There are some good reasons not to like Ron Paul.  His opposition to Third World immigration changed from wimpy in 2008 to almost non-existent by 2012.  And though he fights the legalized theft and coercion that is fascism, he seems unaware of the corruption within the U.S. Department of Justice which is its principle facilitator. [1]

A non-atheist can never be a thoroughgoing Objectivist but we should not count Ron Paul’s Christianity as reason to dislike him. Few Christians are the otherworldly Nazis of Leonard Peikoff’s perfervid imagination. Ron Paul keeps his religion out of politics just as Sam Walton (1918 - 1992), founder of the Walmart chain and a Presbyterian, kept his out of his stores. (Are Christmas trees all right ?) Most people would be hard pressed to even discover what religion Ron Paul has, if any.

Nor should we include Ron Paul’s position on abortion:  he would allow each state to determine if protoplasm is a person or not. That position is unfortunate, but as a practical matter irrelevant. Anti-choice is an idea whose time has gone. Most of the public is pro-choice. As long as one pro-choice state exists – and there would be several – abortion is not much of an issue. Freedom is a bus ride away. Roundtrip plane fare to a pro-choice state would cost less than a doctor’s appointment. [2]

The question “What would Ayn Rand do?” is often heard in Objectivist circles. Barry Goldwater had the same “states rights” position on choice as Ron Paul has, yet Ayn Rand still supported Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. A year before the election she asked her readers (“A Suggestion” The Objectivist Newsletter October 1963) to register Republican, if not already, so they could vote for Goldwater in the Republican primaries, saying:

On practically every other political issue Ron Paul is consistent with what an authentic Objectivist wants. It should come as no surprise that he has read and admires  Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal  and  Atlas Shrugged [4]  or that he has referenced Rand at least half a dozen times on the House floor, including commemorating the 100th anniversary of her birth. He may be shaky on the ethics of altruism in personal affairs, but he never applies altruism to the relation between the individual and the state. Though not perfect philosophically, though not the best possible candidate imaginable, if you insist on John Galt for president you will be sitting on the bench while a police state takes over America.  As the saying goes:  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Setting aside Ron Paul’s politics, the man himself is sincere, genuine. He means what he says rather than groping to say what you want to hear, changing with the times and the audience. Besides sincerity, he has the backbone to keep saying his piece in the face of smear after smear. The Republican candidates were whittled down to Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, and then to Mitt Romney, a man with the sincerity of Elmer Gantry.

Romney chose a boatload of neocons as his advisors. [5]   In a contest between him and Obama no matter which had won we would have gotten another helping of evil.

Giving up makes the prediction of losing a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Though Ron Paul did not make it beyond the primaries, his fighting to the end at the Republican convention helped lay the groundwork for the future victory of a likeminded candidate. Though Ron Paul lost the Republican nomination – largely through GOP shenanigans – the Robert Taft  Republicanism he represents is not going away. [6]

Welfare and warfare liabilities threaten to crush the American middle class. During the Clinton, Bush and Obama years the police state infrastructure sprouted new growths almost monthly (only the TSA is apparent to the general public at this time).  The main battle may be philosophical, and it may be too soon to expect a thoroughgoing Objectivst in the White House, but if the fascist trend is not stopped soon, before complete censorship is imposed, it’s game over.

There was only one issue in the 2012 presidential race:  individual rights versus dictatorship. Judging from deeds and words Ron Paul was on the side of individual rights more consistently than any statesman in our lifetime – and “statesman” is more descriptive of Ron Paul than “politician.” Both Obama and Romney were both on the side of the welfare/warfare state that is rapidly leading to dictatorship.

With this dramatic backdrop, what did the Ayn Rand Institute have to say about Ron Paul’s candidacy?  Legally ARI writers are forbidden from endorsing a candidate through ARI, the organization being a non-profit, [7]  but they are allowed to express an opinion personally. Here we focus on Yaron Brook, the president of ARI at the time. What did he have to say about Ron Paul?

At first, not much.  When Mallory Factor [8]  interviewed Mr. Brook on September 20, 2011 for the website The Street – the title of the interview was “What Would Ayn Rand Do?” – this exchange occurred:

Amy Peikoff, now divorced from Leonard Peikoff, runs a blog she calls “Don’t Let It Go.”  The name mimics the title of one of Rand’s essays, for the most part like a mock apple pie with sawdust inside. The blog features a regular podcast called “Don’t Let It Go ... Unheard” (ellipsis hers). On July 17, 2011 Ms. Peikoff interviewed Mr. Brook. About halfway through, in response to a listener’s question, he addresses the candidacy of Ron Paul. The next day someone posted that part on YouTube, with a political cartoon displayed throughout the audio. The cartoon depicts a man kneeling in the desert, bent over with his neck coming out of the sand, rump in the air. To the left a sign saying “Ron Paul” points to the man, while above him floats the neologism “OSTRICHISM.” In the lower right corner you see the proud signature of Bosch Fawstin. [9]

A few excerpts from Mr. Brook’s remarks follow, transcribed without his false starts, stuttered phrases, you knows, uhs and other dysfluencies.  As one has come to expect from ARI people Mr. Brook begins by smearing and misrepresenting the America First foreign policy:

Then Mr. Brook gets to his main point:  Ron Paul makes free markets look bad.

Here Ms. Peikoff, who has kept quiet, chimes in:  “Yes ... he is more anti government than he is pro individual rights.”  Like Mr. Brook, she won’t allow herself to realize that to be anti the government that violates individual rights because it violates them is to be pro individual rights. People who are pro individual rights will oppose their violation.  Mr. Brook then admits:

In the comments section of Ms. Peikoff’s blog only one negative comment appears, by Craig Spencer. Here is part of it:

We emphasize that Ron Paul is not above criticism but Mr. Brook places him beneath contempt, and utters a raft of lies to get him there.

There are scores of Ron Paul speeches from which one could quote to refute Mr. Brook. A speech he gave on the House floor March 6, 1997 can serve as an example. Recall that the growth of the “anti-terrorist” police state began immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. “Anti-terrorist” legislation that had been written before the bombing afterwards sailed through Congress. Ron Paul begins by saying he will address:

By the time Mallory Factor interviewed Mr. Brook again, February 28, 2012, Ron Paul had become hard to ignore after his success at garnering delegates. A video of the interview was published on The Street website, entitled  “What if Ron Paul is Anti-Government?”  Here is a transcript: [11]

Mr. Brook grossly misrepresents the views of Ron Paul. Though the government of a just society would be so small compared with today it might seem like anarchy to some people, Ron Paul certainly doesn’t advocate anarchy. And in Ron Paul’s many speeches, interviews and articles he makes no complaint against business per se. When he speaks out against bank bailouts or the Federal Reserve, he opposes not banks but the collusion of government and banks.

Ron Paul at the GOP primary debate held in Rochester, Michigan on November 9, 2011: [12]

You have to wonder how stupid he thinks they are.

When it comes to Ron Paul Mr. Brook doesn’t merely misunderstand, he willfully misunderstands. His deceit is all the more exasperating because he seems to believe his own lies.  He’s a very good liar !  Glib, enthusiastic – and a complete fraud.

Mr. Brook claims to oppose the Federal Reserve, yet when a presidential candidate comes along who would phase out the Federal Reserve, Mr. Brook happens not to like that candidate. Mr. Brook claims to oppose welfare, yet when a presidential candidate comes along with a detailed plan to lop a trillion dollars off the federal budget his first year in office, Mr. Brook happens not to like that candidate. Mr. Brook claims to oppose ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, yet when a presidential candidate comes along who would get Congress to rescind those acts, Mr. Brook can’t stand him.

Mr. Brook claims to have opposed the Iraq War – another of his “how stupid the rubes are” because in fact he promoted it assiduously – yet when a candidate appears who really did oppose that war, Mr. Brook hates that candidate. Mr. Brook claims to love America, yet when a man appears who would adhere to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, Mr. Brook hates that man. Mr. Brook claims to hate neoconservatism – another act for the rubes because he promotes a Who’s Who of them [13]  – yet when a man appears who roundly denounces neoconservatism, Mr. Brook smears him as anti-American.

The EPA, Social Security, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, socialized medicine – Mr. Brook hates the man who sincerely opposes these and other big government programs, even when the Republican nomination came to a choice between that man and a big-government hack called Mitt Romney.

And Mr. Brook complains he gets harassed  about this ?

