Ron Pauls Libertarian Ideology - Research Paper Example

 Introduction: A Congressional representative serves as the voice of his constituency in Congress, ensuring that the views and concerns of his constituents are taken into consideration in drafting of national legislative measures. The views and ideals of a Congressional representative play a decisive role in the degree of support he or she enjoys from members of the public in his or her constituency. A representative is elected as a Member of Congress from a particular constituency only if there is an adequate level of such support from the public. Decisions on whether or not to elect a person as a congressional representative are made on the basis of the ideas and values that the candidate espouses, as well as the background and achievements of the candidate in question. But the job of a Member of Congress is not merely to gather support among his constituents and represent their interests, he or she also needs to work with other members of Congress in order to out forward and frame effective legislative measures that can address the needs of the nation while adhering to Constitutional guarantees and promises. The ideology of a particular candidate will determine to a great extent, how he or she is likely to vote on the various Bills and measures that are put forward in Government to carry on with the business of governing the nation. While a strong ideology of a Member of Congress that is rigidly adhered to, may enjoy good levels of support from his or her own constituents, this does not necessarily guarantee that he or she will fit equally well into the framework of the ideals espoused at a given point of time by his or her party, or enjoy enough mainstream support to run for a higher office like the President of the United States. A Member of Congress may be a Republican or a Democrat, and there are some essential differences in the ideology of the two parties. The Republican Party for instance supports a reduced role for Government in running the economy, it advocates allowing the market forces to dictate the state of the economy and does not actively support social service program. This Party functions by allowing incentives for corporate entities to make handsome profits, which in turn functions as an incentive for business and generates employment opportunities and growth in the economy. The Democratic Party on the other hand, is traditionally viewed as the big spending Party, because it actively supports poorer sections of society through social welfare and benefit programs in education, social security and health. This is also known to be the Party where members are in support of the rights of minorities, such as abortion rights, gay and lesbian rights, stem cell research, nationalized health care insurance and social security and poverty alleviation programs such as Food Stamps and welfare to provide support for the weaker sections of society. These are the two major parties, which most Congressional members belong to, although several are independents who do not align themselves with the values of either Party. The libertarian party is the third party, a party comprised largely of the independent individuals who do not espouse either Democratic or Republican values, but rather supports the rights of the individual over the rights of any particular group. Most people across the nation tend to support either the Democratic or the Republican Party; as a result when a Congressional member is aspiring to a higher office such as the office of the President for example, it would be beneficial for the member to enjoy the support of the Party machine behind him or her, to provide the necessary levels of support. Since many Americans are also registered Republicans or Democrats, they also tend to cast their vote for the candidate that is ultimately nominated by their Party. Membership in a particular Party does not mean however, that Congressional representatives are automatically expected to adhere to the ideology of that Party. While they may broadly support most of the principles and values that are encompassed within this ideology, these candidates may also entertain their own, independent ideas and value systems that will dictate their decisions and their levels of support for different legislative measures. This is why in certain instances; it has sometimes been possible for some Congressional members to find unity of accord across the aisle. One example of this is the recent financial bailout package passed by the U.S. Congress and Senate, which was supported by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. But where the issue of running for a higher office is concerned, congressional members are unlikely to succeed without strong levels of support from their own Party structure and a solid support base from among other Congressional members in their own Party. There are several reasons why candidates for a higher office need the support of their own Party. The first is that a candidate running for a higher office must declare which Party’s forum s/he is running on or whether s/he is running as an independent. The second is the enormous costs involved in running campaigns to gather support from members of the public before being elected to a higher office. It is helpful for a candidate to belong to a particular Party and have members from his Party as well as the entire party machine supporting and endorsing his candidacy. Members of the public also gain a good idea of the kind of ideology espoused by the candidate and can make a more informed decision about the candidacy. This also reduces the amount of time and money that a candidate may need to spend to educate the public about the platform he or she stands on. Hence, belonging to a party such as the libertarian Party for instance would automatically restrict the outreach and