(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Mike Bloomberg Versus Ron Paul on Being Libertarian
Having already irked DailyKos this week, I thought I would aim our sites toward another interesting group of folks, Ron Paul supporters. Before you roll your eyes; the phenomenon that Ron Paul represents will be a serious contender in the upcoming election. They come from two camps, Goldwater Conservatives and the generally frustrated / disenfranchised.
In recent news Ron Paul has stated that he would not run as the Libertarian candidate. Somehow, I just don’t see Ron Paul letting Huckabee or Romney take the conservative vanguard to the races. That being said, I believe we will be in a four way Presidential contest. I am very interested in seeing polling data from a Bloomberg, Huckabee, Obama, Paul race. If you have this data, please send a link to CitizenSmith@UniteForMike.com or feel free to comment on how you think this would turn out.
Update: another discussion regarding this same matter is going on over at Donklephant.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I don’t think Ron Paul is going to run; he would probably realize that his chances aren’t that great in a general election, especially a four-way contest. However, Ron Paul running would have a positive effect on Bloomberg if Paul drew votes from the Republican candidate; it would decrease the Republican candidate’s ability to win states, and decrease the chance of a contingent election in the House. If Paul draws from Bloomberg as well, then it could have a less positive effect on Bloomberg.
Huckabee and Obama nominations are looking increasingly like given the latest polls; Huckabee is very likely going to win Iowa and South Carolina, and Obama is probably going to win Iowa and is closing in in NH.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
On Being libertarian, obviously, Ron Paul is more libertarian (though some, myself included, would argue that he’s not a true libertarian). At Google, When Mike Bloomberg was asked about the decrease in privacy in modern times, he said essentially “society votes with its feet every day,” which is a sensible position as long as it doesn’t justify too much erosion of privacy and liberties, but it’s certainly not a libertarian position. Bloomberg believes there can be a role for government in making the world a better place and helping people out. Libertarians do not.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am
In the late summer of 2007 representatives of Ron Paul approached the Constitution Party to see how that party “felt about Ron Paul.” I know this from someone involved with the CP. This shouldn’t necessarily be construed that Paul will run with the CP, however. His people may have also approached the Libertarian party and Unity08 (I’m pretty sure Unity08 contacted him, but I am not quite certain).
Another reason he might go independent, and this one is very speculatory, is that he has raised a lot of money. He’ll probably have a lot more after the Tea Party fundraiser this weekend. And yet, the expenditures, according to many in IA and NH have been VERY low. This calculation is based on his opponents, who don’t necessarily have that much more money have a lot more advertising going on. Now, if Paul doesn’t place well in IA or NH, he’ll be out fast. If his people know that’s the case, why would he NOT be spending aggressively? Why save the money raised “for tomorrow” if his viability as a Republican relies exclusively on placing well early on?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
@GP, his large and unspent war chest (over 20 million) does seem to be an indication that he is waiting for something.
@Michael, on social issues Bloomberg has a live and let live philosophy, which is distinctly pro-liberty. When it comes to the numbers, I think of him as a “pragmatic libertarian” in that he wants to simplify the government instead of completely removing it. Bloomberg’s view of government seems to be that it should be a citizen or customer centric model, which I view as distinct from the command control model, offered by mainstream Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps I will concede the word Libertarian, however, Bloomberg does seem to represent an alternative, which on the balance will increase the accessibility of liberty.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I’ve read my Rand (loved The Fountainhead and liked 2/3 of Atlas) and have had many a conversation with Libertarians. I even flirted with the party for a bit.
That being said, I really wouldn’t classify Mike as Libertarian insofar as I find that a lot of Libertarians like to tell everyone unhappy with the current political system that they are in fact Libertarian (but just didn’t know it!) In this way, I find that there’s too much of a desire to be a catch-all, an almost religious sort of sales pitching that aims to provide simple answers to complex issues. If we but believe in one principle or another all shall be well (TM).
I would actually consider Mike to be the opposite of Libertarianism; Mike doesn’t promote a bumpersticker belief system, nor does he stump for simple answers. Rather he employs a judicious review of facts and circumstances and solves problems with whatever the best solution is. Sometimes it’s government and other times it’s private industry. Neither one is a be-all end-all to the other. In short, there are no silver bullets.
I’m not certain that this approach or “philosophy” has a political name. Some might call it “centrist.” I would call it common sense. The problem with political promotion is that political parties, for lack of a better way to say it, ARE religions. Thus, they must have “single, undisputed truth” as a core belief to gather adherents.
The problem with a non-religious approach, as I would suggest Mike will take, is that it requires a lot of smarts to digest individual situations, as opposed to shooting silver bullet solutions, and it further requires a lot of courage to leave the religious sort of thinking that tends to drive each party. Being practical works, but it ain’t easy to preach in 10-word sentences.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I would state that Bloomberg is not a libertarian, but much more simply a Fiscal Republican. There is something to be said about the state being as frugal as possible while still serving the absolute needs of the public. Does this mean socializing medicine? No. But does it mean providing for interstate travel and commerce, foreign relations, protection, education, and controlling immigration. Yes. The country could become a lot more efficient at doing those things, and I feel Bloomberg would stand for that.
Paul differs in that he believes the federal government should have little/no control over anything, other than those things above. However, he also beleives that bureaucratic agencies for those functions should be eliminated and funding/policy should go straight from the president/congress to the individuals receiving those services or working directly in them.
Also, as to the candidacy of each: Bloomberg would fare much better in a general election than Paul. The changes Paul would promote could not happen, and Bloomberg would/could do more to promote the common good and more would get accomplished (since the ambitions are so much more strict and inconceivable).
I would vote for either one if they are on the final ballot.