Like Father?


Republican Rand Paul, scion of libertarian lion Ron Paul, has done something amazing.

He has endorsed the Republican candidate for the presidency.

Libertarian movement chronicler Brian Doherty put the situation nicely when he said, “There are a lot of Ron Paul people who like to think of themselves as a ragtag rebel army. But Rand Paul is clearly positioning himself to play the part of the loyal opposition. Emphasis on loyal.”

That he endorsed Romney was bad enough to some ofhis father’s supporters, but that he did it while his father was still seeking the nomination (even if not actively campaigning) was especially galling. Here are a few of the comments Rand Paul’s action elicited online:

  • “Nothing but a Judas! Burn in hell Rand!”
  • “Shame on you rand . . . you sold out on everything your father stands for . . . Damn you.”
  • “I did not donate my treasure and time to end up supporting flip-flop. I feel like a deal with devil has been made.”

My favorite, though, is this bit of conspiracy theory: “The only thing that makes sense is that they must have lured him in with a hot woman and set him up with photographs of the event. . . . No son would do this to his own father.”

I dunno . . . maybe he was enticed by a whole group of hot women. Or maybe he figured that: (a) Obama is infinitely more distant from Paul’s principles than Romney is; (b) Romney has a good chance of winning; (c) in office Romney will have people of all ideological persuasions trying to influence him; and (d) by being one of those voices, Rand Paul will be able to advance his own principles.

I think the second "maybe" is the likelier one. I also note that Rand Paul has followed his endorsement of Romney with an essay strongly criticizing Romney's position on war, foreign policy, and the Constitution itself. Apparently there weren't enough of those women.

Share This


Rodney Choate

I hope this reply has a little something for all.

Under normal circumstances I'm a "principles" voter. I agree with those who heap generous blame on all major factions that have been controlling my destiny, and agree that a vote for the lesser evil is still support for evil.

But three factors cause me to think that, this time, we should hold our noses and vote for Romney. First, the process IS unjustly rigged in favor of the two major parties. (It would be off topic to discuss exactly how, so just accept that for now). Secondly, there are the Supreme Court appointments. The Court is already dangerously statist and whole house of cards appears to be near collapse. So, what kind of Court would you like presiding over a failed United States? And Lastly, (and related to point 2) in the event that our government does collapse, which man would you prefer to preside over same? Obama or Romney?

I agree that neither major party candidate, nor almost every member of congress, nor any member of the Supreme Court has any intention of saving us from what seems to be coming. Right now I'm just thinking of who I want in charge to keep me physically the safest of things get bad.

I reiterate that the old game of voting for "the lesser of two evils" is an old one that has been played by most voters in every election, and that it has brought no good. It's just one more factor that the crooked politicians learned to take advantage of. I only recommend doing it one last time because we seem to be near the end of our rope.



Why is a magazine called "liberty" trying to convince libertarians to support Republicans?

At every turn, the editors, and writers of this mag. are trying to tell us how libertarian the Republicans are, how anti-libertarian the Democrats are, and how useless the LP is.

I'm not buying it. I can clearly see what the Republicans are. From the 150+ years of the laws they've imposed upon the people of the US.

Rodney Choate

Dear Visitor,

Three points:

1) I don't think this Magazine proper would tell anyone whom to vote for, though some of us lurkers might suggest something.

2) Does my posting of Tue., 2012-06-26 (above)ease your concerns that we might all be a bunch of wild-eyed conservative nuts? I assure you that I, at least, am completely sensitive to your concerns.

3) Consider the fact one of a professional politicians' primary skills is guessing not only how his constituents will vote, but also how they are WILLING to vote!!! I support Libertarian candidates whenever I can- it would be wrong to just always leave them twisting in the wind in every election (even though that's pretty much what they get anyway). The fact that I might vote for Romney this time doesn't mean that my representatives don't know about the likes of me- and there aren't enough "me-s" out there to really scare them yet. Until there are many more out there like me, and possibly you dear Visitor, it doesn't hurt at all that I will vote for Romney this fall. Remember- what the Republicans NEED is for you to WANT to vote them!! As long as you don't give them what they "need" you are doing your job, for the time being.

I'm not much of a writer, and regret my past and future sins. I hope this makes some sense.



Quite a few fallacies in this article.

Obama's policiies are almost identical to Romney's. Romney has very little chance of winning for this very reason. Romney will not have anyone even remotely close to the libertarian ideology in his administration. And Rand Paul, being a Nationalists, certainly would have little influence with a Romney administration.

Romney, Paul, and Obama all have a few, very few, libertarian principles. That doesn't make them libertarians. They all are libertarian when concerned to their supporters. But all are definately not libertarian concerning those outside their "group".

What the US needs is people who respect everyones liberties. And all liberties. And it's not going to happen when people declare themselves libertarians, when their actions are clearly not.


There are four Supreme Court justices nearing retirement. Surely even hard-core Ron Paul supporters can agree that Romney is more likely than is Obama to nominate court candidates with some respect for the constitution. In a second term Obama could nominate four more Ginsbergs .... kiss your first, second, ninth, and tenth amendments goodbye for another generation. With a Republican victory, Rand Paul might well influence a RINO president, with the support of fellow Senators and Representatives. Sometimes, with the enemy at the gates, a smart warrior fights to win one important battle, the one at hand.

Kevin B.


Should we as true liberals in the original meaning of the word-- in the F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman way-- support a candidate who is far from ideal over a candidate who is even farther from our sense of liberty? We have in Romney someone who can be considered a good American and a good person. Obama fails on at least one of those accounts. The choice is clear to me. The time for us to challenge the status quo is during the primary. Just like when sometimes quarreling nations become allies to defeat a greater enemy, conservative-liberals (who fight for liberty) should come together to defeat the greatest threat to liberty that I believe America has ever seen within our own land. Tea Party patriots and libertarians all want to preserve liberty and restrain over-reaching government. One difference though is that the Tea Party is changing the Republican party within. Libertarians sometimes will not accept anything other than a viable 3rd party. I like to call myself both a Tea Party patriot and a libertarian. (Please don't tell me why that can't be.) This attitude will probably continue to keep your influence minimal, especially in general elections. I would like for us to be more influential. I also understand that a candidate who is not a strong representative of our values will probably not be the best representative, but he surely won't be as bad as one who ideologically opposes our values-- American values. Milton Friedman came to Pres. Reagan's call when needed and in doing so the libertarian economic philosophy (Adam Smith's free markets, free trade, free enterprise, capitalism)was greater received throughout the world.


Just like the Bush appointee upheld Obamacare? Yeah, Republican judges are really different than Democratic judges.....Haha.


"enemy" "warrior", about sums up the problem of tribalism under the veneer of critical thinking.

Two terms of moderate democrats followed by two terms of moderate republicans is the republic's attempt to yank the steering wheel towards a middle course between two delusional ideological political classes.

Obama as a threat to the constitution in comparison to any republican president past and future is an exercise in hysteria and selective memory.

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.