the voter base that the candidate is able to access in the choice to run for a higher office such as President of the United States. Candidates who are planning to run for higher office not only need access to funds, they must also be able to project their ideology effectively in such a manner that they are able to gain support from both members of the public as well as fellow members of Congress. Since appointments to high office as demonstrated especially in the case of the election for President, may depend upon electoral colleges which are comprised of Congressional representatives, it is vital that a candidate must be able to deal effectively with other members of Congress and especially those who are members of his or her own party. Any executive in a higher office needs the support of other Congressional members, not only in getting nominated and/or elected, but also in functioning effectively in office after the election process and enjoying continued support. It is ideology of a Congressional Representative that defines the kind of person he or she is and helps the person to gain support among members of the public, because they see this ideology projected positively through the candidate in the kinds of plans and policies he or she spells out. A consistent ideology is desirable and is likely to garner admiration and respect for the Congressional member, but there are also other political pressures that may mandate a deviation from the ideology in some instances, such as for example due to political pressures or the need to work with other members and develop a common policy that can be applied into legislation. Some issues such as abortion for example, may be so volatile that a candidate’s ideology and maverick position on some issues may only serve to draw him or her away from the main platform of his or her espoused Party. This aspect is discussed below in reference to the example of Ron Paul, former Republican Congressman from Texas. Case study: (2 pages). The conflict posed in the case of Congressman Ron Paul is that his ideology does not conform broadly to a single Party platform. While he is elected as a Republican representative, the nature of his views is such that in several instances, they deviate from the Republican platform. In running for President in 1998, Ron Paul chose to adopt an independent platform – the libertarian platform, bit as discussed in the analysis offered below, he has not fully conformed to the platform of this third front party either. Ron Paul is a proponent of the libertarian ideology, which supports those who believe in free will as opposed to determinism, according supremacy to individual rights as opposed to rights for any particular group (Boaz 1998). He has been the Republican Congressman from the state of Texas during the late 1970s and 1980s, thereby aligning himself with the Republican Party platform, particularly on issues such as the reduced role of Government, enhancement of the rights of the individual and pro-life positions. He also put himself forward for nomination as a Presidential candidate in 1998, when he made the decision to favor the Libertarian Party platform. Ron Paul studied medicine and served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force during the 1960s (www.house.gov). In 1968, he moved to Brazoria County in Texas and began practicing in the field of obstetrics/gynecology, during which time he delivered 4000 babies. Paul’s ideology has also been partly shaped by his personal beliefs and partly by his life experiences. For instance, he is strongly pro-life, contenting: “I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." (White 2007). This strongly pro-life stance that he adopts in effect is equivalent to a position disregarding the rights of women to make their own choices. This position is based partly upon his own inner religious beliefs, but it also arises out of his own experiences as a doctor. On one occasion he was forced to witness a late abortion which was performed during his residency, which was a painful experience for him. This incident which occurred before the landmark decision in Roe v Wade has shaped his response to the issue of abortion and his strongly pro life and pro-family stance. He has espoused Republican views in terms of the reduced role of Government. This has been expressed in the form of several bills where he has pushed for reduced welfare rights and for amendment of the Social Security Act., as well as the reduction of rights of appeal for those who are victims of discrimination (Neiwart, 2007). In addition he has also moved bills that favor corporations by pushing for elimination of anti trust measures and limiting environmental protection laws. Yet, his ideology does not comprehensively fit under the umbrella of the Republican Party, which has undermined his chances when he decided run for a higher office – that of the President of the United States, in 1998, under the Libertarian Policy. Ron Paul has deviated from the umbrella of the Republican Party, most notably in terms of foreign policy, where he has advocated an isolationist policy, suggesting that the United States should stay out of foreign policy affairs.(Paul, 2007). He also argues that the membership of the United States in an international body such as the United Nations interferes with the sovereignty of the nation. In a global environment, such a policy would be untenable to most Congressmen, both Republicans as well as Democrats. In opting to run for President, Ron Paul may have been able to achieve a greater level of success if he his ideology had more closely matched that of one major Party, such as the Republican policy. This could have gained him support from registered Republican voters as well as provided him with the support of Party bigwigs in terms of endorsements and other forms of supports that would have aided his campaign. As a libertarian, who also did not conform strictly to that party platform, Ron Paul was cast in the role of an iconoclast with somewhat radical views rather than as a potential, mainstream candidate who could be an effective President. This is analyzed further below. Analysis: Ron Paul has undoubtedly been a well respected member of Congress. He is one of the few Congressmen who demonstrates a consistent voting record, never voting for any measure that is not expressly sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States.(www.house.gov). A fellow Congressman has commented, “He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised and they never are.” (www.house.gov). While the personal character and integrity of the candidate may be well established, this has not helped him in his aspirations to higher office. The libertarian ideology advocates that society be organized on the basis of strict individualism, and that every individual has the right to do what he or she wants (Boaz, 22-25). While this sounds like an ideal principle in an abstract form, it does not work out as well in practice, because allowing such an expanded scope of individual rights could result in one individual’s rights infringing on another’s. The law itself is founded upon what Rousseau terms as the “general will” that constitutes “something inside each man and inside society as a whole”. (Rousseau and Cranston, 35). This forms the basis for the formulation of the social contract, whereby all individuals agree to sacrifice their individual rights to some extent in favor of the general good of society and the rights of other human beings as a whole. But libertarian ideology such as that which Paul supports, is in favor of allowing legal rights only to individuals and not to groups as such. Libertarian ideology appears to conform more to the ideas of Hobbes, pushing for unrestrained individual freedoms and rights and a less intrusive role for the law. In Hobbes’ view, “the liberty of the subject is the silence of the laws.” (Rousseau and Cranston, 35). Paul has argued that the “dictatorial power of a majority ought to be replaced by the unencumbered power of individuals.”(Wolf, 2007). But we live in a collective society that comprises members of different social groups and according to Locke, the purpose of the law must be to not only ensure that it does not “diminish men’s freedom but effectively enlarges it, by protecting a man from archaic invasions of his liberty and by preventing collusions between one man’s use of his liberty and another’s.” (Rousseau and Cranston, 35, 36). This aspect poses a conflict for Dr. Paul when the issue of rights for women or rights for minorities is concerned. For example, Ron Paul has introduced pro-life bills which were designed to oppose the rights of Federal women employees to control their own reproductive systems.(Neiwert, 2007). He also supports bills against the rights of people to appeal against discrimination because of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His position on immigration is that “a nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when out own front door is unlocked.”(Wolf, 2007). In support of this belief, he advocates cutting off all support services to illegal immigrants. He also sought to bring about an amendment altering the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution which presently guarantees citizenship to any individual born in the United States. All of the above suggests that Ron Paul’s ideology includes measures that do not support groups. But the rights of immigrants, gays and women may be important to other Congressional members, who are elected by the people of their respective constituencies. Their purpose is to advance the causes and interests of the majority of their constituents. This constituent base may comprise individuals of various groups, and a Congressman or woman may not be able to ignore the interests of groups to push for the propagation of only individual rights. This is the major reason why the ideology of Ron Paul and policies based upon it may not have earned much support from other representatives of Congress, because some of the measures pointed out above, such as the proposed alteration to the Fourteenth amendment may be too radical to garner widespread support. Secondly, in several instances, Ron Paul, in adhering to his ideology has presented positions that deviate from his Party platform. One example is the issue of foreign policy. Ron Paul advocates a foreign policy that is non interventionist. He believes that America should refrain from interfering in foreign nations’ affairs and must not participate as a member in world institutions such as the United Nations because it undermines the sovereignty of the United States.(Wolf, 2007). This is construed as an isolationist policy, although Ron Paul argues eloquently in favor of all such interaction being restricted to business and economic interactions.(Paul, 2007). But Ron Paul’s views rise in opposition to those of the Republican Party and most Congressmen and women who believe in pursuing an active foreign policy and ensuring that American strategic interests are supported. Ron Paul does not support the American propagation of democratic principles across the globe, but the Republican Party has actively pursued this end. On monetary policy also, Ron Paul diverges from the views of the Republican Party. While he supports the position that Government should play a reduced role and entrepreneurship must be supported, he has not hesitated to question Congress’ creation of a Federal Reserve and the reduced levels of supervision of the Federal Reserve, especially since it has the role of oversight and responsibility that should have been Congress function.