started.

The country first had dems/repub and then the centrists. Centrists devoured the dem/repub party at the same time. Meaning they didn’t try to chase down one party and attempt to take it over in the public eye. The two are connected, so they took over both dem and repub party.

It is all due to the marketing of the two parties. People do not think of taxes as theft, and look at it as charity. They view redistribution of wealth as a way to ensure charity. Seriously. Remember, the vast majority on both sides want good not evil. Unfortunately the leaders seem to be okay with evil.

I have to agree that those on the right tend to be more reachable – the numerous exceptions notwithstanding. I came here from Ayn Rand, through a serious neo-con infatuation until I saw the light over a year ago. It was economics that seduced me, but I was soon hooked with the logical consistency and elegance of anarcho-capitalism. I am now an unabashed peacenik.

Most on right already lean to a healthy distrust of governments. Our brothers and sisters on the left may agree there is something profoundly wrong in the world, but most of them strongly lean to more government intervention as being the solution. There seems to be a lot more to unwind before they see liberty as a solution.

But I believe that anyone is reachable and for those on the left, the appeal for peace and no state violence is the best entry. I maintain that the enormous cynicism out there, on the left, the right and the great non- ideological middle, will be the source of our educational successes. Real liberty is such a refreshing message that can appeal to so many people.

I think that was the source of Ron Paul’s success at inspiring and educating so many – he was always hopeful and not cynical, but never Pollyannish. There is a hunger for that message on both the left and the right. Keep the faith baby.

Sorry for off topic: Tom what do you think about Nullification WIKI page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29

f.e.

For example, Luther Martin’s letter to the Maryland ratifying convention asserted that the power to declare laws unconstitutional could be exercised solely by the federal
courts, and that the states would be bound by federal court decisions:
“Whether, therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by, the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determinations every state must be bound.”
…. …
In short, there were no statements in the Constitutional Convention or
the state ratifying conventions asserting that the states would have the
power to nullify federal laws. On the other hand, the records of these
conventions support the idea that the power to declare federal laws
unconstitutional lies in the federal courts.

More than left and right politics, the conflict seems to me to be more of an epistemological confrontation. On the left, people believe that they can shape themselves and the world to their own will, “supermen”, Nietzsche called them; on the right, people believe that the world has an objective reality in which we live and act, which limits and in a way determines the breadth of our actions. A recent article in the UK ( http://bit.ly/WCziOP ) called them the anti-realists and the realists.

Since libertarianism and its founding principle of not initiating violence roots its perspective in reality its understanding of the world and of human action makes it far more appealing to those on the right (realists) than to those on the left (anti-realists).

Of course, real people of the left and of the right are not all the way in la-la land and in reality, often waning and waxing into realism. Those too far in la-la land, no matter their political leanings, to the left or to the right, are perhaps hopeless and already entrenched in government. But I believe that many on both sides are still teachable and would appreciate libertarian proposals.

“Clinton should be applauded in that he did not increase that deficit like other presidents, including Reagan.”

Was that Clinton’s doing, or the Republicans in Congress?

The positive numbers attributed to Clinton were not very much HIS doing, but the doing of the Republican Congress, who were perpetuating the Reagan message of limited government. Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, and he eventually saw that he HAD to go along, although he didn’t like it. But looking back, he LOVES it, and the MSM plays along with it. The media loved Clinton and always gave him the benefit of the doubt, just like Obama. Had a Republican President intervened in Kosovo instead, CNN would’ve had a field day tarnishing the President making him look bad.

Clinton should get little, if ANY credit, for the good economical numbers back then. He was forced by a Congress that overpowered him. And don’t forget before the Republican Revolution in ’94, Bill and Hillary were conjuring up a government sponsored healthcare overhaul. All efforts were stopped as soon as the Republicans took control of Congress.

Truthfully, the national debt was still increasing during Clinton’s time. Read more about it in detail here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

tom woods is misleading whites into a rabbit hole.

libertarianism attracts more from the right, because whites have reached the end of the line. whites have natural tendencies towards individualism.

most on the left are masochistic whites, or non-whites, highly cohesive groups, Jews, Blacks Hispanics, who are advancing their group interests, power, wealth, territory.

in less than 10 yrs, even libertarianism will lose its appeal, because whites will have even less political power and freedom.

libertarianism, democracy, socialism, communism, all were utopias with White europeans as prime targets.

If you want to study western civilization and our roots, read ricardo duchesne’s “uniqueness of western civilization”.

I came from the Left, and I basically became a Libertarian when I learned some basic economics. Caring about the poor + bad economics = Leftism. Caring about the poor + good economics = Libertarianism. I think if you want to win over Lefties, you need to show how Libertarianism is far better than Leftism at providing for the poor.

I’m suspicious that they are naming him man of the decade partly because they are so glad he is retiring. Just like when the RNC made that Ron Paul tribute video as a way to placate the Paulites and essentially send the message, “Romney won, not shut up!”

Sir, please.

