Ron Paul: Libertarian Bigot?
Is Ron Paul the savior of libertarians? That’s what many are claiming about the Texas Republican who ran on the Libertarian ticket for President in 1988. Andrew Sullivan, who styles himself a classical liberal, has been trumpeting Paul ever since the GOP primary debate in South Carolina last month in which Paul went toe-to-toe with Rudy Giuliani over the cause of 9/11. “Ron Paul, for all his faults, is fresh air. We need more of it,” Sullivan wrote last month. In first quarter fundraising in New Hampshire and Montana, Paul finished second among the GOP candidates. Paul seems to be the libertarian dream candidate.
Paul markets himself as an ideologically pure libertarian—a capital “L” libertarian of the sort that people who refuse to carry driver’s licenses or pay federal income taxes can admire. So committed to a strict interpretation of the constitution, he’s something of a caricature in a Congress full of big-spenders, earning the title “Dr. No” for voting against each and every federal spending bill. He supports unfettered free trade and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He supports the abolition of a variety of cabinet-level federal agencies. But, in actuality, Paul is a selective libertarian. On the issue of gay rights—a cause that intellectually consistent libertarians ought to support – Paul is no better than his socially conservative primary opponents like Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo.
In the June 5th Republican primary debate in New Hampshire, a member of the audience asked the candidates if they supported lifting the military’s ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. After all, our allies Great Britain and Israel allow gays to serve openly. The disastrous policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which has led to the expulsion of thousands of gay soldiers (not to mention about 60 sorely needed Arab linguists), is not only discriminatory but weakens the country’s national defense. From a libertarian perspective, any policy that treats two individuals unequally, as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” does, is in the wrong.
The response from Paul was quite stunning: “I think the current policy is a decent policy,” he said. Why? “If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with,” Paul continued. No one can argue with this contention, after all, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct bans sexual relations between service members, of either sex. Paul recognized this fact and continued his answer by qualifying: “But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”
But “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is an issue of homosexuality, a painfully obvious one at that. It would be nice, as Paul himself expressed, if people in this country viewed gays as individuals rather than as one monolithic group (and, in some sense, it would be nice if gay activists did the same), but gays are discriminated against as a class of people. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not even discriminate against gay sexual conduct, it discriminates against gay individuals who identify themselves as such. A gay male soldier who merely mentions a boyfriend back home could face discharge from the service. This is a double standard and yet another example of how gays are not equal before the law.
Following the debate, I approached Paul in the CNN “Spin Room” to question him about his stance on gay issues. As the regulations now stand, any soldier, straight or gay, is punished for sexual behavior with a fellow soldier on the job. “So why the inconsistency in treatment towards gay and straight soldiers?” I asked. Betraying an “ick factor” mentality towards gays, Paul immediately responded to my query by invoking prurience, stating that sexual conduct of any sort should be punished. But Paul could not offer me a coherent answer as to why gays would be more susceptible to engaging in illegal sexual conduct than straights, and thus ought be barred from serving openly.
I also asked Paul about his view towards civil marriage equality for gay couples. Paul told me that he does not support any government benefits for married couples (“I’m in favor of getting rid of special benefits for heterosexuals,”) no doubt a principled, albeit radical, libertarian perspective. But government benefits for married couples are not going to go away, just as the Department of Education is not going to go away, at least not anytime soon.
Paul’s support for eradicating whole federal departments is an intellectually consistent libertarian position that does not harm a specific group of people. However, withholding support for gay civil equality by making the good the enemy of the impossibly perfect, on the other hand, is intellectually dishonest at best, and cynically homophobic at worst. “Well, that’s what I argue for,” Paul told me when I mentioned the slim chances of eradicating government benefits for married couples.
Amidst Paul’s hand wringing and double standards, however, there was a silver lining in his views on homosexuality. In his response to the question on gays in the military, Paul elaborated his support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” by saying “the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.”
This was a far more enlightened view towards gays than anything the other Republican candidates have expressed, and Paul’s emphasis on individualism is something that gay rights groups — with their bias towards collectivism — would do well to adopt.
But as long as the powers that be recognize gay people as a group and discriminate against them as such, Ron Paul’s selective libertarianism is looking more and more like a cop-out.
James Kirchick is Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic and a columnist for Window Media, the largest gay newspaper chain in North America.
