Having debated with lots of Ron Paul supporters, I think I have found the biggest problem with Paul and his supporters: They have decided that there is absolutely NOTHING more dangerous than our government.

Now, I know a bad government can be harmful, and we should take steps to keep our government in check, but I think they take it just a bit too far. They take a good general idea and envelop it in fanatical fervor, making it the entire source of their identity. Starting from the sound premise that we should have a minimal government and maximum liberty, they take it way too far and come to the conclusion that there is NO threat EXCEPT our own government.

According to the Paul-supporters, we need never act in foreign affairs until we are attacked. In other words, had Hitler taken out other nations one by one, we should have just sat still and done nothing until he finally got around to invading us. Or, more currently, Iran can just continue building bombs, developing missiles, equipping Hammas or Hezbollah with nuclear and biological agents, but until the Revolutionary Guard lands in Boca Raton we can't do a thing, we should just sit and dither and turn a blind eye no matter what happens to the rest of the world.

According to Paulists, if we do this, no one will ever wish us ill and we will be safe.

And that is where they go off the beam. They completely ignore the fact that there are plenty of people who do not behave as a (nominally) rational little libertarian would. Some world leaders are just insane and would attack us for no reason. (North Korea has one such leader.) Some have doctrinal differences and would attack us for having the wrong government or worshiping the wrong G-d. (Such as Iran) And some are greedy conquerers who would see our inactivity as a chance to gobble up small countries until they were stronger than us and then would take us out as well. (Putin may very well fall into this group at some point. And others will certainly arise if we drift into isolationism.)

But cutting off all possibility of intervention, Paul makes other countries confident in their evil acts. And it also gives them an easy out. Suppose Libya decides to restart their nuclear program? No reaction. Suppose they develop bioagents as well? No problem. Suppose they give these to terrorists who then set them off in the US? Well, LIBYA didn't attack us, so we can't respond. Paul's response would be to ask Libya to stop the terrorists, and if they say no? Well, Paul and his supporters just assume they will say "yes" and have no plan for the other possibility.

All of which is symptomatic of the Paulist's central problem. They have become so consumed with their own doctrine that they have lost all sense of perspective. To them a nuclear Iran is not a threat, but Orrin Hatch is.

Yes, the democrats have been saying the same thing for years, but from them it is just partisan rhetoric. I don't think most Democrats (outside of the lunatic fringe at moveon.org and dailykos) really think Orrin Hatch is more of threat than Iran is, but for the Paulists it is a true belief. They fear our politicians more than they do foreign aggression.

UPDATED 01/06/2008

In the comments below you can see a response by Darrel. I was just going to leave it in the comments, but think it may be a common enough response, that I feel I should address it in the article itself:

Darrel says that he has been a long time supporter of Ron Paul and does not think I am fairly representing Ron Paul's position. He says that should Israel ask for aid, he is sure Ron Paul would send it.

I think the problem is that Darrel has been supporting Ron Paul for too long. Back when I first heard of Ron Paul, and when Darrel started supporting him, Ron Paul sounded more like a traditional conservative on defense issues. His position changed greatly in recent times, but it appears Darrel, and others like him, have failed to notice.

But you don't just have to take my word for it, or the word of the "non-interventionist" (read "isolationist") followers Ron Paul has attracted here on Townhall, you can read Ron Paul's own words in this interview with John Stossel.

Despite what Darrel says (and what Ron Paul once said), Paul clearly states that he would not intervene in a conflict between Taiwan and China. He also says that Korea was unjustified, so, apparently, simply being invited in by a government is not enough. Same with Vietnam. In fact, from his replies, the only possible conclusion one can draw is that Ron Paul would never use troops unless the United States were actually invaded by a foreign power, and maybe not even then.

I know I sound like I am exaggerating, but if you listen to the man, and to his newer followers, there really is an almost hippy-level distrust of anything having to do with government. You get the impression that they would oppose traffic enforcement for fear that the meter maid might abuse her power. If you read recent pronouncements by Ron Paul it really does start to drift into the tinfoil hat realm.

And I say this form no personal animus. I was once an admirer of Ron Paul in the 1980's, and I really do want to find a libertarian candidate I can like. So I did WANT to like Ron Paul. Unfortunately he made that impossible. He has attracted a body of distasteful supporters (rabid isolationists, 9/11 truthers, antisemites, white power movement members, etc.) but has made no effort to either disavow their support or distance his campaign from them, so I must assume he endorses them to some degree. Worse than that, Ron Paul himself has made statement that I find either disagreeable or just bizarre. I tried to like him, but through his actions in this campaign, he just made that impossible.

I would ask Darrel, and other long time supporters like him, take a second look, and see if the Ron Paul they are still defending is really the same Ron Paul they supported for so long, or if they are overlooking serious changes out of loyalty and supporting a man with whom they no longer agree.

Clarification 01/06/2008

To clarify something I said above: By "libertarian I can support" I mean one who meets the following criteria:

1. A libertarian who does not make drug laws the central issue of his campaign. As someone who has suffered needlessly because the war on drugs has made pain medication difficult to prescribe, I understand opposition to the war on drugs, but making that the central issue of a campaign is a sure path to defeat. America is not ready yet for even serious reforms in the drug war, so starting with that issue is to announce you are not seriously interested in winning any elections.

2. A serious libertarian who understands even liberty has some limits. That is, a libertarian who doesn't feel the need to make common cause with NAMBLA in order to show they "take free speech seriously". Just because you believe NAMBLA can publish their distasteful garbage doesn't mean you need to endorse them. Even if you are convinced they have the right to assemble and publish tracts, they are still disgusting creatures, and deserve nothing but scorn.

3. A libertarian who isn't TOO doctrinaire. Once they quote either Rand or Rothbard, I know a libertarian is going to be so stringently doctrinaire they will have no chance to get anything done. True Bush has compromised far too much, but that does not mean all compromise is bad. Politics is always a game of getting most of what you want, not all. No one, from Washington on, has ever gotten every proposal passed in its entirety without changes. But I am afraid a doctrinaire libertarian president would be unable to accept that, and would end up vetoing everything that failed to meet rigid libertarian standards. In short, a libertarian president of this sort would manage to waste 4 years while accomplishing nothing. And, while I generally applaud government inaction, I would hope that a libertarian president would at least get a few reforms passed. So I can't vote for anyone who is too dogmatic in their beliefs.

4. Last, I want a libertarian who understands there is right and wrong. Far too many libertarians make the incorrect conclusion that since people have the freedom to do almost anything, that we have no right to judge their choices. That is not correct. Yes, under libertarian theories, the government has no right to interfere in their choices, but that does not mean you as an individual can't say that it is wrong. I worry about any libertarian who thinks a belief in liberty means they also have to abdicate their own personal ability to judge moral issues. I don't want them to legislate based on their own beliefs, but I do want them to HAVE such beliefs.

Sadly, those four simple rules have excluded almost every libertarian I have seen running. Most manage to break all four rules, and more besides, asking to free Leonard Peltier, or Mumia abu Jamal, or various Puerto Rican separatists, all of which is more than enough to turn me off immediately. I don't care how much you believe in libertarian causes, to endorse freeing murderers for political reasons is libertinism, not libertarianism. It is an end of any standards in society at all once you can commit murder with impunity just because you claim oppression or a political position as justification. In short, a lot of libertarians take it way too far and end up endorsing the end of society rather than the liberation of society.

But I continue to look for that libertarian who proves me wrong. But in the interim I continue to be ever more convinced that I may not really be a libertarian after all, and should just admit I am really a conservative at heart.

Perhaps it is time for me to stop calling myself a libertarian after all.