Ron Paul's rEVOLution

Ron Paul Revolution's Positive Aftereffects in Los Angeles Republican Party

|

Reuters this week reported on the aftermath of a phenomenon I wrote about here at Reason in March 2012 and in my 2012 book Ron Paul's Revolution: the march of Ron Paul-inspired "liberty kids" to positions of power and influence in the local Republican Party in Los Angeles.

Excerpts:

Amir Zendehnam passionately supports marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the Republican Party.

He is not alone. The 26-year-old aspiring restaurateur and chairman of the party's West Los Angeles central committee, is one of a raft of ethnically diverse young libertarians who hold seats in L.A. County's huge GOP apparatus, injecting youthful energy into its operations at a time when the state's Republican Party is nearly moribund.

After winning control the executive board of the Los Angeles County Republican Party in December 2012, the "Liberty Kids," as they call themselves, are seeing the fruits of their activism. This year one of their own is running as the Republican nominee for Congress from the San Gabriel Valley, with Zendehnam serving as policy adviser.

The Liberty Kids are challenging the party's social conservatives and are drawing the attention of Democrats, who see liberal youth as part of their base. And in what could be a harbinger for the GOP, they have begun campaigning in other states, aiming to increase their influence beyond California……

The Liberty Kids hold four of seven seats on the local party's governing board and dozens of spots on its 200-person central committee, representing a county that is home to 10 million people.

Raised during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and excited by the non-interventionist philosophy of Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and presidential contender, many registered as Republicans to vote for Paul in the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries and then stayed on in the party….

Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats—world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many—these millennials say they are more comfortable with Republicans' emphasis on freedom than Democrats' penchant for regulation….

The newcomers have clashed with Tea Party libertarians, who skew more conservative on social issues. Many Tea Partiers bristle at the newcomers' views on abortion and immigration, and their deep distrust of the National Security Agency.

One more, localized, data point for the discussion we've been having round these parts, and all across the national media, regarding the "libertarian moment."

Hat tip: DEATFBIRSECIA

Advertisement

NEXT: More on the DEA's War on "Synthetic Drugs"--and One Texas Smoke Shop

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming

    Which one of these things is not like the others?

    1. Why? Shrinking the government and boosting economic growth is probably the best way to reduce CO2 emissions in the long run. See Fracking.

      1. See more efficient IC engines, hybrid cars, electric city vehicles…
        I have no problem with that at all as a matter of choice.

    2. I had the same reaction as you but the fact is getting government just out of the way of fracking and using natgas for cars would be a blow to CO2 emissions.

    3. Ending the war on drugs seems feasible and practical.

  2. “abortion rights”

    Just like Ron Paul!

    (from govtrack.us)

    http://bit.ly/1yffHlk

    1. That’s gonna bite him; hope the kids aren’t defending that.

      1. And it’s wrong because…

        1. Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life – without interference from antilife federal courts.

          The federal judges, after getting over their wounded amour propre, ought to be relieved that they have those radioactive cases removed from their docket.

          1. The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

            You forgot the part where they base it all on scientifically baseless nonsense.

            1. Aren’t you the infanticide guy?

              1. /glances at clock

                It’s not Saturday quite yet guys.

              2. So this is your way of conceding the point I gather.

                1. Do you believe in a right to infanticide? I seem to recall you saying so, or was that someone else?

                  1. Under certain conditions, in the time shorty after birth, yes. If the infant is diseased ex HIV + for instance.

                  2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:51PM|#
                    “Do you believe in a right to infanticide?”

                    Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!

                    1. Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!

                      Ehhhh….

                      Cytotoxic|8.8.14 @ 11:52PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      Under certain conditions, in the time shorty after birth, yes. If the infant is diseased ex HIV + for instance.

                    2. Uh, my comment was directed at Eddy; I make no comments regarding Cyto’s posts.

                    3. Grand Moff Serious Man|8.9.14 @ 12:09AM|#
                      “Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!
                      Ehhhh….
                      Cytotoxic|8.8.14 @ 11:52PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom”

                      Oops! Sorry GMSF,

          2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 10:22PM|#
            “Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life – without interference from antilife federal courts.”

            How many strawmen did you have to carry along?

            1. That’s actually a summary of the bill.

                1. Then I missed the straw man. Wasn’t I summarizing the bill put forward by Dr. Ron Paul, the neonatal specialist?

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:33PM|#
                    “Wasn’t I summarizing the bill put forward by Dr. Ron Paul, the neonatal specialist?”

                    Could be, and I’ll ignore the appeal to authority, but your “summary” was as follows:
                    1) “protecting innocent human life”
                    Bleever claim, absent evidence.
                    2) ” without interference from antilife federal courts.”
                    Can we say propaganda? Yes we can.
                    Look, you are welcome to your bleefs; I don’t care if you think you silly savior is arriving on the next catfish caught in the Mississippi. Stupidity is not illegal, nor can it be.
                    But don’t bother trying to make it a basis for government thuggery.

                    1. Good summary.

                    2. Hey, look, Sevo made a total non-sequitur comment as a result of a point sailing over his head because his religion hate boner drained all the blood from his brain again. Footage at 11.

                    3. 1) “protecting innocent human life”
                      Bleever claim, absent evidence.

                      They are human cells and they are alive…pretty sure they haven’t committed any sins or crimes yet. And without an act of nature or human act (pretty drastic act at that. Abortion is surgery really) they will develop into a baby.

                      I am pro-choice (up to about 3 months) but the whole sureness of SCIENCE about when “life” begins you guys and other pro-choice people have is really so much bullshit

                      You don’t need god to be iffy on the subject. Evolution and biology did not draw in red lines and put up signs of when “life” begins. Fundamentally it is a moral choice.

                    4. the whole sureness of SCIENCE about when “life” begins you guys and other pro-choice people have is really so much bullshit

                      When biological “life” begins isn’t all that ambiguous, as you indicate in your first sentence. Single celled amoeba’s and bacteria are “life”, but nobody has any ethical qualms about destroying them. The important question is when personhood begins, which is a question of philosophy, not science.

                    5. The important question is when personhood begins, which is a question of philosophy, not science.

                      True, we know that new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Indeed “person” is specifically not scientific to hide that truth. What philosophies include declaring obviously living human beings as non-persons? Libertarianism or Nazism?

                      As Cytofascist exhibits, those he finds inferior are OK to kill even after they are born because he has declared them not yet “persons”. It IS about philosophy. The philosophy of the rationalization of evil.

                    6. “we know that new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. ”

                      Meaningless. Only beings have rights and zygotes sure as hell aren’t beings.

                    7. Beings? Persons? For a someone who claims to be a “scientist” you sure seem to have a problem with “human” “individual” and “alive”.

                      According to you, living, already born children with defects are not “beings” either? Are Jews and gypsies? Any other groups of living human individuals which you do not deny are alive or human but deny their “personhood”?

                      I do appreciate your posts, though. It is useful to have an actual example of evil for my children. They wouldn’t believe it if I only claimed it. “Surely no human being is that malicious and evil” Yes, children and it calls itself Cytofascist.

            2. Since infanticide is terrible, I can only assume that the death penalty be in place for a woman who has a miscarriage or still birth due to her behavior? Also, one of those extra heavy periods that’s actually a very early miscarriage/natural abortion must certainly be manslaughter of some sort. Not being aware of those innocent cells within, and maintaining a poor diet etc is no excuse. A fully healthy woman is probably less likely to “naturally” abort, and so it can only be a culmination of behavior = vile, punishable behavior. And any women with a hostile womb shall have her vulva sewn shut lest any innocent fertilized eggs suffer murder.

              1. Since infanticide is terrible, I can only assume that the death penalty be in place for a woman who has a miscarriage or still birth due to her behavior?

                Um… no, and there is no sense in which such would naturally follow from a fetus’ personhood rights being respected anymore than the accidental death of a child in one’s care automatically leads to a death sentence or even a trial.

                I find that pro-choicers have a surprisingly poor understanding of the particulars in the debate, and make exceedingly poor analogies and arguments as a result.

                1. Bit it’s negligence TIT!

                  The analogies aren’t bad, that’s just your reaction to seeing how absurd your own illogic is.

                  1. No, it’s not.

                    If your child stabs himself with a pair of scissors there isn’t a jury in the world that will put you in prison unless there is an aggravating circumstance. There are plenty of situations where your child can die or come to harm under your care, where you are not considered directly responsible. If personhood rights were granted to the fetus, there is no way that a natural miscarriage or stillbirth would be punishable.

                2. I find that pro-choicers have a surprisingly poor understanding of the particulars in the debate, and make exceedingly poor analogies and arguments as a result.

                  Not the case at all. They have decided that there is the possibility to not take responsibility for one’s actions. Everything beyond that point is simply the rationalization of evil. They know for a fact that human life begins at fertilization but can’t face their own murderous desires so they only pretend they don’t understand.

                  Replace their claims with those of the Nazis. Exchange the word “unborn” with “Jew”. They are identical.

          3. Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life

            Here is your problem. The purpose of government is not to protect human life. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals. Huge, HUGE, fucking difference.

            1. Because individuals don’t have a right to not be killed? WTF?

              “The government is supposed to protect the rights of the individual but the right to live is NOT among them”?!

              Bizarre.

              1. but the right to live is NOT among them”?!

                Of course the right to live is among the rights of an individual. That is not in question.

                What is in question is when that lump of cells becomes a person (individual) and obtains rights.

        2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 10:20PM|#
          “And it’s wrong because…”

          It takes bleevers to say so.
          A1, and I’m tired of listening to bleevers claim otherwise.

          1. Dr. Ron Paul, the Ob Gyn, witnessed abortions. He dealt with unborn children as his job, saving rather than killing them. Yet to hear you talk, he has less commitment to science than Amanda Marcotte, because she’s a choicer and he’s prolife.

            1. Did you have a point?

              1. Yes- that your point is wrong.

                1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:35PM|#
                  “Yes- that your point is wrong.”

                  You failed. I claimed bleevers; you said bleevers say so.
                  Now, do you have a point?

                  1. You claim that a prolife obstetrician is an ignorant bleever, while you and Amanda Marcotte belong to the Party of Science because you’re choicers.

                    1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:49PM|#
                      “You claim that a prolife obstetrician is an ignorant bleever”

                      Yes, as a matter of fact I do, since appeal to authority is typically the refuge of those who have no evidence to support their claims.
                      That would be you.

                    2. appeal to authority is typically the refuge of those who have no evidence to support their claims.

                      Isn’t that kind of the same you’re doing by claiming that “science” itself supports your belief about personhood, which isn’t even a biological question?

            2. Ob Gyn =/= scientist

              Dealing with unborn children =/= scientific expertise

              1. It is, if Marcotte and you are the competition.

                Aren’t you the infanticide guy?

                1. It is, if Marcotte and you are the competition.

                  There’s no competition you idiot. You have no scientific backing, end of story. I, OTOH, am pretty well credentialed as a MSc.

                  1. Lol. So here we find ourselves through the looking glass where a medical doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology is dismissed as a science illiterate because of his beliefs on an issue having absolutely nothing to do with science, while a guy with a MSc uses a university credential to bolster his viewpoint, again, having nothing to do with science, whilst simultaneously denouncing appeals to authority.

                    It’s a good thing you guys aren’t irrational like those religious nuts.

                    1. An obstetrician really does not confer any special insight into whether the unborn are people. None. It’s basically a trade.

                    2. An obstetrician really does not confer any special insight into whether the unborn are people. None. It’s basically a trade.

                      But your claimed degree does? It is also basically a trade?

                      “My claims of authority are much more valid because I say so”?

                      It is almost as if the person posting under you nick wants to make you look like an imbecile and is succeeding fabulously.

                2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:50PM|#
                  “Aren’t you the infanticide guy?”

                  I’m not sure exactly what this means, but somehow I think it is an appeal to emotion from a bleever.
                  Do I have it?