I used to be a “right” guy, and let me tell you that conservatives and constitutionalists are closer allies than any to libertarians. Progressives and liberals are arrogant and brain washed. At least, from my experiences. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reach out to everyone we can, though. The more, the better!

I think that there is a left and right paradigm, except that they exist only as counterfeits in the DNC and GOP, when one pretends to be on the left and the other on the right, but only in their rhetoric, not in their actions.

You sound like a republican/Ron Paul republican in hyping up the republicans using false information. Republican Congress did not do much in any other congress for the debt. Hence, it was Clinton as president that led Clinton to push thru a balanced budget with Newt’s assistance. Certainly, it was not republicans that pushed Clinton into it, but the other way around. Why haven’t republicans in the current house even try to balance the budget? Certainly the paul ryan doesn’t even come close to clinton’s record.

Media was harsh on Clinton – too much attention for his private affairs and still today they are harsher on him than other true evil democrats – pelosi, reid, obama, hillary clinton, etc…

healthcare overhaul was hillary’s doing. i don’t think it was republicans that solely stopped hillary whatsoever. you see romney, a supposed republican imposed the first socialized medicine in the us in his state of ma.

under republicans like both bush’s, debt increased far more than it ever did with clinton.

While I mostly agree with that, in my experience it’s always the ‘right’ that is more open. Maybe because as a former Sean Hannity kind of republican I can just better relate to them…?

I’m a Rothbardian. I know how disgusting the GOP is. I thought we were making a relative comparison of two disgusting sides of statism, “left v. right”.

By ‘relate to them’ I merely mean I understand how they think, even though much of it is dead wrong. That understanding is quite important when trying to reach out to them and wake them up.

That’s just simply not true. How old are you? Do you remember watching the news back then? The Republicans were on the forefront of balancing the budgets. Reagan’s 4-point economic plan was to 1) Lower inflation, 2) Cut tax rates, 3) Cut spending, and 4) Cut regulations. He succeeded on numbers 1 and 2 (Volcker being mostly responsible for lowering inflation, however). But spending wasn’t cut and neither were regulations. And as we all know the national debt went up under Reagan. Had Reagan not had a Democratically controlled Congress throughout most of his tenure, would he have done more of what he had hoped to do with his staunch fiscally conservative message? Maybe, possibly.

From 1994 to about 1997, the Republican Congress did a good job with balancing the annual budgets. Due in part to baseline budgeting, spending still went up regardless; however, the Democratic proposals were even higher. The Republicans proposal in their 7-year spending plan was a $350 billion increase in federal spending; whereas Clinton and the Democrats proposed a $500 billion increase. And yet when a CNN poll came out Americans believed that the Republicans “went too far” in their spending cuts. This is totally laughable. I remember the mainstream media (the Clinton News Network) chastising Newt Gingrich and the Republicans “cuts” on social spending plans. As a matter of fact nobody literally cut spending. Nothing actually got cut. They all merely just slowed the rate of growth in government, that’s all. It’s the same thing with this “sequester’ thing going on now.

During the mid-late nineties the Republicans in Congress were fiscally decent. Even though the budgets were balanced, the national debt still rose every single year while Clinton and the Republicans were still in office.

But when Bush became President that’s when everything started turning around for the worse. Him, the Republicans, and even the Democrats got us into 2 wars, passed the NCLB Act, Medicare Plan D prescription drug benefit, passed TARP (more Democrats voted in favor of TARP than Republicans at a time when a Republican was President), and started the NKVD-like DHS.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of “W” Bush’s bad numbers can be attributed to the Democratic Congress (both houses) that won in the 2006 election: they took over a decent, albeit illusory, economy in January 2007, and by December 2007 had screwed it up SO much, we were in a recession that we STILL haven’t gotten out of. Look at the deficits from before 2007 (when Republicans were in) to after (when Democrats got voted in), and then you tell me who’s the higher culprit for dollar deficits within the past 10 years. Look at how much revenue the government took in compared to how much spending the government did at both times. It was very bad under Bush. But worse under the Democrats. Believe me when I say that I am NOT taking up for Bush! But facts are facts.

Our economic policy is a result of the President, Congress, the Fed., previous set in policies, and the general state of the world economy. Influence of each part waxes and wanes.

The best detailed analysis of Reagan’s economic record is this Cato policy report: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

John Stossel talks about when he first became a libertarian, he initially thought the left would welcome his views more than the right. Since he has no problem with gay marriage and thinks all drugs should be legal, he thought the left would be on board with him based on those things and he could then convince them of libertarian economic truths through reason and historical examples. Conversely, he thought that the right would resist these views since they often religiously object to gay marriage and drug use. In theory, someone can change their religion, it is just highly unlikely.

But what he found was the exact opposite. Leftist who worked at ABC wanted him fired for believing what he believed. Many of them wouldn’t even talk to him or acknowledge him. When he went to work for Fox, things got better. Although he has his disagreements with the Hannitys and O’Reillys, they don’t hate him or want him fired. The belief that the left is tolerant is one of the biggest myths going.