For my libertarian friends, we find much agreement on economic matters, while disagreeing on many social issues and foreign affairs; and though that might be simplifying it a bit, there lies much of the differences between the two political philosophies. Nonetheless, we have a couple of libertarians who wish to be elected president through the Republican primary process. Ok, something you’d never see in the Democrat primaries, but fine, let’s just go with that for a moment. A particular report has come to my attention concerning Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and what appears to be their new friend, Amnesty (well, maybe not so ‘new’ for Johnson).
Kevin Williamson reports in a National Review piece that “a strange thing is afoot in the little libertarian corner of the Republican presidential primary: a race to the left on immigration,” specifically of the illegal persuasion.
Williamson points out that until recently, Ron Paul has been “something of an immigration hawk — no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no welfare benefits,” pseudo-citizenship without the benefits; but today, “he is calling for amnesty in the form of “green cards with an asterisk,” something just as weak as the very “comprehensive immigration reform” that he criticized Bush for.
Williamson further illustrates Paul’s softening of principle from then:
“We cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration,” he wrote. “We rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.…Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.” But now, “In his new book, Liberty Defined, Paul instead praises the “superior” work ethic of immigrants and cites anti-Hispanic prejudice as the source of immigration hawks’ energy…” Didn’t we just get finished describing his former hawkish stance?
Confused? Well, you’ll be even more so from the likes of Gary Johnson. The former New Mexico governor (what’s up with these squishy border guys?!) is described as “more of a libertarian purist” when it comes to his socially liberal outlook, unlike Ron Paul. Also unlike Paul, Johnson lumps legal and illegal immigration in the same lot, like almost all in the Democrat Party and liberal media, and views them in pure calculations: “I’m completely pragmatic, and it’s a matter of commonsense cost-benefit analysis. What are we spending, and what are we getting? Immigration is a really good thing, the basis on which this country was founded. Yes, there are welfare services being provided that I don’t think should be provided, but these are issues that are relatively easily dealt with — rather than building a fence across 2,000 miles of border, or having the National Guard standing arm-in-arm across 2,000 miles of border.” Illusive, huh, with the ‘country founded on immigration’ reference, when he knows good and well that the Founders had no toleration of this literal ‘run of the border’. And did you notice that classic liberal jab in there at the end with the mere mention of a fence or troops to help secure the border as some kind of preposterous right-wing notion?
Besides both men being vocal critics of the military, questioning whether we should have even fought the Civil War, or talking about disbanding the CIA, their softening towards amnesty digs them deeper in the hole on the Republican ticket.
Kevin Williamson poetically ends this piece (and with a nod to Russell Kirk):
“Libertarianism especially runs into trouble when it runs up against borders. The purely economic-minded believe that the only problem with unrestricted immigration is the presence of the welfare state, but that view is in error: Human beings are economic actors, but they are not merely economic actors. A human life is not the sum of a man’s economic actions, and a nation is not its economy. Libertarianism offers some pretty good guidelines for running a national economy; as a model of international order in 2011, it is fantasy, and ideological folly. Russell Kirk made famous H. Stuart Hughes’s statement that conservatism, properly understood, isn’t an ideology but “the negation of ideology.” When it comes to immigration, the two libertarian standard-bearers in the Republican primary offer a reminder of why ideology sometimes needs negating.”
