Soliloquy: How to Judge a Magazine -- or a Politician, by Robert James Bidinotto

Our controversial January-February cover feature, “The Abominable Dr. Paul,” written by Stephen Green, offered a blunt criticism of certain political ideas advanced by Republican congressman Ron Paul. A deliberately garish, eye-grabbing, tongue-in-cheek cover illustration by our David Sims generated a great deal of public attention for the article.

Because the current presidential campaign has given Rep. Paul and his views an unusually high public profile, the article and the magazine’s cover have been cited far and wide across the blogosphere and even by mainstream media outlets. The article and illustration also provoked indignant commentary from supporters of Ron Paul, his views, and his presidential candidacy.

I was not surprised by the heated reactions. However, I was surprised and disappointed that many people apparently think that the spoof cover and title were meant to be taken literally, as suggesting that “Dr. Paul” is an actual monster. I had assumed that a title and lurid imagery explicitly snitched from a laughably cheesy horror film (The Abominable Dr. Phibes) were so obviously over-the-top that even die-hard supporters of the candidate would get a laugh. I should have realized that discussions of controversial political ideas can test the sense of humor and sense of proportion of all participants.

Beyond that, though, several important matters must be clarified. The first is the relationship of that controversial article—or any article in this magazine—to the views of the staff and trustees of our publisher, The Atlas Society.

I have stressed this before (and it is made clear on the masthead of every issue), but let me emphasize once again: Signed articles reflect only the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the publisher, or its trustees. (And that includes this signed article.) Among these fine individuals, and certainly among members and subscribers, there are avid supporters of Rep. Paul’s ideas. The article should not be construed as representing their views. Moreover, the article’s critics have been given a platform to express themselves in letters to the editor, in this issue and the next.

While most of us involved with this journal, as its producers or its consumers, share a number of basic principles, we can’t expect to agree on all of their implications. For example, I strongly agree with the overall point of view expressed by Steve Green’s article, but even I quibble with him on a few points that he raised, mainly in the area of economics.

However, if this magazine aspired only to tease smiles and nods from its readers, it would not be doing its job. The New Individualist does not exist to ratify the philosophical status quo; it exists as a lively forum where skilled, knowledgeable writers confront and challenge intellectual comfort zones. This includes, at times, our own comfort zones. That’s good, for that is how we all learn.

I published Steve’s article because it did exactly what you ought to expect from any opinion article worth its paper and ink. In an informed, entertaining way, and from a general framework of rational-individualist principles, it provoked people to think—or to rethink their views about some important issues. By that standard, and by the gauge of the public response, the article was a great success.

However, some readers have posed a different set of questions about our publishing this piece. Why, they ask, did we single out for criticism Ron Paul, who is the only presidential candidate to explicitly endorse free-market capitalism? Whatever his errors or inconsistencies, surely his uniquely principled advocacy of individual liberty—and the many specific positions he takes that are consistent with liberty—put him head and shoulders above the rest of the pack of power-lusting politicians. So, why attack the best, most principled man in the presidential race?

There is confusion here on several levels.

For one thing, the criticisms of Rep. Paul published in the TNI article had nothing to do with his candidacy for political office. As we take pains to emphasize, the magazine and its publisher, The Atlas Society, focus on philosophical ideas; we take no positions regarding the merits of candidates for elective office.

As an important part of our philosophy and institutional mission, though, we are profoundly concerned about advancing a rational, consistent case for individual rights and freedom. Consonant with that mission and concern, I solicited and ran the feature on Ron Paul’s views because of his growing public image as a champion of the ideas of liberty—and because I believe his public distortions of those ideas undermine the case for freedom in the marketplace of ideas. Steve Green clearly stated this theme in the article’s second paragraph: “He only discredits the cause of liberty by associating it with his own weird and dangerous brand of utopianism.”

The article went on to express concern about the fate of those ideas—not about Ron Paul’s worthiness as a candidate for elective office or as a competitor against other candidates. Instead, it simply argued that the case for liberty, as advanced by Rep. Paul, is a confused mess. In principle, his arguments wed the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which TAS emphatically endorses); a religious-based conception of individual rights, which leads him to some appalling positions on issues such as the separation of Church and State, abortion, and immigration; and—most disturbing of all—a dangerous, utopian conception of “noninterventionism” in foreign policy.

Steve Green noted that, if implemented strictly and consistently, Rep. Paul’s brand of noninterventionism would allow America’s sworn enemies to pursue their hostile machinations unimpeded; render America vulnerable to terrorist attack by obliterating its intelligence operations, alliances, and capacity to respond abroad to mounting threats; undermine the security infrastructure upon which international trade depends; and thus impoverish and imperil the nation.

For my part, I would add that Ron Paul derives his noninterventionism from a fundamental philosophical misunderstanding of the principle of individual rights. His is a platonic conception of rights that, like pacifism, clashes with what should be the guiding principle of our foreign policy: rational self-interest. Rational self-interest in foreign policy often requires actions—such as foreign alliances and the forward deployment of military bases abroad—that noninterventionists reject in principle. In their criticisms of such legitimate, self-interested U.S. foreign-policy actions, some libertarian advocates of strict noninterventionism (including, at times, Rep. Paul himself) sound like “blame America first” leftists, who see the United States as the world’s chief “aggressor” nation.

