David McElroy

The United States and Great Britain seem poised to launch a military attack on Syria later this week, if we’re to believe various news accounts. Is this a victory for humanitarian action to save people from their dictator? Or is it yet another mistake by politicians and bureaucrats who seem determined to make even more people around the world hate us?

The situation in Syria is being presented to us — once again — in a simplistic fashion. According to this narrative, this is a simple story of a terrible dictator facing off against rebels who seek their freedom. The evil dictator is using chemical weapons to kill innocent people as the rebels gain strength in fighting for truth and justice. Or something like that.

The “evil dictator” part of the narrative is the truth. The part about chemical weapons is probably true is well. (And a UN official said it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons, so there’s even a question about that.) The rest of it is pure fiction.

The United States has no business getting involved in Syria. The first reason is that there aren’t any “good guys” in this conflict. The second is that the war is none of our business and all we’re going to do is create new enemies and intensify the hatred that certain older enemies already have for us.

Keep Reading

If Rand Paul weren’t the son of his famous father, how many libertarians would be enthusiastic about him? He would be one of the less-offensive members of Congress, but he would ultimately be just another politician who’s defending the fundamentals of the status quo.

When Rand Paul ran for the U.S. Senate and his father, Ron Paul, retired from politics, many long-time Paul supporters saw the son as the natural successor to the man they had idolized for years. As much as I admire certain things about Ron Paul, I couldn’t support his candidacy, as I explained two years ago. What’s worse, no outsider candidate of the Ron Paul sort has any chance of being elected president running with libertarian principles.

Ron Paul was the ultimate outsider as a member of Congress. His fellow congressmen called him “Dr. No” because he voted against anything that wasn’t specifically authorized by the Constitution. He didn’t compromise and he didn’t play political games. He spoke the truth as he understood it and people thought he was a nut. And he left with a bang, asking a series of questions that statists are still ignoring.

His son is taking a very different path. Anyone who expected a principled libertarian has to be badly disappointed by Sen. Rand Paul.

Keep Reading

It was about 10 p.m. Wednesday. I was taking my nightly walk through my quiet suburban neighborhood when I realized that something seemed wrong at a house just ahead.

I couldn’t tell what was going on, but I heard the low murmur of voices that didn’t sound happy. There was a car that seemed to be about half packed. The trunk and the doors were open. It was dark, so I couldn’t see much, but I knew there were people in the driveway.

I heard the low sound of a child sobbing. Then I heard a man’s voice. He wasn’t shouting or angry, but the voice was firm.

“I don’t want Mommy to leave, Amber, but that’s her choice.”

The soft, muffled sobbing continued. Then I was far enough past that I couldn’t hear what else might have been said.

And with that, I was a child again — just for a few minutes — reliving similar scenes from my own dysfunctional family’s past. Even though it’s been decades since I experienced those things, I could feel the feelings as if they were fresh. Hurt. Fear. Anger. Betrayal. Confusion. Mostly fear that I was being abandoned, although the child-size version of me didn’t have had the words to call it that.

Keep Reading