31 Comments - add your own
EEKman — July 19, 2007 at 3:35 pm
The google interview sheds more light on his true position. He does not support Dont ask, dont tell as it is currently being used.
D. L. Mitchell — July 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ron Paul expounded on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at a Q&A during his recent visit to Google (available on YouTube). He said:
“Don’t ask, don’t tell doesn’t sound all that bad to me because as an employer, I’ve never asked them [employees] anything and I don’t want them to tell me anything.”
“So I would say that everyone should be treated equally, and they [gays] shouldn’t be discrimated against because of that alone. Which means that even though those words aren’t offensive to me, that ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ don’t sound so bad to me, I think the way it’s enforced is bad. Because, literally, if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military–and I met one just the other day in my office, who was a translator–and he was kicked out for really no good reason at all. I would want to change that, I don’t support that interpretation.”
michael — July 19, 2007 at 4:01 pm
You could’ve researched this issue a little better before making misrepresentations. Clarification, as noted above, was just a click away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Dan — July 19, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I don’t support Paul, and I think his stance on gays in the military is odd for a “libertarian”…
However, I’m not sure the criticism here is warranted. The writer seems to be criticizing Paul’s positions because they do not provide egalitarian outcomes based on the realities of contemporary American society. This is a nonsensical criticism of a politician… it may be an appropriate criticism of a college administrator of a government administration… but politicians’ positions are really an expression of how things would look if they were in charge. Not how their positions look when others are in charge. And, of course, were Paul ever to be in charge of the country… presumeably his positions (which in today’s society are unrealistic) would become policy.
Andrew — July 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Ron Paul: Libertarian Bigot?”
No.
R. Harmon — July 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I don’t think Ron Paul describes himself very often as a libertarian, but others do. He is more a self-described constitutionalist.
I don’t spend my time discussing my sexuality, but as a “gay” man, I don’t subscribe to identity politics, I do however, believe in individual rights.
KipEsquire — July 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“Paul markets himself as an ideologically pure libertarian — a capital ‘L’ libertarian”
Not in this campaign he hasn’t. He has been very careful to avoid the l-word (uppercase and lowercase), except when an interviewer uses it first.
In this campaign, Paul is merely playing the “anti-war Republican” — who happens also to be an anti-Roe, anti-judge, anti-immigrant Republican like the rest of them.
KipEsquire — July 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Incidentally, if you want an undeniable example of a “libertarian bigot,” then see Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Justin Raimondo — July 19, 2007 at 5:12 pm
James Kirchick: Whining Neocon & Identity Politics Obsessive
Stephen — July 19, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Minor point of contention: The UCMJ doesn’t ban all sexual relations between service members, only in superior-subordinate relationships, which is the norm in the corporate world as well. It does ban all “sodomy” between members of any sex, but is usually only enforced (rarely) in homosexuality cases.
WilliamR — July 19, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Gay Rights Nonsense
WilliamR — July 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Civil rights for Gays?
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=articledate
Sameer Parekh — July 19, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Ron Paul clearly misunderstands the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. He seems to think that it’s some sort of decent policy, just like an employer who could care less, and doesn’t ask about their employee’s personal lives. Gay people are PROHIBITED from serving in the military. That is a simple fact. When I contracted for OCS I had to sign paperwork no less than SIX TIMES confirming that I understood that gay people are prohibited from serving. The fact that they didn’t ask me if I was gay is largely irrelevant to the fact that being gay is prohibited.
I find it interesting that people don’t criticize him for his cluelessness on this issue, not only his anti-gay position on the matter.
Dan — July 19, 2007 at 9:53 pm
This may only be scratching the surface of Ron Paul’s views on homosexuality. Here’s a quote from the Ron Paul Survival Report, May 15, 1993:
“We hear bleats about homophobia, but it is actually religiophobia that afflicts America. The government is starting with the fringe, but it won’t stop there. All Christians have much to fear.”
It’s a classic theocrat dodge - gays who are routinely beaten up or fired aren’t oppressed, because it’s the Christians who are criticized or ridiculed who are actually being oppressed.
If this quote is indicative of his true views, how different is he really from the current Republican establishment on such topics?
