In early 2007, when I heard that Ron Paul was considering a run for the presidency on the Republican ticket, I got excited.  I remember thinking and saying that if he gets into the debates, a lot of people would hear a message that they hadn’t heard before.

My enthusiasm was well placed.  This is exactly what happened.  But I must admit that it didn’t play out quite the way I expected, and I mean that both in good ways and bad ways.

There are a lot of libertarians that get depressed over the situation in the United States and around the world.  They think there is little hope.  These are mostly people who were not libertarians prior to 2007.  They don’t know what a lonely time that was.  If you think the number of libertarians is small now, it was a fraction of the size prior to 2007.

At least when I became a libertarian, the internet was up and running.  There was no Facebook yet, but there were a few libertarian sites.  I followed Harry Browne through his website in the early 2000s.

It was after the first debate that Ron Paul gained significant traction.  Many people didn’t realize that a Republican could be anti war.  They didn’t realize that there was an argument to be made against having a central bank (“End the Fed”).  They rarely heard an argument for eliminating entire departments from the federal government. They were accustomed to hearing arguments about whether we should have a 35% top tax rate or a 40% tax rate. They didn’t consider whether there should be an income tax at all.

I wasn’t surprised that Ron Paul gained some traction.  I was surprised at just how enthusiastic his hardcore supporters – many of them new to libertarianism – were.  I never would have dreamed that he would be easily winning online polls and that cities and towns would be covered in Ron Paul signs.  And who could have seen a Ron Paul blimp in the cards?

This was obviously a pleasant surprise.  In fact, when I look back, it was one of the best times of my life.  I had a newborn baby at home, but luckily my wife was supportive and didn’t have a problem with me leaving a couple of nights per week to help with the campaign.  Our unofficial headquarters was at a business (owned by a Ron Paul supporter) less than a mile from where I lived, which was fortunate for me.  I would typically go there for two nights per week where a bunch of us (maybe 15 to 20 on average) would make signs, brochures, and occasionally phone calls, or whatever else we could do to help Ron Paul’s name get out there.  We had a great time doing this, and I met some wonderful people.

We did this for several months up until the Florida primary in early 2008.  I think some people were really disappointed when the vote totals came in and it was just a few percentage points.

I was never so naïve to think that Ron Paul had a significant chance at winning.  I had mild hope he would do better, but I figured the Republican establishment would snatch it away from him if he got close.  If you think the establishment hates Donald Trump, well, they would have really hated Ron Paul if he had gotten close to the presidency.  He was a threat to turn over the entire system.

When Trump says he is going to withdraw a few hundred troops from somewhere, the whole establishment goes ballistic. You can just imagine if it were Ron Paul saying that he is going to withdraw all troops from all over the planet.

Deeper Divisions

I think what still surprises me to this day is the deep divisions that formed.  Most people either bought into Ron Paul and his message, or they didn’t.  There were some conservatives that said they liked his economics, but they couldn’t support him because of his foreign policy.  There were also some independents, and even some Democrats, who respected Ron Paul for his integrity, but they didn’t really support his overall message.

I thought there would be more of a gradual shift in the thinking of the public because of Ron Paul’s message.  But it was more all or nothing, or at least it seemed that way at the time.

After Trump got the nomination in 2016, I had second thoughts about this assessment.  I don’t know how much of an impact Ron Paul had on people’s thinking outside of libertarian circles.  Trump stood on a debate stage right before a South Carolina primary and said that Bush lied us into war in Iraq.  I don’t know if it was a case of some people being tired of wars, or just general fatigue from the Bush regime and the establishment in general.  If Trump had done this in 2008, I don’t think it would have been as effective, and I don’t think he would have gotten the Republican nomination.

It’s actually quite amazing today just how deep the divisions are.  It isn’t just pro Trump and anti Trump.  It isn’t just Republican vs. Democrat, although that is certainly a major thing.  Many Democrats are openly calling themselves socialists.  Bernie Sanders almost snatched the nomination away in 2016.  But you still have some hardcore libertarians finding different places to vent their frustrations.  Some of them have sided with Trump.  Some are against Trump.  Some are – like me – not pro Trump, but recognize that many of his enemies are the worst elements of our society.

My guess is that there are still at least a million people in this country who are hardcore libertarian.  It is hard to tell for sure because there is nobody running for office who has a consistent libertarian message.  We haven’t had this since Ron Paul’s campaign in 2011/ 2012, so it is hard to measure.  If the Libertarian Party were to actually run a libertarian, then we could get a better idea of how many there are of us out there.

I believe there are many factors playing into the deeper divisions that we see today.  Some people are just fed up with the status quo.  I think Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007 kicked things off.  It was a way for people to protest the status quo.

Donald Trump has obviously created deeper divisions, but we should be careful not to blame Trump. If the establishment and their media had not gone after him so hard, then the divisions wouldn’t be as deep. Trump was playing to the dissatisfaction with the status quo.  People didn’t support him in spite of being loud, obnoxious, and a fighter. They supported him because of these traits.  They were tired of electing people who would cower to the establishment.  Believe me, his supporters want Trump to continue calling his enemies names, including the corporate press.

We must also consider that this has all happened in the age of the internet.  You can find any news that you want.  You don’t have to listen to the establishment media for your news.  There are alternative sites for virtually any point of view.

Overall, this is good, but there is a problem that people live in an echo chamber.  If you go to a bunch of different websites that all share a common view, then you are probably going to get firmer in that view if you don’t hear the dissenting opinions.

I can’t say that most libertarians would fall into this category.  I certainly visit libertarian sites more than non-libertarian sites when it has to do with politics.  But I live in the real world.  Any time I hear a news report on television, I am getting the establishment view.  The libertarian sites I visit just balances out everything I hear in my everyday life.  Many people don’t even realize they are living in an echo chamber.  They don’t realize they are being propagandized when they are at work or at school.  They just think this is normal and that most people think this way.  This is why it was such a shock to some when Trump received over 60 million votes.

Decentralization

I just don’t know that these divisions can be healed.  They could be healed, in a sense, if we live under a tyranny.  There weren’t many deep divisions in the Soviet Union, or at least they weren’t talked about.  You spoke politely about the regime, or you risked death. I don’t want to eliminate deep divisions that way.

The only sensible solution at this point is for mass decentralization.  It just doesn’t make sense to have 325 million people battling for control.  Different sides want to run the show, but there are always going to be tens of millions of people who are unhappy.

That is what happens when you use violence against others, which is what this is.  When people have violence threatened against them, they tend not to like it, even if it is delegated to the state.  It is hard to not have deep divisions when there are so many threats of violence, even if they come in the form of laws and regulations.

If power is radically decentralized, most of the divisions will go away.  There may be divisions on a local level, but these are more manageable.  If you really don’t like it, is easier to move to the next town over, or worst case, the next state over.

This has to be the long-term solution.  I don’t think there is going to be any other solution.  People are going to keep visiting the same websites on the internet, hearing confirmation of what they want to hear.

There are likely some rough waters ahead, economically speaking.  There is an unsustainable national debt.  There are unsustainable unfunded liabilities. When promises get broken, people will be looking for explanations and solutions.  I hope that people will consider decentralization, which simply means removing power from Washington DC.