Roger that.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/17/2010 9:21:36 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
Let’s talk about Ron Paul. It’s no secret that the Texas congressman isn’t the most popular guy in this corner of the blogosphere, though despite NewsRealBlog’s many, many posts explaining why, we’re still subjected to wild speculation about our “real” motives—the Paulite hordes routinely diagnose their opponents’ “true” motives as everything from hating limited government to the will of our (imagined) Jewish masters.
Considering that domestic policy—where Paul’s talk of the Constitution lines up pretty well with the rest of the Right—is currently where the electoral action is, now’s a good time to make perfectly clear exactly what’s wrong with Paul. The inane misdirection has gone on long enough; it’s time to set the record straight with Ron Paul’s top eight greatest hits.
8. Founding Faker
A big part of Paul’s appeal among conservatives and libertarians is the public image he’s cultivated as one of the last remaining adherents and spokesmen of the Founding Fathers. That’s a good marketing strategy, but unfortunately, in Paul’s case it’s also bogus—on foreign policy, Ron Paul doesn’t faithfully apply the Founders’ words, he hijacks them for his own ends.
Yes, George Washington warned the country not to needlessly entangle herself in foreign affairs of no concern to America, and John Quincy Adams told us not to simply go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” But from these general principles, Paul and his cultists have inferred drastic conclusions that have little to no support in our forefathers’ actual words. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the fact is that they were directly motivated not by imperialism or utopianism, but by America’s national security interests, as counterattacks against the global Islamic movement that struck the US on 9/11.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
We've been stepping on the snake and not killing it since 1979.
I would agree, except that this does not sum up Ron Paul's foreign policy approach. Ron Paul appears to believe that if we "just left everybody alone" then we'd have a world full of peace and harmony. Problem is, he fails to account for the fact that there are a lot of nasty, nasty people out there in some of these foreign countries who aren't keen on leaving anyone else (including us) alone. I won't comment on Mr. Paul's intelligence or morality, as some in the Frum wing (erroneously) might, but I will say that Ron Paul's whole approach to the assumptions he makes about foreign policy and other nations is wrongheaded.
I am definitely not cool with "occupying" other countries for decades at a time. On that point, I would agree with Paul. However, I certainly would not shy away from putting the stick up side some other country's head if they were threatening us or our vital interests. On that point, I am definitely different from Ron Paul.
I have to admit, this article presents neither an attraction or a detraction to me. I'm not keen on RoPaul's foreign policy (which is not "100% pro-American" btw), neither am I keen on the Frum/Horowitz style "neocons" (though I think that term is used a bit stupidly by people who confine their thoughts, such as they have them, to bumper sticker slogans).
I say a pox on both their houses. America should maintain a strong military (or even better, a robust militia system modeled on that of the Swiss), and use it when we our our interests are directly threatened. Peace through strength, but not frittering away that strength in a myriad of "police actions" and "occupations." The true middle ground, in other words, between two equally idiotic extremes.
Such is the nature of the Straussian (oc)cult there and, unfortunately, elsewhere in the conservative movement. They have a strange habit of promoting idiotic hacks as if they were the "best and brightest" the movement has to offer. Hence we get a profusion of Kristols, Frums, and people of their type who would be perfectly unemployable if they had to rely upon their own underwhelming talents rather than the neocon patronage that keeps them afloat.
There is not much of a difference. Their ideas on foreign policy are identical and based upon their disdain for the military.
He certainly is more aligned with the left than he is with the right. And you can always tell a Paul cultist by their overuse of the word "neocon."
(Their definition of "neocon:" Anyone who does not worship Ron Paul.)
But the good news is the end of the essay, Ron Paul’s supporters are a tiny group.
Noisy and obnoxious, but yes, thank goodness, a tiny little cult.
No, these are the neocons who have been attacking Christine O’Donnell. They will attack any Conservative.
Podhoretz, Frum, Gerson, Brooks, Kristol, Krauthammer, Perino, Rove.
Those are neocons.
It is true that some Ron Paul supporters confuse supporters of a strong US Foreign Policy (any Republican President before W) with supporters of endless wars that make Republicans lose (those are the neocons).
“You have to include Reagan, be honest. Although Paul campaigned for Reagan in 1980, he quit the House out of disgust with Reagan’s confronting the Soviets , because Paul “understood” why they’d be upset with our cruise missiles in Europe. In other words, he was a top-notch fellow traveler.”
