Advertisements

Ron Paul Attacks Libertarian Leadership in Response to Controversy

By Ryan Lau | United States

On Thursday, leaders within the Libertarian Party decided Ron Paul will not speak at the 2018 convention. Though the party’s Mises Caucus, a faction dedicated to the beliefs and works of economist Ludwig von Mises, raised enough money for him to speak, leaders nonetheless decided that his appearance does not represent party values, and thus, they gave neither he nor Judge Andrew Napolitano a place to speak. Following the story, Paul spoke harshly of the Libertarian Party’s leadership, as well as the state of the party itself.

A Party Divided

First of all, it is important to note the origins of the conflict between Paul and the Libertarian Party. In 2016, he strongly condemned the nomination of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld for the President and Vice President. Many within the leadership believe this choice to be fair and representative of all voters at the convention. However, there are others who believe that the Johnson campaign skewed the election behind the scenes. In fact, Judd Weiss, Vice Presidential Candidate in 2016 for John McAfee, spoke about the nomination. After Tom Woods published an interview with Weiss on the truth about the convention, key members of Libertarian leadership reacted negatively. Despite this, Weiss affirmed that there was corruption in the nomination process.

In the Tom Woods interview, I was talking about the corrupt and vicious behavior I saw behind the scenes at the Gary Johnson campaign.   – Judd Weiss

Paul’s Exclusion

Not long after, a coordinator declared that “[Paul] has no idea what the LP represents”. This statement ultimately summarizes the party’s rationale in excluding the former Representative from the convention. Paul released a video Thursday detailing his reaction to the news, in which he appeared baffled. In it, he expressed he does not “know exactly what’s going on” with the scenario.

“It used to be that they would ask me, you know, to come, quite frequently,” Paul recollected of previous party leaders. He strongly criticized the notion that a Mises Caucus is now necessary, within a party that formerly boasted an ideology closely resembling that of Mises. “I thought the Libertarian Party would be for Mises,” he mused.

Paul further criticized party leadership for not drawing more votes, believing that standing true to principles leads to success. On the contrary, he accuses party leadership of abandoning these principles. “When you look at the leadership, so often you see that they mellowed away,” admitted Paul. Clearly, this references Johnson and party chair Nicholas Sarwark’s attempts to frame the party as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However, this method proved unsuccessful, as Johnson won a mere 3.3% of the national vote.

A Future Uncertain?

Following the announcement, Paul appeared to worry about his future within the party. He questioned whether barring him from speaking equated to being shunned from the Libertarian Party as a whole. Not long after, he referenced his lifetime membership fee, which he paid in 1987. The former representative appeared to worry about the status of his payment, if the party continued to reject him.

If they did that, I wonder if it would be okay, if I could ask for my gold coin back? Because I paid my lifetime membership, in 1987, with a gold coin, to make a point. -Ron Paul

Despite his worries, it is entirely possible that, given his track record, Paul may abandon the Libertarian Party entirely. In the past, he has left the Republican party several times, due to breaks in principles and leadership. Now, Paul believes that these same plagues have hit other parties, too.

Reinstating that “leadership is so bad, in all the political parties,” he admitted the possibility of forming an entirely new political party. “That would be interesting. It could be fun,” Paul said of a party built around the principles of the Mises Caucus.

(Image from NYMag.com)

Advertisements
  1. “On the contrary, he accuses party leadership of abandoning these principles. “When you look at the leadership, so often you see that they mellowed away,” admitted Paul.”

    Sounds like what Arvin has been doing is exactly what Paul wants the LNC to do.

    Reply

    1. Yeah. I’m not sure how one would see Arvin and think “oh there’s a mellow libertarian”.

      Reply

  2. It’s all too much about Partisan dedication.
    How else does a Party win~?
    I wouldn’t necessarily pick percentages or threshold busters as the gradients of ‘best’ candidates.
    Ron’s ’88 made for a great season of education building. He spins Liberty well for the GOP.
    And it is with regret that I cannot justify investment in major party C4L style liberty efforts.

    Reply

  3. Wow… Ryan Lau, you are an excellent writer for being only a high schooler. I am impressed with your bio. That said, you might look back in history to see that Ron Paul was our FOURTH BEST presidential candidate in 1988. Our FIRST BEST was Gary Johnson(Weld) in 2016, at 3.3%; our second and third best were Clark(Koch) in 1980 and Johnson(Gray) in 2012, at around 1%, each; and that puts Paul(Marrou) at fourth place (I have to look it up, but between 0.5% and 0.9%)

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much Carolyn! That really means a lot. I hope to do what I can to further liberty. Did I reference somewhere that Ron Paul was the record holder for libertarian votes? If so, could you show me where so I can correct it? I don’t think I’m sure where you’re referring to

      Reply

  4. “Journalists” want to sensationalize things to get views. “Ideologues” often drop context to make their point.
    I feel like that’s happening here.
    It’s the kind of petty gotcha bickering you see in this article that is the problem, and the reason I feel like involvement in the Libertarian Party is instantly nauseating.

    I never “spoke exclusively with 71 Republic” about anything. I’ve never spoken with Matthew Geiger, ever.
    This is the entirety of the Facebook message and response about this from my friend Brandon Pham:

    ——————

    Brandon:
    Hey Judd, I talked to the person who runs 71republic and asked him what’s up with the article after i saw avens voice her displeasure with it lol
    He’s a high schooler who is new to all this and he said he would be happy to resolve any misrepresented views in his article and would like you to explain your views so he can fix it.

    Judd:
    I don’t criticize the Libertarian Party leadership because I don’t envy their position of baby sitting a membership of such miserable obnoxious assholes. Bless them for dealing with that at all.

    In the Tom Woods interview I was talking about the corrupt and vicious behavior I saw behind the scenes at the Gary Johnson campaign.

    You can quote me.

    Brandon:
    Gotcha

    Reply

    1. Judd: I want to extent my deepest apologies to you for this mistake. When collecting information for this article, Matt sent me the screenshot and I very falsely assumed it to be his own. I did not adequately ensure quality, and made a poor assumption. Recognizing my error, I have promptly fixed the article and removed any notion of exclusive communication from it. Once again, I apologize for any sort of misunderstanding that this may have caused, and hope that it does not dampen any potential future relations.

      Reply

      1. Thank you Ryan, I appreciate that.

  5. It’d be nice if you’d actually quote the entirety of Judd’s comment (which was not made “exclusively” to 71Republic).

    Judd’s full comment on the issue:
    “I didn’t criticize the Libertarian Party leadership because I don’t envy their position of baby sitting a membership of such miserable obnoxious assholes. Bless them for dealing with that at all.

    In the Tom Woods interview I was talking about the corrupt and vicious behavior I saw behind the scenes at the Gary Johnson campaign.”

    Reply

  6. Sounds like 71 is now the official mouthpiece of the Mises Caucus. Articles elsewhere have already shown that no one “rejected” Ron Paul, only that a group of people who wanted him to speak failed to follow-up on a promise to deliver the funds to make it happen. The LP does not typically spend the kind of money on convention speakers that Paul and Napolitano ask for.

    Reply

  7. Please add a Bitcoin *Cash* donation address.

    Reply

    1. Our bitcoin cash address is:
      LWjU9v8zxrUTYqEi4boHee3M2j7StNYDn3

      Reply

      1. That’s your Litecoin address. All your donation addresses including bitcoin and bitcoin cash are listed at https://71republic.com/donate/

      2. My bad. Yep we just added the donations page the other day.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: