As the votes from the Iowa Republican caucus began to roll in a week ago, most of the nation's viewers were riveted by the small, fluctuating margin between Rick Santorum and the eventual winner, Mitt Romney. However, for conservatives such as myself, the battle had been won before the clock struck midnight.
Ron Paul, the hero of the chirping sect of libertarianism, had been vanquished with only 21 percent of the vote, a third-place finish that stifled his previous momentum. Years from now, may the average Iowa voter who stood staunchly against the ideological torrent from the Ron Paul camp strip his sleeve, show his scars and say, "This vote I cast on caucus day."
Now perhaps Ron Paul is not as monstrous as a Shakespearean villain. However, Paul is a follower of the poisonous ideology of libertarianism, a set of principles endorsing complete individual social and economic freedom. At first glance, this ideology seems compatible with conservatism, with its stance against centralized state power and corporate bailouts. But the marriage between conservatism and libertarianism is not a natural one and will eventually serve to rip the Republican Party asunder.
In order to understand this, one must ask, "What is conservatism?" It might be more appropriate to say what it is not. Conservatism is not an ideology as libertarianism is. Conservatism is not a vehicle toward the vague enlightenment notion of progress. In fact, the notion of progress is antithetical to conservatism, as conservatism is not a set of beliefs that serve as a drum roll toward a precise utopian ideal. Conservatism is a way of living, a disposition and attitude toward life. Conservatism is educated by traditional norms, not a set of 20th-century novels authored by a deranged Soviet expatriate. Conservatives believe individual freedom without communal purpose is meaningless; libertarians believe individual freedom is a purpose itself.
On paper, the average conservative and the average libertarian want the same changes in Washington: less government and more economic freedom. However, a Ron Paul nomination would set a dangerous precedent, because libertarians do not pretend to care about social norms - they say only that everyone has equal freedom, as though no freedoms were mutually exclusive. A libertarian victory would create a political environment in which a nominee's understanding of virtue and morality is irrelevant, much as it is in Europe. There is something unique about American voters. We care about what a candidate thinks about the moral tradition our ancestors set. It may be foolhardy to believe political careerists could ever hold any true moral fiber, but we care all the same.
Ron Paul's defeat in Iowa was a victory for conservatives. However, the momentum is still in favor of his progressive ideology. In colleges and universities around the country, including here at UF, Paul and his ilk have enormous support. I beseech you all to resist the honeyed words of libertarian dogma.
Be wary of any doctrine that promises to bring radical change on the right or the left. Libertarianism has become its own secular religion, which will color your understanding of every issue, be it economic or social. When attempting to understand the world around you, look not to the radical fringes of politics but to the ancestors who came before us.
They believed in small government not because it was virtuous in and of itself but because it allowed people to live virtuously. There is no virtue in libertarianism - only freedom for its own sake, and all the freedom in the world will not serve you if nothing exists to guide it.
Luke Bailey is a history junior at UF. His column appears on Wednesdays.
