Familiar blog readers know I have a mixed opinion of Tom Woods. I stumbled upon him back in his early prolific days of writing certain non-fiction books, like his politically incorrect American history and the Catholic Church and the market and Western Civilization. (Tom is a convert to Catholicism, which is central to my Franco-American heritage. He also shares, along with other famous Catholic libertarians and myself, an affection for the old Latin Mass. I was one of the few altar boys who served during the liturgy changes post Vatican II.)
I wouldn't say I came to a pro-liberty perspective through Woods, Ron Paul, or Austrian School Economics (in particular Rothbard), Ayn Rand or others often cited. I have always been a pro-life fiscal conservative who in his naïve salad days naively confounded legislation with its gimmick titles: who, after all, could argue against equal opportunity, a war on poverty, or the like? At the same time, in my studies of philosophy at OLL, I had been trained not to rely on secondary sources. I had to read the (translated) works of Marx and Engels in my social philosophy course. My professors rebuked me for strawman arguments; I can still remember Fr. Lonergan admonishing me, "Don't make Donceel [textbook author] look like an idiot." It wasn't just the faculty; I had served as the daily mass early morning altar boy for the USAF base chaplain during high school, and when I left for college, he gave me his 4-volume hardcopy of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I had my quirks as a kid: checking out calculus books from the base library, reading encyclopedias from cover to cover, and the like. If you've ever read the Summa, you know that St. Aquinas was a brilliant, rigorous scholar, heavily influenced by Aristotle, and he could argue both sides of an issue. So one of my pastimes in college was trying to figure out how he might resolve an issue; you knew what he would decide, but how would he respond to the opposite point of view? It was such a rush when I anticipated his response.
I mourned OLL's groupthink eagerness to bypass Western Civilization in favor of multiculturism. I wasn't interested in reading the work of Carlos Castaneda or attending the on-campus lecture from then unknown Alex Haley. But I studied the classics on my own; I remember reading some ancient Greek author and wondering what the hell he meant by "beautiful boys". I will say, though, my training, external and internal, was a thorough one on philosophic pluralism and tolerance. I had grown up in an integrated military and many, if not a plurality of my friends, classmates and dormmates were Latino. I didn't need a political agenda being shoved down my throat.
By the early 80's and my MBA days at UH, I soon developed a growing skepticism of government and had abandoned political/social liberalism for a more consistent conservatism. In a sense this is a natural consequence of fiscal conservatism. Taxes implied a trade-off with funds otherwise available to the private economy. I also had an early feel for what we call the tragedy of the commons and public choice theory, a realization that politics and public service had their own perverse, self-serving incentives. It was clear to me that government had limited core competencies and there was a diminishing marginal benefit for additional tax dollars.
I had become one of the last conservative Southern Democrats, increasingly out of step and marginalized by the national progressive leadership.. For me, the straw that broke the camel's back was the political attack on the Bork nomination. I wouldn't say I ever bought into the GOP as a party but I saw them as an ally against ideological government-centered leftism.
I think the last inconsistency was I, as a former Air Force brat and a limited-term Navy ensign, was brought up a military conservative (Admiral Rickover insisted on direct control over the nuclear Navy; he wouldn't hire me as a contractor to teach math to sailors; we didn't have a career path; he would hire new instructors every 4 years) , although as a kid, I had quietly opposed our involvement in Vietnam. It became all too real for me when my Dad got orders to Vietnam just after my sixth younger sibling was born. I refused to see him off because I was worried I might never see him again. (His orders got changed to Thailand once he got there.) But the hell was very real to others. I noticed one of my friends wasn't around one day, and Mom said his dad had been killed. I didn't feel comfortable discussing my views in the military community, but I did have a frank discussion with my Dad years later. Dad was very tight-lipped over his part over there; he wouldn't even tell Mom. I think he felt somewhat trapped into his military career because he didn't see alternatives to raising a large family.
