Tech entrepreneur and failed Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy floated an idea while speaking at the Libertarian National Convention (LNC) on Friday, saying “the future of this country Depends on the idea”.
All it takes is liberals deciding to support a larger, more powerful federal government.
“I believe the future of this country depends on the Libertarian Nationalist Alliance to save this country,” Ramaswamy said. debate On the LNC’s main stage, he also debated Clint Russell, one of several candidates running for the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nomination.
The comments were met with boos from some Liberal representatives – and for good reason. Of course, there are many factions of libertarians, but the one belief that unites the movement is that people are best served by deciding for themselves how to live their lives. Nationalism is fundamentally a collectivist ideology that places the needs of the nation above individual choices.
in the audience comments reason At the National Council, Ramaswamy reiterated his belief in an alliance between liberalism and nationalism. Asked to explain how two seemingly opposing viewpoints could find common ground, he argued that their “goals do not overlap, but they are not in tension with each other.”
“When I say ‘nationalist,’ I mean the resurgence of our national identity,” Ramaswamy explained to Reason TV’s Zach Weissmueller (video to LNC Report coming soon). “I don’t think it goes against liberal principles at all. I think we’ve lost our sense of national pride and identity as a country, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”
IMHO, this is a load of crap. The wave of nationalism currently sweeping the right of American politics is not about something as innocent-sounding as restoring national pride. Its proponents have been very public about their desire to empower the state to pursue industrial policy, aggressive deportations, and even very silly things like banning lab-grown meat.
This puts the two views in a state of great tension. In practice, liberals advocate reducing the power of the state to control individual freedoms. Nationalists have no qualms about restricting the free movement of people or goods if those restrictions are seen or imagined to be in the intangible interests of the state (which in effect means that whatever special interest group manages to control policy making is in the best interest of the interests)instruments).
Thankfully, the future of the country does not depend on Ramaswamy’s ideas because his ideas are frankly crazy. It’s a bit like suggesting that the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees team up to win the American League, but actually worse, because in this analogy, the Yankees don’t want to win baseball games, they want to police your personal and financial choices.
Of course, the apparent subtext of Ramaswamy’s comments becomes clear once you remember that he is now the official surrogate for former President Donald Trump, who is scheduled to address the National Council on Saturday night . Ramaswamy’s real deal is this: Liberals should vote for Trump. There is no second part.
Ramaswamy was a college liberal and may still espouse liberal ideas at times—in fact, during the Republican primary debates earlier this year, he was at times the most liberal candidate on the stage (though he Also often one of the loudest advocates of liberalism) authoritarian thought.) None of that matters now because Ramaswamy’s Work The first week of November is convincing people to vote for Trump. Liberals should not be naive about this.
Yes, politics is the art of compromise, and yes, liberal goals can (and must be achieved) achieved by working with illiberals. Trump signed the First Step Act despite his deficit spending, higher tariffs and wall building. President Joe Biden did end the war in Afghanistan even as he implemented deficit spending, raised tariffs and forgave loans.
Liberals should always be ready to push those in power to make decisions that increase freedom—but we are under no obligation to help anyone gain power in the first place.
This is important because Ramaswamy does not appear to be proposing sharp alliances aimed at achieving specific policy goals. His remarks are correct reason In the National Council arena, a high-level strategic alliance between two competing political philosophies was proposed to increase electoral success. In other words, for the purpose of gaining political power for oneself.
Liberals should reject this will-to-power argument and boo anyone who makes such an argument, as the National Council representative did. Electoral alliances with those who want to expand state power over individuals, companies and markets are not the path to greater freedom.