Noninterventionism is not a foreign policy, but the abdication of one. And as a prominent advocate of certain political ideas, Ron Paul aims to shift the nation’s foreign-policy outlook toward accepting this vacuous notion—toward accepting what Ayn Rand once called “the new isolationism.” More ambitiously (and ominously), he aims to cement in the public’s perception a supposedly logical connection between noninterventionism among governments and non-aggression among individuals. The basis for this bogus analogy is the (tacit) premise that all foreign governments, like individuals, are “sovereign” and thus have “rights” that should morally shield them against “intervention.” In practice, noninterventionism’s advocates often uphold even the “sovereign rights” of dictatorships—especially when those regimes face military conflict with the United States.

If Americans were to be persuaded by Rep. Paul and like-minded libertarians that noninterventionism is a necessary implication of individual rights, logic would then compel them to one of two conclusions. On the one hand, they could accept foreign policies and national-defense doctrines that would render our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. However, if they concluded instead that a consistent case for individual liberty implied a dangerously naïve foreign policy, they might just as well reject the whole case for liberty, as being hopelessly utopian.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects of freedom than widespread acceptance of this ideological “package deal.”

“The Abominable Dr. Paul” has inspired widespread discussion about the validity of such views, put forth by a man whom many see as the standard-bearer for the cause of liberty. Prior to that article, few publications had been able—or willing—to take the measure of Ron Paul’s positions by the standard of his own espoused principles. Since its publication, the congressman’s ideas have come under further critical scrutiny in a disturbing investigative report in The New Republic and in articles published by other media outlets, too. But The New Individualist was the first to turn the spotlight of attention on the incoherence and inconsistency of Rep. Paul’s political philosophy.

If the criteria for judging the worth of a magazine include its capacity to stimulate a national conversation about vital philosophical and political principles, I believe The New Individualist more than demonstrated its value by publishing “The Abominable Dr. Paul.”

However, comments and criticisms generated by the article reveal confusion over another question: By what criteria can we distinguish liberty’s friends from her foes?

I believe there are two sometimes overlapping, but distinct, sets of “friend or foe” criteria—one political, the other philosophical. One is appropriate to employ when judging those running for public office strictly as politicians. Another is appropriate to employ when judging ideologues (a term I use here non-pejoratively to refer to purveyors of systematic political ideas), including ideologues who run for public office.

Typically, politicians promote some haphazard set of loosely related public-policy prescriptions. What connects those policy recommendations (if anything) is usually the vaguest of notions or platitudes, not some overriding idea or principle (which is why their policies are so inconsistent). Since most politicians espouse no clear, consistent ideological direction, one must judge them based on their apparent personal character and the overall wisdom of their specific policies. After all, in an election campaign, we are filling a political office, not electing a philosophical guru.

However, to the extent that a politician adheres to and propagates some explicit philosophy or political ideology, he must be judged by a different set of standards. And the reason is this: Philosophical ideas are much more basic, powerful, and important to the long-term future of the country and the world. When a public figure focuses on advancing not just discrete policy proposals, but an overarching “ism,” his potential to do good or harm is magnified a thousand-fold.

Thus, the more philosophically motivated a public figure or political candidate is, the more he should be judged by his espoused principles and their potential long-term good or harm. Similarly, to the extent that even a relatively pragmatic, non-philosophical candidate latches onto some specific idea or principle as a major theme, he opens himself to a closer philosophical assessment of his capacity to do long-term good or harm.

In the current crop of candidates, for example, ambitious, pragmatic careerists—for example, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani—do not promote any identifiable ideology and thus will do little to change the philosophical direction of society or our political landscape. Their ambitions are personal, not intellectual. Each, however, advances specific policy proposals, and these must be assessed for their impact, on balance, to our national security, economic health, and personal freedom. The candidates themselves also must be assessed on the basis of personal character: Even pragmatists display varying degrees of intelligence, independence, honesty, personal honor, strength of will, competence, and commitment.

By contrast, candidates with ideological axes to grind must be judged more by the basic principles that they want to govern our politics and culture over the long haul. There are matters of degrees here. In some cases, otherwise pragmatic politicians—say, John Edwards and John McCain—latch onto certain precedent-setting policies with significant long-term implications for the nation. Even greater potential for either good or harm arises from those who represent discernable ideologies—in this election, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.

But—consistent with the very name of this publication—it’s not our business to propound our own judgments about the relative worthiness of specific candidates for public office. Our role is different: It is to address the ideas injected into the public arena by anyone—intellectuals, celebrities, politicians, and candidates included—and to consider the merits of those ideas against the standards and principles of rational individualism. We have too much respect for the intelligence of readers like you to presume to tell you who to vote for or against.

Besides, in an election year as philosophically chaotic as this one—where no candidate consistently embodies our principles—plausible cases can be made to vote for anyone or no one.