(Paul, 2007). While his monetary ideas are applauded and merit considerable praise, they do deviate from the stand taken by his own party and thereby offer a somewhat radical view, which did not receive widespread support until the present financial crisis. In some instances, Ron Paul’s distinctive ideology has also come up in conflict to traditional libertarian viewpoints. One example is the strong pro-life stance he adopts. He is of the view that “abortion is the ultimate State tyranny” and that securing the “rights of unborn people” can be characterized as being one among the biggest moral issues of the present time (White, 2007). However, such a strong support for pro-life results in the Congressman’s ideology placing him in conflict with the promotion of a woman’s right to choose. At the center of libertarian philosophy is the upholding of the rights of the individual which are accorded supremacy. Applying the libertarian standard, the rights of the woman as an individual would be paramount; hence a libertarian philosophy would actually be in support of a woman’s right to choose. If Dr. Paul followed a libertarian philosophy on this issue, then he would support pro-choice and that could have earned him the support of other Congressmen, who have taken up positions supporting pro-choice, especially Democratic Congressmen and women who tend to support the right of a woman to make her own choice in this regard. Dr. Paul would also be able to gain the support of other members of the libertarian party. But the ideology he espouses on the issue of abortion and pro-family is more in line with the Republican Party. Conclusion: The cumulative effect of having a distinctive ideology such as Ron Paul’s is that he is not able to benefit fully from either platform – Republican or Libertarian. While he has earned a great deal of respect and admiration from fellow Congress members as well as members of the public for his staunch, unflinching adherence to his ideology, the same ideology has also been viewed as somewhat radical and unconventional, which has hindered widespread acceptability of his ideology. This has also impeded his interactions with other members of Congress, because some of the positions he espouses are so radical that gaining support for such positions becomes difficult, whether from his own party Republicans or from Democrats or libertarians. Based upon the discussion of the positions and bills that Ron Paul has advocated, it may be noted while his monetary policies for example, have been applauded despite deviating from those of the Republican Party, some other views are too radical to be considered mainstream. In order to find common ground with other Congressmen and women, ideology needs to be of such a nature that it is possible to find some common ground on the basis of which a consensus may be reached. But especially in matters such as foreign policy for example, the ideology of Ron Paul is so radical that even Democratic members of Congress may find it difficult to reach an agreement. His proposal to alter the fourteenth amendment to deny citizenship to those born in the United States for example, would be very difficult for other members of Congress to accept, despite the justification hat may be offered, especially in the context of a democracy such as America, that has always been a melting pot for immigrants. Such an inability to project his ideology along a fairly mainstream path may have disadvantaged Ron Paul especially in terms of his aspirations to higher office. It is not possible for a candidate to win an election to higher office without considerable support from a Party machine. Despite the levels of popular support that may have been available to Ron Paul from members of the public, this would not have been of a level strong enough to provide the necessary momentum for such a large campaign. In some instances, it may also be necessary for a member of Congress to be willing to compromise on ideology in order to search for and find common ground with other embers and arrive at a consensus. Some of the bills Ron Paul has sponsored introduce measures that may not necessarily fall under the umbrella of democracy or satisfy the needs of society and the various groups within it, such as women, immigrants, etc. While rigidly adhering to ideology, Ron Paul may have failed to note that in a democracy, there is also a need to work with others and arrive at compromises in order to ensure that the general will is served, because principles may not always be actionable to their fullest extent in practice. Ideology must therefore be tempered with an understanding of the needs of others and the ability to also accommodate the prevailing, mainstream views. References: * Boaz, David. “Libertarianism: A Primer.” Free Press, 1998. * deBernard, Francois, 2003. “The New Nero”, http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1267, * Neiwert, David, 2007. “Ron Paul’s record in Congress”, Orcinus, http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html; * Paul, Ron, 2007. “Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would”, Union Leader, http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700&headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would, * Paul, Ron, 2007. “Monetary Policy and the State of the economy”, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul370.html, * Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1762 (2003 edn). “The Social Contract” (Translated by Maurice Cranston). Penguin Classics. * White, Steven. “Ron Paul’s abortion rhetoric”, The American Prospect, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric, * Wolf, Sherry. “Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the freedom to starve to death.” MR Zine, November 12, 2007. http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wolf111207.html, * “Who is Ron Paul?” http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml, Read More