In the summer of 1959, June and I (with our young son) moved from Missouri to Kentucky where we lived for the next seven years. We soon became quite fond of Kentucky and most of the Kentuckians we came to know—there are always exceptions—and we still are.
However, two of my
least favorite U.S. Senators now are the two from Kentucky.
Opposing Libertarianism
Although there are
many negative things I could say about Sen. Mitch McConnell, who became a
Kentucky Senator way back in 1985, this post is mostly about the junior Senator
from Kentucky, Rand Paul, who was first elected to that post in 2010.
Please note: I am
not criticizing Sen. Paul as a person. He is probably a fine man in many ways.
He has long been an active member of a Presbyterian church and of Lions Club International.
But I oppose many of
Paul’s ideas and political positions. Specifically, I am critical of his
libertarianism, which seems to be the basis for his political views.
Libertarianism, according to Britannica.com,
is the “political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary
political value.”
Two weeks ago (on Aug. 4), FoxNews.com (here)
published an opinion piece by Sen. Paul. He forcefully spoke out against
mandates for covid-19 vaccinations and the wearing of masks.
In his strongly-worded article, Sen. Paul implored his
readers to “choose freedom” and declared, “We don’t have to accept the
mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats.”
And, specifically, he criticized “Petty Tyrant Pelosi.”
This wrongheaded libertarianism, even when not so labeled, is
prevalent among numerous Republican politicians. As eminent columnist Eugene Robinson
wrote in an August
5 opinion piece, “Too many Republicans are taking covid-19’s side in the
fight against the pandemic.”
Robinson asserts, “Public enemy number one is Florida Gov.
Ron DeSantis,” who “has signed legislation barring
local governments from imposing covid-19 restrictions and prohibiting
businesses from requiring that patrons be vaccinated.”
 |
| Kearney protester |
And this libertarian view, even when not recognized as such,
is seen in local protests across the country. For example, in the small town of
Kearney, Mo., about 15 minutes from where I live, there was a contentious
school board meeting with some parents vociferously protesting mandatory
masking.
Advocating Liberty
As you regular readers of this blog know, I have long
advocated four foundational words beginning with the letter L: Life,
Love, Light, and Liberty. But in writing/talking about liberty, I have
regularly linked it with responsibility.
Liberty must always be tied to responsibility, so perhaps
libertarianism would be all right if accompanied by an emphasis on
responsibilitarianism. (Yes, the latter is a word used in several sites found
by a Google search.)
It must also be recognized that there are variants of
libertarianism: not all libertarians are as objectionable as Sen. Paul. But, in
general, libertarians seek to live with freedom as individuals without external
restrictions, especially by the government.
Even though they may not be Republicans, as Sen. Paul is,
most libertarians agree with Pres. Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our
problem, government is the problem.” A few years ago, that was a basic position
of the Tea Party Movement, of which Sen. Paul was a part.
But I agree with Pastor Preston
Clegg, who (here)
wrote an August 10 opinion piece titled “Freedom Without Responsibility is Moral
Adolescence.” Clegg asserts,
People are—quite literally—protesting what would save their lives and cheering their own death, all in the name of liberation from what they perceive to be an overreaching government that is advocating for nothing more than our safety from a deadly pandemic.
Such protesters are egged on by
people like Sen. Paul, so that is one strong reason I liberally criticize
libertarianism and ardently advocate liberty with responsibility.
Right on, Leroy! Libertarianism applied to things that will harm and kill innocent people is reprehensible. Why idiots would apply the doctrine to health-care measures is beyond my understanding. You have a line, similar to one I've used, but about which someone challenged me recently. You said you're sure Rand Paul is a fine man and then cited some everyday, personal attributes. I was saying something similar recently about someone, but a person challenged that assessment. It was not a long conversation, but it got me to thinking along these lines: Can we ethically really approve of people--such as Rand Paul--who are educated enough to know how some policies, which don't substantially interfere with one's freedom, will actually harm human beings but support said policies anyway. What about seatbelts, for example? They don't interfere with our freedom to travel by car, but they offer protection for our family and friends in many potential vehicle accidents. What about something like health inspections of food storage and preparation along with cleanliness in restaurants? Can we really say that a "fine man" or a "gracious and loving man" (my words in that conversation), in the name of an ideology, would object to government-sponsored health inspections? I'm beginning to think we might be irresponsibly letting people off the hook by ethical evaluation of only their everyday interpersonal behaviors.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anton, for raising an important issue. Perhaps I overstated my objection to using language that attacks other people rather than the objectionable ideas/statements/actions of such people. Civil discourse is not aided by attacks on the personhood of those with whom we disagree.
DeleteI fully agree that "fine people" can have terrible ideas and do terrible things. Is that a contradiction? Perhaps sometimes it is, but people are complex and I do not think that anyone is all good or all bad. "Good" people can do bad things and "bad" people sometimes do good things, so it is problematic to label people as good or bad. But what a person says and does can be evaluated without attacking the person. Since I don't know Sen. Paul personally, and since he is likely respected by people in his church (but maybe not his neighbor!) and in the Lions Club, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt as a person. But I stand by my strong objection to his libertarianism and the societal harm his views have caused.
A brief and important comment from Thinking Friend Charles Kiker in Texas:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy. Public health and safety trumps individual choice."
Thanks, Charles, for your comment which, it seems to me, ought to be obvious to everyone. So that makes it more problematic when a medical doctor such as Sen. Paul puts his ideology ahead of public health and safety.
DeleteHere are significant comments by Thinking Friend Kevin Heifner, an M.D. in Arkansas:
ReplyDelete"I will attempt a novel approach this morning upon my initial reading your blog. Spontaneous comments spurred by your words.