I don't have a single point of going to a more consistent pro-liberty perspective, but clearly the Fed had fueled two asset bubbles (Internet and real estate) in consecutive decades. Somehow the GOP which had balanced the budget under Clinton stumbled in dubious decades-long involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter just years after the Soviets had gotten bogged down. Trillion dollar deficits, expanded, unpaid for Medicare benefits, unfunded entitlement liabilities, undeclared drone wars, bloated military budgets beyond the nearest countries' budgets combined. An Alaskan senator threatening to resign if he doesn't get funding for his bridge to nowhere. Never mind how TARP got transformed from original intent into a form of politically motivated slush fund.
I remember giving Bush the benefit of a doubt over flawed intelligence when a Woodward expose made it clear that they were muddling through, chewing up American casualties. It wasn't just Bush; Obama who ran on having the judgment to intervene in Iraq was micromanaging drone attacks, splitting option differences in an Afghanistan surge, and meddling in a Libyan civil war.
I would sat if there was a jump point, if anything, it was Santelli's clarion call, in response to Obama's morally hazardous mortgage relief plan contributing to the Tea Party movement. But only a few liberty legislators emerged from that; Amash (recently retired), Massie and Rand Paul. The movement was eventually infiltrated by nativists and/or Trumpkins
Now I don't want to spend to spend a lot of time describing Woods' obsequious hero worship of Ron Paul. Now let's be clear: I've probably embedded dozens of Ron Paul clips over the life of the blog. I probably agree with Paul on most issues I have a more libertarian view on immigration, although Rothbard changed his own more orthodox view late in his career. I really disagree with him on COVID-19 vaccines and I'm sure there are other differences. He can get a little out there on topics like blowback and conspiracy theories nd he can get cranky, preachy and repetitious. It gets difficult choosing which clips to include because he often says things I wince at.
But Woods often channels his inner asshole. Take a recent Mises Institute clip I embedded on the Ron Paul "Revolution". He goes out of his way to insult Tim Pawlenty (MN) and Mitt Romney(UT). Regular readers knew I had a personal kerfuffle with Woods in his Facebook group some time back when he wished Ron Paul a happy birthday, dissing Romney in the process, calling him a phony. I confronted him, he dug in his heels and encouraged his minions to go after this Romney interloper. I was an early podcast follower and responded to his misconduct, warning he might lose me as a listener. He went into this poor, poor pitiful me rant, like his podcast is his gift to mankind, and I'm an ingrate. So I left his group and his podcast for years. I just don't want to reward his bad personal behavior. He can present his opinion without taking cheap shots at others.
I have been openly critical of Romney's 2012 campaign. Among other things, I thought he should have run against Bush/Obama's wars. But I thought he was an excellent turnaround executive who managed to work with an opposition legislature in MA. Of course, principle is important in a leadership role. And there is little doubt that Romney, in his failed Senate race against Kennedy adapted some of his positions (like on abortion) to be competitive in a blue/socially liberal state. Certainly you can argue that in the sense that Romney was politically opportunistic in running for office that he is a "phony" . But Romney was no Kennedy clone, running in a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" model. Kennedy was pro-abort, so Romney's stand had more to do with not letting Kennedy define him.
I do not know Woods' issue with Pawlenty, also a former governor, the last statewide officeholder reelected in increasingly blue Minnesota. I think that Woods, who worked on Paul's POTUS campaigns, resented their competing against Paul.
But for me, Ron Paul's own lack of executive experience was a major reason for not supporting his 2008 and 2012 bids. I didn't see a lot of productivity in his years in Congress beyond maybe a one-time audit of the Fed. He had little influence even in the GOP caucus. And there was no way he could survive a general election. Never mind what the Dems would do to Paul it they had Paul Ryan killing Granny over entitlement reform--and Paul had his own issues, including purportedly racist newsletters he signed off on in the 1990's dogging him. Not to mention some of his controversial comments about 9/11 and blowback. It may not be fair, but that's politics.
I think Ron Paul has played a valuable role in US politics, a different voice, but not as POTUS. I don't fault Woods for his loyalty to Paul's politics, but he needs to stop making excuses for Paul's failed POTUS campaigns.