Stephen B. — July 20, 2007 at 9:23 am
It is ironic to comment about Paul “making the good the enemy of the impossibly perfect”, when in fact, this article, and many gays and libertarians are doing exactly the same thing to Ron Paul.
NH — July 21, 2007 at 12:25 am
Ron Paul is no bigot. He just believes in individual rights not collective rights. Since when is it bigotry to NOT want another gov’t bureaucracy to spend more money making new laws for special rights for ‘groups’? That description of bigotry doesn’t cut it.
Now, I’m glad to see the attacks have started full bore. It must mean the campaign is on the upswing. All that money raised, and well, 18 new groups have formed today alone all for Ron Paul.
NH — July 21, 2007 at 12:27 am
Gay people are NOT prohibited from serving! I know many gays in the military. How can this be???
Ron thinks it’s a good policy because frankly it’s none of anyone’s business if we are gay or not…why do they need to know?
Any new people I meet don’t need to know it…
NH — July 21, 2007 at 12:30 am
Wow this just gets worse by the minute thus this article is not credible… you said “Paul immediately responded to my query by invoking prurience, stating that sexual conduct of any sort should be punished. ”
Not sexual conduct of any sort, but DISRUPTIVE, as in, inappropriate for the place in which it is happening which applies to heterosexual conduct as well!
Wow, you people would have crucified Christ!
Brian Miller — July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“I also asked Paul about his view towards civil marriage equality for gay couples. Paul told me that he does not support any government benefits for married couples”
Sheesh, this Ron Paul character keeps embarrassing real Libertarians with his BS claims on the issues.
James did a great job calling out Ron Paul on the issues, but it would have been even better if James had asked Dr. Paul the following two questions:
1) If he believes government recognition of marriage is bad, why are he and his wife Carol legally married?
2) Why does Ron Paul believe that it’s OK for he and Carol to collect the benefits and perks of legal marriage — such that they are — while getting all “principled” in opposing gay couples receiving the same benefits he and his wife receive?
The “principled libertarian” stuff is a sham designed to silence criticism about his double standards. If he was as principled as he claims, he’d not be legally married himself.
The reality is, he’s not a libertarian — never was, never will be.
Brian Miller — July 24, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Incidentally, the late Harry Browne, who was a REAL Libertarian, was not only opposed to government marriage licenses, but also declared that to the extent that government issues marriage licenses and benefits, such benefits should be available to all people (including gay couples).
That was back in 2000. Then again, Harry Browne was a real libertarian, while Ron Paul is just a wannabe who appeals to the far-right fringe.
DJ — July 25, 2007 at 3:24 am
Yeah, the folks disparaging Sen. Paul are right.
I think it would be much better, to elect ONE MORE LIE, without any do-dads, dressed in a suit, who tells us what we want to hear, than take a risk on a guy who is a known factor, like Ron Paul.
Maybe we can get a president, who will promise not to engage in nation building all over the globe, or someone who isn’t part of the political establishment, like Hilary Clinton.
Oh…. wait a minute…. my bad.
In case no one has been paying attention, we have pretty much lost the Republic already.
Too many morons in the U.S. think History is nothing more than that “big book in high school, that was REALLY boring. Now, American Idol, THAT’S some good stuff.
It’s true, we get the government we deserve ….. a nation of dumbasses, that will believe everything they are told, and everything they read, and wouldn’t know what the “Oath of Office” was, if it hit them in the head with a 2×4.
Anta — August 9, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“After all, our [ally]…Israel allow[s] gays to serve openly.” With you, Boychick Kirchick, it’s always about Israel.
Tillman and Casey Sheehan, gay or straight, would have been properly and safely home if far-right diaspora Jews (and their schmaltzy enablers)weren’t driving MY country’s foreign policy! As for your alleged gay activism, I never knew you.
CLS — August 27, 2007 at 12:40 am
Paul is a fraud appealing to the fringe, bigoted Right. For him to say he is against any privileges for marriage certainly didn’t stop him from taking advantage of those privileges and legally marrying. Double standards,when applied only to gays, are indicative of another agenda.
