AN INCONVENIENT FACT blares from the top of this piece about Ron Paul in the New York Times. Of course, no one cares, because the actual meaning of libertarianism isn’t as important as the number of fans Ron Paul has accumulated. But the movement he’s created, for which he does deserve credit, has a foundation of sand, because the only true libertarian in the presidential race is Gary Johnson. It’s Johnson, not Ron Paul, who’s at the top of the Libertarian Party’s website. But to the Times and John Harwood that doesn’t count.
The erroneous headline screeches Libertarian Legion Stands Ready to Accept Torch From Paul. Unfortunately, the “Libertarian Legend” doesn’t even have the endorsement of the Libertarian Party.
As a liberal, I don’t agree with Johnson’s view of government, though we do agree on our foreign misadventurism. However, the piece in the Times by Harwood is just the latest example of the big media ignoring the facts and the broader political picture in this country that can’t get any coverage because of pieces like this one. I’m not an advocate, but someone needs to point this stuff out.
John Harwood swallows the Ron Paul libertarian line hook, line and gets sunk by it. You see, you can’t be a libertarian by the true meaning of the word and be against a women’s right to self-determination. Harwood seems like a nice man, but this is just basic stuff.
Mr. Paul has built up a big fan base, has been around a long time and does deserve credit for taking on some of the main aspects of what libertarianism is all about, but on one of the main things that makes libertarianism sing, the basic idea that government shouldn’t force people to comport to rules made from on the state, Ron Paul fails miserably.
That the canard about Ron Paul being the big libertarian is being promoted in the New York Times illustrates just how difficult it is for the real deal candidates, including Jill Stein, to get any ink or paid the time of day by today’s media. As John Harwood proves, most of the people covering politics in the media just want to cover fan politics, ignoring the political grunts grinding away and standing for something all the way through their chosen philosophy.
The other issue, as Harwood proves in his piece, is that as outside the mainstream Republican Party as Ron Paul is, to get any coverage at all you’ve got to be associated with the big two parties. The media, traditional, TV and cable, as well as new-media, won’t pay any attention to you if you’re not.
*Well if you consider Libertarian as meaning right wing, I got mine screw you but I also want small government except I want to control women’s sex lives…which seems to be what the mob in the street think it stands for Ron Paul is right on.