creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
10 Apr 2015
Companies' Pro-Equality Rhetoric Belied By Their Campaign Donations

Last week, corporate America appeared to take a rare stand on principle. After Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) … Read More.

3 Apr 2015
A Deepening Democratic Party Divide

For those pining for a Democratic Party that tries to represent more than the whims of the rich and powerful, … Read More.

27 Mar 2015
The SEC Illustrates the Danger of Regulatory Capture

The phrase "regulatory capture" shrouds a serious problem in vaguely academic jargon, making it seem like … Read More.

GOP's Libertarians Aren't All That Libertarian

Comment

In Republican primary politics, the libertarian brand carries cachet, which explains why many of the GOP's presidential candidates are battling to position themselves as the one true standard-bearer of small government conservatism. But a funny thing is happening on the way to the Republican primaries: The whole notion of small government libertarianism has been hijacked by politicians who often represent the opposite.

Take Lindsey Graham, whose political action committee is staffing up for the South Carolina Republican senator's possible presidential run. In an interview with an Iowa newspaper earlier this month, Graham said: "Libertarians want smaller government. Count me in. Libertarians want oversight of government programs and making sure that your freedoms are not easily compromised. Count me in."

Yet, despite that rhetoric, Graham has been one of the most outspoken proponents of mass surveillance. Indeed, in response to news that the National Security Agency has been vacuuming up millions of Americans' telephone calls, there was no sign of Graham's purported small government libertarianism. Instead, he said in 2013, "I'm glad that activity is going on" and declared, "I'm sure we should be doing this."

Similarly, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz has reportedly raised millions for his presidential bid, after launching his campaign on a promise of smaller government.

What Cruz doesn't say in his speeches railing on "unelected bureaucrats" is that he has spent much of his professional life as an unelected government employee, first as an appointee in George W. Bush's administration, then as an appointee in Texas' state government. Also unmentioned in Cruz's announcement speech at Liberty University was data showing that the conservative school has received one of the largest amounts of government Pell Grant funding of any nonprofit university in America, according to the Huffington Post. That fact can be described with a lot of words, but "libertarian" probably isn't one of them.

Then there is Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, the candidate who most openly embraces the libertarian brand.

As a senator, he more than others has strayed from GOP orthodoxy and taken some genuinely strong libertarian positions - most notably against the ongoing drug war, surveillance and the militarization of America's domestic police force. He has also tried to foment a discussion about the taboo topic of government subsidies to corporations. In January, he said that "we will not cut one penny from the safety net until we've cut every penny from corporate welfare" and last month he said that if elected president, he'd slash business subsidies "so I don't have to cut the Social Security of someone who lives on Social Security."

However, Paul's pledges about corporate welfare apparently do not extend to the Pentagon, which has often been a big repository of such welfare for defense contractors. As Time reported in March, "Just weeks before announcing his 2016 presidential bid ... Paul is completing an about-face on a longstanding pledge to curb the growth in defense spending." The magazine noted that he introduced legislation "calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years - a roughly 16 percent increase."

Additionally, Paul is anti-choice on the abortion issue. That's right, for all of his anti-big-government rhetoric, he supports using the power of huge government to ban women from making their own choices about whether or not to terminate pregnancies.

While few believe across-the-board libertarianism is a pragmatic governing strategy, some of that ideology's core tenets — like respect for privacy and civil liberties — are valuable, constructive ideals. But when the most famous libertarian icons so often contradict themselves, those ideals are undermined. They end up seeming less like the building blocks of a principled belief system and more like talking points propping up a cheap brand — one designed to hide shopworn partisanship.

David Sirota is a senior writer at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
I think you can have some wiggle room in some policies and call yourself a libertarian. Mass surveillance is not one of them. I do not see how a libertarian can be for something like that and l would never vote for someone that is. But Rand can be a libertarian and be pro-life. By the way, the term is pro life and not anti choice. As in wishing for a human being to continue on with its life, no matter his or her size. See, libertarians want life and liberty to all, including the unborn if one sees human fetuses as human beings. So it's not so much that big government is overstepping anymore than its overstepping when someone kills another human being. As for the defense spending, yes we need a lot less of it, but I think in this area Rand is catering to get support of a republican base. I would still trust him more than hawkish Hillary, Cruz, or Rubio. As for now, we will not get a fully anti-war candidate, but give it time.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:26 AM
+A human is not a human until it is born.I never will understand why the "pro life" Republicans never seem to mind starting a war that kills thousands of innocent human beings,yet stomp around with feigned outrage over abortion.Hypocrisy seems to be the main tenant of the Republican party.
Comment: #2
Posted by: WILLIAM KELLEY
Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:45 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Apr. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Apr 2015
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Apr 2015
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 18 Apr 2015

23 Sep 2011 Two Heads of One Political Monster

19 Oct 2012 Two Old Names, One Lesson About Money

13 Mar 2009 For Competition Before They Were Against It