oh well

[solarbird]

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. What a damn shame. The Constitution Party, formerly the US Taxpayers Party, is big into the Christian Nation shtick and supports state-level recriminalisation of queers:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ... The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. ...

We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders' intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible." ... We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

And so on. They're against abortion rights, stem-cell research, etc., etc., etc. What a damn shame.

Comments

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

You seem to imply that Paul also isn't into that Christian Nation shtick when of course he is. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

[solarbird]

He had an opportunity to do something better that could've broken across some of those lines. He chose not to. I wasn't expecting better, mind you; but the opportunity was there.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

The opportunity to...not do what he (and the majority of folks like him) believe in, though he'd gain no benefit from "selling out"? Good luck. Kooks be kooks.

[wiredhound.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's unfortunate, but this is who he is.

[solarbird]

not do what he (and the majority of folks like him) believe in
The bulk of the fundamentalists weren't with him this election in the primaries. They really weren't. Sure, some of his supporters this time were from that camp, but it was pretty tiny; they do not like him, they really don't.

And from my experience most of his supporters this time weren't from that arena; they were a sort of people he wasn't used to having show up, and there was an opportunity for a kernel of an actual, rather than faux, small-government conservatism, the kind of opportunity that hadn't been around since a lot of the promising Libertarian party leadership (particularly in California, where it was strongest) found themselves dying off in the early 80s. Sometimes when someone is thrust into a new situation like that, they react in new ways. It was a longshot, sure, but not impossible.

But he didn't.

Like I said - I wasn't expecting anything better. But one can still be disappointed when people live down to expectations.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Really? I've found that the overwhelming majority of libertarians simply adopt their opinions because they think blacks (and gays) are getting special rights, and that if the rules were "fair" they'd naturally rise to the top of the social hierarchy. That they are not at the top is their prima facie evidence that the rules are unfair. The "free market" just means whatever they were used to before adulthood, and this includes a notion of uncomplicated Christian hegemony.

As far as Paul in 08 in particular, many of his recent supporters simply had no idea what his long-standing beliefs were, except that he was against the Iraq war and against Internet "censorship."

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

I suspect if Ron Paul were elected, he would have pursued his own anti-gay and anti-minority beliefs. I've seen quite a bit of horrible stuff from his old newsletter posted.

[solarbird]

Maybe it's a west coast vs. east coast thing, I dunno.

The Ron Paul signs out here - and the older Libertarian signs before this election - were places like Capital Hill and North Seattle, pretty much the opposite of fundamentalistland. They'd be the kind of places where on those rare occasions the state party could get their act together enough to run a candidate, they'd outpoll the GOP; they'd run as the small-government candidate, the GOP crank would run as the fundamentalist candidate, and they'd both lose, but in the 43rd (my Seattle district), it'd be 70%(D) -22%(L)-4%(R). (And the two communist parties and one social democrat party and one or two other random parties picking up <1% each.) And similarly, the yard signs and such were Obama and Paul and almost nobody else.

So yeah, really. I'm very much aware of the kind of "libertarian" you describe, I've met plenty of them online (heh) and a bunch of them in other parts of the US. And there're probably more of those here than I realise. But at the same time, there was a real libertarian left on the west coast - I know people who were involved in its heyday, and lost a lot of friends to AIDS in the 80s, which is how I know about that particular implosion - and I think a chunk of that may yet remain.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Ron Paul is showing his true colors IMO.

[solarbird]

And I'm publicising it.

[avram]

I know a bunch of left-leaning libertarians, but over the past few years, they've been drifting away from identifying with libertarianism.

[solarbird]

Where are they going?

[mhaolain.livejournal.com]

I thought Ron Paul was a top finalist from "Spot the Loony" from day one. I feel a little nauseous witnessing Halloween mask behaviorisms in what should be a grown man, but that's the price to pay for having your instincts confirmed. I'm feeling like a Kung-fu Omega Man variant now, but keep the sensor readings coming solarbird.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I'm looking forward to reading some of the reaction from the RP fanboys who were so big on him a few months back. The ones who fixated on his opposition to the war and his support of drug legalization and ignored everything else about him.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I was going to say the same thing. Back in the 80s there was a much stronger contingent of leftish libertarians, people like Russell Means. Now it's dominated by right-wingers like RP and Bob Barr.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I know a fair number of libertarians, including some friends, and I've *never* known one who joined the LP because of opposition to blacks and/or gays. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I think that's the extreme case.

For that matter I believe the LP's stand is while marriage shouldn't be a state issue, if it is, gay marriage should also be recognized. So hardly a party for hard-line homophobes.

ETA: Most of the really strident libertarians I know are atheists.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Interesting article on the LP website outlining differences between the CP and the LP.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party

[avram]

Generally they're calling themselves liberals, voting for Democrats. Or just not talking up libertarianism as enthusiastically as they used to.

Keep in mind, not all of the left-leaning libertarians I know are doing this, just enough that I've noticed it as a pattern.

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

He always reminded me of the older guy in a horror film who tells everyone to "just calm down!" while he freaks out more than anyone.

[wrog]

HI!

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

The personality description sounds like my Dad: he's a GOPer, though. I do not think he knows what a Libertarian is (other than what Fox and Limbaugh tell him).

[hubbit.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, Noah Webster, who in his History of the United States (published 1832) pontificated:

The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights.

This drivel was written at a time when neither women nor African-Americans were permitted to vote, both were treated as slaves figuratively and literally, and when in many US locales one could not own or hold land unless one was a white Christian male.

I think I prefer the views of Daniel Webster, to whom Noah was not related:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?

[foibos.livejournal.com]

No comment, just sad.