"Before reading the first word. I have a bias against Sen. Paul based on our shared occupation. Having seen him in action, my impression is that he is a third-tier medical thinker, reminiscent of the students in medical school who would ask numerous questions unnecessarily at the end of class which had been fully covered by the professor. Most unimpressed. I would not let him within 3 feet of my cornea with a sharp object.
"His narrative of 'choose freedom' Is a false narrative.
"His excessive use of adjectives such as petty and feckless is unnecessarily tiresome. Bombastic bloviation.
"Men never better their philosophical position or argument by attacking women through name-calling. Elementary and immature.
"Your analysis of his libertarianism is accurate. So it appears that I have taken the opposite tact by commenting on him personally, his personality, and his character. Since he is a public figure, I do not apologize for this. And I agree with Preston Clegg, whose article is worth reading in full."
Thanks for your candid, spontaneous comments, Kevin.
DeleteThanks also for recommending Rev. Clegg's article. I assume you know him personally, and I'm sure you know, as many of my TFs may not, that he is pastor of the progressive Second Baptist Church in Little Rock. Also, as you know but most perhaps won't, the article I cited was the first of two on the same general subject. The second one is found at this link: https://goodfaithmedia.org/freedom-untethered-from-the-common-good-is-juvenility/
Another brief comment, this one from Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England:
ReplyDelete"Very cogent and clear critique of libertarianism. Thank you!"
And here are comments from local Thinking Friend Bruce Morgan:
ReplyDelete"Amen, Leroy. Libertarianism is public enemy #1 at this moment in history. It's neglect of social responsibility is abhorrent. Rand Paul is reckless in his neglect of science, in order to espouse his libertarian ethos. It is appalling for an elected leader to betray the public trust by lambasting the intelligent leadership of Dr. Fauci. I commend your article."
Thanks, Bruce, for your affirmation of the main point of this morning's blog article and for your additional, and just, criticism of Sen. Paul.
DeleteNext, I received these comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"Very timely and well-said, Leroy. A popular statement when I studied political science at Washington University was: 'My freedom ends where the other person’s nose begins.' Rand Paul follows in the footsteps of his father’s Libertarian trail. His efforts to decertify Dr. Fauci highlight the inanity of his political outlook and the harm his politics can render."
Thanks, Dr. Hinson! I appreciate your straightforward comments in criticism of Sen. Paul.
DeleteAnd then these pertinent comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy for your remarks about libertarianism, which has taken a toxic turn in America. I also fully agree with the quote from Pastor Clegg.
"I do not, however, agree with the quote from Ronald Reagan. Conservatism promotes social stability through strong social institutions such as the family, church or other religious institution, school, and even government, although it is skeptical of big government and prefers localism. It also emphasizes personal responsibility and self-control. True conservatives are not opposed to reasonable health mandates such as vaccinations and wearing masks, and because they favor localism, they would consider the governor of Florida to be the real 'petty tyrant.'
"Libertarians want few or no restrictions and many libertarians consider the social institutions listed above as oppressive. They define personal responsibility very narrowly and emphasize pleasure more than personal responsibility. In America, many white supremacists have touted libertarianism to fight 'oppressive' government policies that promote racial justice, but the liberty desired by white supremacists is no liberty at all for people of color, so it is a false form of libertarianism."
Thanks, Eric, for your meaningful comments. I fully agree with what you wrote.
DeleteThe comments so far have all been by men, who with one exception are Protestants. But here are powerful comments from local Thinking Friend Marilyn Peot, who is a Catholic Sister:
ReplyDelete"What kills me regarding our discussion this morning is the insane advocacy by 'conservative Christians.' Do they not read those precious lines from scripture that give us the Christian way (and human way) of thinking and behaving? Their lived reality is causing me to drop the title Christian!
"This reminds me of how we often pray 'in the name of Jesus.' My take on that is don't ever talk in my name unless you know and understand me. Flipping those last words at the end of prayer reveals one's ignorance of just what 'Christians' are baptized into, right?
"Oh, my...how ignorant we mortals be!"
Bro. Leroy,
ReplyDeleteAs you know I am one of those conservative former Republicans now non-aligned independents, but I have never been able to separate freedom/liberty from responsibility. You are so right that such libertarian ideas lead only to the conclusion "all have rights but my rights are more important than your rights", be it in the areas of health, driving, or public businesses/resources.
Thanks for commenting, Tom. You and I have different political ideas and affiliation--and that's all right--but I'm glad we agree on the important point you made in your comments.
DeleteThinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona shares these comments:
ReplyDelete"I appreciated your comments on libertarianism. I also appreciated the several comments others have made to your blog and can't say anything substantive to what they contributed. Well, maybe a comment or two.
"There is no value, activity, privilege or blessing that can't be abused. The idea that we Americans have abused our liberty is an understatement. I believe it is part of a tidal wave of moral rebellion that is stealthy sweeping our country bringing a flood of disrespect for institutions and authority of any sort. I don't think we have stopped long enough to realize how dangerous freedom is.
"All of our citizens need a course in 'Responsibility 101' that validates limits, boundaries, rules, policies and other forms of limits. Our national anthem could easily be, 'I wanna be me,' and our national motto could be, 'I know my rights.
"Responsibility is the heart and mind of civilization. What kind of world would we want where there were no stop lights, stop signs, speed limits, food inspection, building permits or civic and moral laws. It would be chaos! Rules and laws are for our safety and protection by regulating our society."
Thanks, Truett, for sharing your thoughts about the importance of responsibility
Delete"What used to be the conservative movement in this country is becoming a death cult. … they are cheering about someone saying that it’s a good thing for people not to try and save their lives."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/12/gop-death-cult-attitude-toward-coronavirus-vaccines-isnt-just-lethal-its-stupid/