Here is the total of what Mr. Brook and the other writers at the so-called “Ayn Rand Institute” had to say about the so-called “Patriot Act” before Mr. Brook’s harassment:

Here is what the official ARI has to say about the TSA:

Here is everything ARI has said about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012:

The War on Drugs, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act, the federalization of local police departments – the response from ARI:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly:  When these people praise individual rights, private property, free speech, reason, the Enlightenment, the Founders, all the good things, they don’t really mean it.  If a value is what you act to gain or keep, they do not value what in generalities they claim to value. When it comes to concretes, to particulars, they are usually out to lunch.

March 28, a few weeks after the second Mallory Factor interview above, the Ayn Rand Center Chicago Speaker Series sponsored a debate between Mr. Brook and David Callahan on the size and scope of government.  The debate question was:  “Is Government the Problem or the Solution?” Considering Mr. Brook’s previous statements about Ron Paul —

... He said it is the solution.

Well, Froggy, let’s see what he said. I won’t quote much of it, just some snippets in the middle.

The question then is:  Why his headlong flight from reality regarding Ron Paul? What is the reason, the real reason, Mr. Brook and other ARI-objectivists oppose Ron Paul?

Given the facts about ARI described elsewhere on this website the answer is pretty obvious. They hate Ron Paul because he opposes foreign aid, in particular to the Middle East, in particular to Israel, in particular useless and sacrificial wars. [15]  Such opposition is a deal breaker for a neocon.

Then our question becomes:  Why does Mr. Brook present Ron Paul in the terms that he does? The following is worth reading again:

As we have seen in  This is Our Ally?  ARI people want us to see Israel as part of America, indeed the better part. If you don’t want to sacrifice yourself to the self-styled “Jewish state” then you are un-American, unpatriotic, don’t really understand the Founders. However ARI doesn’t call your support of Israel (via the IRS or monetary inflation) a sacrifice. You are an American, Israel is America, therefore giving to Israel is in your interest. [16]

So there could be a twisted logic to Mr. Brook’s statements, though the above might be a subconscious undercurrent rather than something he would ever think or say.

For those who find it hard to believe Mr. Brook is that twisted here is another guess. Neocons hold the middle class in such contempt that they self-righteously lie to them in order to get what they want. [17]  Mutatis mutandis for Objectivists in the inner circle – very similar to neocons – addressing their followers. Mr. Brook starts with his love for Israel and consequent hatred of Ron Paul, then the problem for him is:  how to get the Objectivist “middle class” to hate Ron Paul too. Making Israel the centerpiece of his argument would be too obvious, so he casts about for positions an Objectivist would hate, then pins them on Ron Paul. Thus he makes Ron Paul out as a bizarre combination of leftist and anarchist, a man who hates businessmen and free-markets and banks, a man who is a discredit to the idea of capitalism. How could an Objectivist tolerate such a creature ... I mean Ron Paul?

If that machiavellian scenario is correct then Mr. Brook’s statements are not due to a slovenly disregard for the truth but rather to conscious deceit.

But it is hard to believe Mr. Brook would think he could get away with it, so here is one more guess. As in the scenario above Mr. Brook wants to trash Ron Paul, but there is no conscious deceit on Mr. Brook’s part. Wishful thinking benights his judgement and self-hypnotized he truly believes what he says. He wishes Ron Paul had no clue what individual rights really mean, then the pesky man would be out of his intellectual hair, so Ron Paul has no clue. In a word Mr. Brook’s problem is evasion and self-deception. He sees Ron Paul the way he wants him to be instead of the way he is.

Whatever.  These are just guesses and only Mr. Brook knows for sure – assuming he is capable of introspection – what goes on behind his oratorical performances. A craziness can only be explained in terms of another craziness. It is enough to point out that Mr. Brook hates Ron Paul and his supporters. In the end this intellectual scoundrel will be remembered for:

Here is Rand writing about Americans and their sense of life in her essay “Don’t Let It Go” (The Ayn Rand Letter, December 6, 1971):

Ron Paul was not the leader but the lightning rod of “The Ron Paul Revolution.” Despite his flaws he made a good spokesman around whom men of goodwill could rally. Again we are reminded of Barry Goldwater’s run for president in 1964. As Rand desired, Goldwater won the Republican nomination. Soon after, she wrote the following in “How to Judge a Political Candidate”  (The Objectivist Newsletter  March 1964)  except Froggy suggested I replace “Barry Goldwater” with a fill-in-the-blank:

Yaron Brook and everyone else at the so-called Ayn Rand Institute passed up Ron Paul, as did most of the electorate. What Rand said about the prospect of Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 (he won the nomination but lost the election, disastrously) is applicable here: