fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

“Mainstream” Libertarians and Iran

There is an odd sentence Ed Crane’s mostly positive op-ed about Ron Paul published last week: Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children […]

There is an odd sentence Ed Crane’s mostly positive op-ed about Ron Paul published last week:

Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.

I see why “mainstream libertarians” would object to the second and third of these, but the other doesn’t make much sense. What seems to bother Crane is not Paul’s “indifference” to attempts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but what he perceives as Paul’s “indifference” to the supposed threat from an Iran with nuclear weapons. After all, Paul is strongly opposed to the “attempts” Crane mentions because he sees them as misguided preludes to military action, because he opposes unnecessary foreign wars. This is also another instance of the U.S. trying to act as “the world’s policeman,” which Crane just said earlier in the op-ed that Americans can’t afford. Indifference is the wrong word in both cases. A better way to describe Paul’s attitude is that he is not panicking or acting hysterically about a threat that does not yet exist and could be managed and deterred if it ever did exist.

Paul has counseled against overreacting to a perceived threat, which his rivals routinely exaggerate. Why on earth would “mainstream libertarians” disagree with this view? How is a policy of sanctions, coercion, and threats of military force against a relatively weaker state consistent with any libertarian principles? Why would libertarians favor restricting trade and creating new barriers to exchange and economic activity for the sake of influencing the policy decisions of a foreign government? If “most libertarians” support U.S. and international sanctions on Iran (and perhaps even military action?), their reasons for doing so wouldn’t seem to have anything to do with libertarian principles or good judgment.

Crane goes from lamenting the great costs of military intervention and the futility of empire in one part of the op-ed to criticizing Paul for opposing the policies that are leading to the next hegemonist military intervention later on. This is trying to have it both ways. Crane is denouncing interventionist policies while apparently taking the other side in the main policy debate in which Paul is one of a very few elected Republicans on the non-interventionist side.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here