After the 9/11/01 attacks, many people who were formerly against military interventionism in other country’s affairs, immediately changed their tune. Every individual has a family member, good friend or casual acquaintance, who, at the drop of the towers, turned into a warhawk. These weren’t the people running to enlist in the military, but were more than happy to live vicariously through the all-volunteer force. Eighteen years later, has their blood-lust produced “victory?” To argue anything other than no is to be either, uneducated on the subject, or to prove that emotion is still ruling over you.
More recently, we have watched numerous people who were part of the Ron Paul movements of 2008 and 2012, abandon the ideas of individual liberty first, and embrace collectivism, which makes one wonder if they ever understood Dr. Paul’s message. Many have decided that fighting the culture war against purple-haired wildebeests on college campuses and Twitter is more important than concentrating on the institution that gives these people their power in the first place, namely the State. Were you to confront one of these “culture warriors,” who were formerly part of the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and ask them why they no longer seek to fight for individual freedom, they will tell you that the “SJWs are a threat to our way of life,” or some such platitude. They’ve jumped from “I” to “we.” They’ve jettisoned first principles.
Many former members of the “Revolution” have run to Donald Trump-style populism for economic reasons. These are the people on social media who promote the Trump tariffs, or his plans to start a trade war with the country’s biggest foreign debt-holder, China. “Trump says it’s easy to win a trade war. That means we can do it,” or, “China is cheating us, they charge tariffs while we don’t. That’s unfair.” When pushed on whether, even with tariffs, the products coming from China are cheaper than those from other countries, or ones manufactured here, you are usually met with confused anger.
That so many people came through the Ron Paul movement without absorbing even a remedial knowledge of economics proves Dr. Paul’s theory of the “remnant,” that every generation has a core group who wholeheartedly embrace individual liberty above all. Others have built their foundation on sand and the slightest wave will cause them to move to and fro, jumping from the ship headed toward its destination, to the vessel that is lost in the waves of distraction.
It’s important to point out that at no time has Dr. Paul ever said to follow him, making himself into some sort of “guru of liberty.” He’s never made the claim that he has all the answers, only that history proves when the individual has more freedom and choices, they are more prosperous and the “pursuit of happiness” is more easily traversed. Many looked at his presidential runs as appealing to a populist spirit, but the typical cult of personality that I’m sure will dominate electoral politics from now on, wasn’t present. Some may have “worshiped” him, but he never had a, “hey, look at me,” attitude. He didn’t brag about the successes in his professional life although he was an eminent OB/GYN. No, Dr. Paul was about principles, and the dominant theme of his message was individual liberty. Many knew that would be the answer to most questions posed to him, give people more options (liberty).
Possessing a solid foundation with which to interpret life’s events is essential. The impulse to deviate and cast aside what is most important when presented with a crisis, even one as catastrophic as 9/11, must be fought. It’s not easy when you are overcome by emotion, especially intense fear, to push on and stand your ground but it must be done.
After 9/11, Dr Paul’s message was that we should find the people who did this and deal with them. He endorsed going into Afghanistan to bring the ones responsible to justice (after all, Bin Laden and his people were there), but not this prolonged occupation that has become the longest war in America’s history. All of the interventions after that; Iraq, Syria, Libya etc., he opposed. He did not abandon his principles. Thomas Jefferson believed in going overseas to deal with criminals who brought harm to Americans, but “bringing democracy” to the world would have been anathema to him.
From central banking caused stock market crashes, to an attack on American soil, to people on college campuses seeking to shut down free speech, individuals have reacted to this by abandoning the concept of individual liberty above all else and embracing the same collectivism that causes the crises they are reacting to. Emotion, not logic and critical thinking, has become the default. Being a reactionary has become a virtue.
This quote has almost become a cliche in the post-9/11 era but it sums up perfectly where people have gone:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Taking into account there will always be threats to liberty that must be dealt with, discarding what brought you here in favor of some feeling of comfort in the moment, can lead to a temporary sense of ease that will not persist, especially if you let down your guard for even a second.