JM — November 14, 2007 at 1:17 am
Wow. There is so much disinformation here about Ron Paul. It saddens me because he is the champion of preserving INDIVIDUAL rights of all people regardless of orientation, race, religion etc. Please go to http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ and actually READ what he actually says about various topics. Most of you discrediting him are completely out in the woods as to what his motivation is for stance on any issue. You have to start looking at things like CONSTITUTIONALITY, FEDERAL jurisdiction, and STATE jurisdiction, and following the rule of law. If you start reading Ron Pauls speeches you will start learning about looking at things through a constitutional framework which is very powerful and enlightening. If we continue to lose our basic INDIVIDUAL rights this country is over. done. finis. wake up people. Ron Paul is EVERYONE’s champion. Black, white, rich, poor, muslim, christian, jewish, young, old, gay, straight. Please just start looking into him on your own and THINK! Dont take my word or any of these other folks word for it. -J
susan — December 2, 2007 at 9:29 am
ron paul has said no one should be labeled or discriminated against and lumped into a category….regardless of a persons views or lifestyle, they have individual rights…ron paul says gays in the military should not be treated any different than heterosexuals, and the only way they should be discharged is for distruptive behavior..just like heterosexuals fairness for all, protection of everyones rights..who could argue against that???
n8 — December 17, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Ron Paul firmly stands out as one of the few candidates in modern times that is willing to discuss comments taken out of context 15 years ago. Let’s see Hillary do that, she won’t even show up to a question and answer session without placing “moles” in the crowd to ask her softball questions. You can even email ron @ his .gov email tough questions and someone human replies, (I tested it out!)
Everyone that is polarized over party issues needs to see we are in a quiet crisis. The housing market, social security, national debt, healthcare, Iraq, and international lobbying are all out of control. ()It has hit the fan and we are all getting covered. We need a leader, not a party figure head polarized and overfunded by lobbying types. We just had 2 of them and look at the problems we have now. Hey, we can have it again, just vote along party lines; (Giulliani and Obama come to mind.)
The baby boomer generation has been writing checks that my generation won’t be able to cash, and Ron Paul has a firm plan on how to fix it. Ask Romney what his plan is, even his billions couldn’t put a finger in the dike of the Social Security problem. As for Ron Paul racist comments, he used a nationally endorsed report for evidence. (The Washington DC report was sponsored by the Fed…) Sorry facts obscure your point but hey without facts we would only use the comments on a message board as our only source of info… :-p
Oh and I love the argument that Ron Paul is a false libertarian! That is about as true as George Bush JR being a fiscal conservative.
Jackie — December 27, 2007 at 7:13 am
as far as him falling short as a libertarian on the gay issue– I think he’s riding the line there. I don’t think he crossed it. Sure his logic is sketchy but he’s human not a walking principal or set of ideals… I think there’s room in libertarian school of thought for these such debates BUT where he definitely IS a bigot is the immigration issue. What kind of libertarian would expand the federal government to keep so-called ‘individuals, not a group’ out… hahah what a joke!
as for n8 saying he’s a champion of the poor… haha there is no such thing as a libertarian champion of the poor! (libertarians always dismiss lower class struggles and would be perfectly content if the lower class fell out the bottom, shriveled away, and died, as long as they didnt impede their ‘right’ to remain tax free and hang on to every greedy cent you earn) But oh wait– He’s not a true libertarian to begin with, he’s just another republican cherry picker and there record with the poor has been far from great either!
jon — January 2, 2008 at 5:16 am
he claims to be a beacon of individual rights, but sometimes laws enforcing a person’s rights are necessary because he or she is being denied them. in a perfect world everyone would respect each others individual rights equally, but until then i’ll gladly take a little more government intervention.
tsl — January 7, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I don’t understand your basis for even writing this article. According to your logic, Ron Paul is a bigot because he doesn’t support favoritism towards homosexuals. Of course, there are people that are biased towards homosexuals, African Americans, and other minority groups. This is an unfortunate reality of the world we live in. However, I am not one of these people. Just because I’m against Affirmative Action doesn’t mean that I am a racist. Just because Ron Paul is against special laws protecting homosexuals in the military doesn’t mean that he is against gay rights or, in any way, a bigot. I would encourage you to base your article on a foundation of facts rather than assumptions.
Oksana-hr — January 22, 2008 at 5:48 am
classy updos
MJ — March 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ron Paul is not a bigot. The president of Austin NAACP has stated that he has known Paul for 20 years and he is not a bigot. Freedom is for everyone and not just a small group. We receive our rights as AMERICANS and not as membners of a special group.