        3. And it’s wrong because…

          It’s not wrong and it’s not right. There is simply not enough data to make that determination. Which is why it’s simply not a “libertarian” issue.

          1. In the total absence of evidence for personhood of unborn entities, the only correct libertarian answer is total legalization of abortion.

            1. Yes, in practice. However, I would phrase it a bit differently.

              In the total absence of evidence for personhood of unborn entities, the only correct libertarian answer is that a law prohibiting abortion should never have been made in the first place and such decisions should be left up to individual beliefs.

              I would also be willing to compromise. I’m quite certain it’s not a person at conception. I’m also quite certain it is a person at birth. I’d be happy to split the difference and call it a person at 4.5 months. Such a compromise would have the added benefit (for me) of making BOTH sides (of whom the extremists are equally nut-jobs) absolutely irate.

  3. they have begun campaigning in other states, aiming to increase their influence beyond California

    Perhaps because their influence in California is negligible at best. This is prog country.

  4. Oh, my god, I remember someone saying something in jest about this the other day, but they seriously did it. He died from a 30 yr old gunshot wound? Why stop there, why don’t they take it back to complications from his child birth 73 yrs ago?

    1. oh yeah, the link on brady’s homicide

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    2. Wrong thread…

  5. Good thing, because Republicans are winning all sorts of elections in Los Angeles.

  6. If the Liberty Kids can start producing victories, and even if they don’t, they can become a more libertarian alternative to the TP which is a flagging force. What’s their stance on immigration? If they are pro-freedom there too and can get victories with that then maybe they can become a kind of ‘gateway drug’ to sanity on immigration for the GOP.

    1. If my reading of the righty blogs over the last year or so is any predictor the Republican party is going to die on the immigration hill.

      I’ll go from sites that are good on a lot of things (for red teamers) to sites that are basically the lesser evil and they seem to be united on one thing: No Amnesty or anything that smells like it.

      1. So the righties are gonna die on the hill of keeping those horrible brown people out of the country?
        Well, in that case, they deserve it.

        1. Indeed. DWT is right these people are fucking insane. PapayaSF will seriously froth at the mouth about LA RAZA and the coming wave of HIV and other diseases. Remember, conservatives really are as dumb as the left makes them out to be.

      2. The Texas state GOP has dropped a lot of anti-illegal nonsense and they have not only survived growing numbers of Hispanics but thrived, putting truth to the lie that more Hispanics = TEAM BLUE dictatorship foreva. If the crazies can’t hold the Texas State GOP during an economic downturn with few jobs, they can’t hold anything.

        1. Yeah, but the Texas GOP is also trying desperately to keep messicans from voting through things like voter ID, remember? Try to keep your narratives straight.

          1. That’s not my narrative. Keep your commenters straight!

      3. Im pro open borders and anti amnesty. Remove the cap on work visas and make them check in legally.

        Amnesty is a horrible solution.

        1. Why? Because freedom is icky?

  7. Libertarian Moment, huh? I suppose Obamacare, the NSA and the IRS will become abolished in 2017? And they would have to battle the bureaucracy and media fear mongering about budget cuts. And I mean actual budget cuts at that.

    And I would think the libertarian moment is occurring if the libertarians can manage a Harding/Coolidge type fiscal conservative rather than a Reagan/Carter/Clinton/Obama one.

  8. Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats – world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many…

    Aside from “addressing global warming” (through the intervention of a massive government – libertarian as fuck), how does any of that seem in tune with Democrats?

    1. Aside from “addressing global warming” (through the intervention of a massive government – libertarian as fuck)

      I suppose he could be referring to the various ways that libertarians can deal with global warming without government intervention but without context it is hard to say that he isn’t calling for government intervention.

      It’s like that awful term “social justice.” Libertarian policies can indeed be considered a form of “social justice” but considering how it normally used by proggies it is hard to see a libertarian using it.

  9. By the way when will those libertarians win elections in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Boston?

    1. That you think the moment comes in the form of election victories is a reflection of your blinkered and extremely limited understanding of the nature of the moment.

      1. So the libertarian moment will involve, what? Dems and Repubs raising the budget by 5% instead of 10%?

        1. Would you prefer 10% over 5%?

          1. Would you prefer 10% over 5%?

            I just think that the libertarian moment would involve actual budget cuts rather than a return to Carter or Clinton.

              1. So becoming the sort of politicans they claim to hate? The “fiscal conservative” who only reduces spending increases?

            1. Libertarians turning out to be somewhat fiscally responsible progs (or neocons for that matter) is not what I would call a libertarian moment. It would be more of a sign of libertarianism being swallowed up by the establishment like all the previous “anti-government” movements which only nibble at the edges rather than enacting any real change.

              1. You cannot have a libertarian government without first changing the opinions of constituents. That ain’t gonna happen all at once. It’s going to take a slow re-education process. A little at a time. As we make gains, the world will get better and we will win more and more converts.

                Would I like it if we could go full up principled libertarian all at once? You bet, but that’s not realistic. The Pauls realize this and I truly believe that’s their program. Educate.

                1. I’ll be honest and say that I can see that libertarians have been making some minor gains and have a chance to really shake up the system but the latter hasn’t happened yet and it could very well fail miserably.

                  I mean can it be said that the libertarian moment has arrived when you yourself will admit it will take awhile to show real results? Or that Matt Welch himself wrote an article saying that Obama’s successors may very well be a lot worse than him which would imply the opposite of a libertarian moment.

                  I could be wrong and that in ten years the Republicans will replaced/taken over by libertarians who will win the White House and a substantial majority of Congress but on the other hand libertarians could be destroyed by infighting between pragmatists and radicals, the pragmatists could sell out by turning into the sort of Republicans they claimed to hate and/or be subsumed by the other parties or libertarians could lose once people learn that libertarians want to cut social programs, the minimum wage and regulation or perhaps societal collapse could lead to communism or some right-wing dictatorship.

  10. So who is More Delusional? Libertarians proclaiming the libertarian moment, German Communists in the 1930s who predicted “First Brown then Red”? or the homeless guy with a sandwich board proclaiming that the End of the World is Nigh?

    1. Well, the sandwich board guy is at least right if you use a long enough time scale.

    2. You for thinking your posts are in any way insightful or worthwhile.

  11. So explain to me how these folks are the coming libertarian generation?


    But young Americans also want government to guarantee health insurance and living wages; plan to vote for Democrats in 2014 and 2016….

    [M]illennials also support more government action and higher spending in a number of key areas:

    71 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour

    69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

    68 percent say government should ensure everyone makes a living wage

    66 percent say raising taxes on the wealthy would help the economy

    63 percent say spending more on job training would help the economy

    58 percent say the government should spend more on assistance to the poor even it means higher taxes

    57 percent favor spending more money on infrastructure

    54 percent favor a larger government that provides more services, when taxes are not mentioned

    54 percent want government to guarantee everyone a college education

    1. Do you think the NY times would have written a story about libertarianism five years ago? The world is exploring libertarian beliefs, to the chagrin of those currently in power.

      You are in denial because Nick was right and you were wrong. A real man would admit his error and move on instead of doubling down on it.

      1. The world is exploring libertarian beliefs, to the chagrin of those currently in power.
        True but a politically significant number of people actually accepting those libertarian beliefs and implementing them in some fashion is another.

        You are in denial because Nick was right and you were wrong. A real man would admit his error and move on instead of doubling down on it.

        Well if in 10 years there is Harding/Coolidge type fiscon then I will admit that I am wrong because otherwise the “libertarian moment” would have amounted to very little.

        By the way Gillespie was the guy who said in 2008 that Obama’s election would end racial strife so I highly doubt his predictive capabilities. And did he admit he was wrong on that?

        1. Why do you believe change cannot happen? Socons took over the Republican party 30+ years ago, The Whigs became irrelevant…there is absolutely no reason there couldn’t be a libertarian revolution. Especially when shit is as bad as it is. Why are you so vested in its failure?

          1. Why do you believe change cannot happen? …. Why are you so vested in its failure?

            Let’s see Strawman and accusation of rooting for failure. Obama, is that you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.