I will disagree with you on this. Reagan was a Cold Warrior to be sure (the principal reason I voted for him), but that is not the same as the globalist, utopian, neocons.
There is a far cry between defeating a sworn and capable enemy, and occupying the world to make sure that none may ever arise.
Reagan would have welcomed Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Federation, not treated them like carrion dropped on the porch. Likewise in Beirut, he did not hesitate to cut losses and get out of a fight that was not ours.
Reagan was not perfect, but he was far better than all of his successors combined.
He's a RINO in the sense that he's conservative, not just following the left-ward move of "Republican."
“If Ron Paul is an “abomination” what would be the correct descriptor for the current administration and the rest of congress?”
The people pursuing a vendetta against Ron Paul are really friends of Obama and his nasty band of Rats. They want us to lose by spending our energy fight each other.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but other than that he is a good Republican. Ron Paul doesn’t belong in the White House, but I’m glad he’s in Congress.
I’m not talking about Ron Paul’s approach. I’m a Ron Paul supporter but I recognize that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to much for FR. I’d like a strong pro America 100% foreign policy. Something that has no wars that last too long for no real reason, that make the President unpopular. The economy was pretty great in 2006. But we lost because people hated the Iraq War.
Not pure noninterventionism, but just as much, not neocon.
Gulf War I - normal Republican foreign policy. Identify a clear, real, problem, solve the problem, leave.
Gulf War II - Neocon foreign policy. Invent a problem, do something good, but not quite fixing the invented problem, never leave.
I’m completely ok myself with a Gulf War I scenario. Iraq was in Kuwait. Clear foul on Iraq’s part. We kick em out, and leave. Clear victory for US, everyone is happy.
WOW! if his guy is a major in political Science at Hillsdale college... he must be in his freshman year and still believes what he learned in high school...nothing.
He has done no research into the reasons for the civil war...nor the Iraqi war. He’s a shill for the far,far left and will believe any and everything you tell him.
“the fact is that they were directly motivated not by imperialism”
This guy needs to go all the back to kindergarten.
That was a pain in the ass. Nine freaking pages of ads to recap common knowledge.
Pitiful.
No wonder I rarely click on a blog.
In some ways they are conservative. In some ways they are hypocritical politicians as evidenced by their machinations on immigration policy and in the article on earmarks. It is funny that a political family like the Pauls make so many people believe they are DC outsiders. That said, they have the GOP nominations, they agree with me far more often than Dims and this is a year to pull the straight GOP lever whether you are Republican, Dim or Indy, so I hope they both win.
Roger that.
I’m saying Paul objected to Reagan , so to say it’s only the last “22 years” that he’s had a problem with US policy is not factual.
“In Ron Paul’s world, the right to do something also includes the right to never be criticized for it. “
Let’s be honest: This should read, “In David Horowitz’ version of Ron Paul’s world, ...” David Horowitz insists on thinking that other people think the way he does. Therefore, if he would have the government outlaw whatever he thinks is bad and force everybody to do what thinks is good, he thinks that libertarians must view as good the private behaviors that the government would allow.
For example, what about being lazy. This is a bad thing. But, as long as we don’t have welfare, the bad thing takes care of itself. What about working, saving, being faithful in your marriage, raising your children well, being polite when in public, and I can go on and on and on. All of these behaviors are reinforced by good consequences. None of them needs to be required by the government. The primary reason for government is not to promote what is good. It is, as the Constitution says, to provide for the common defense; or, as Romans 13 says, to be a terror to evil. Even those who use their freedom poorly serve a useful function. By revealing the poor consequences of bad choices, they communicate to others the importance of using your freedom well.
Now, if I wanted to play the game that David Horowitz is playing, I would say that the only difference between him and orthodox Muslims is that he would have the government enforce HIS religion onto the people instead of enforcing Islam onto the people. But, I would be as incorrect in characterizing his views as he is in charactering libertarian views. Horowits, like most conservatives, hesitates in going as far as the orthodox Muslims go in legislating morality. As to where neo-conservatives draw the line, and why they draw the line at that place, I will let them explain. In the past, U.S. social conservatives prohibited playing sports on Sundays and dancing in public. Why such things were or still are of concern to the government, I could not say. But, I do appreciate that there is a difference between conservatives and totalitarians. On the other hand, it cannot be said that Horowitz appreciates that there is a difference between libertarians and libertines.
During the 19th century, various Popes tried to distinguish between liberals (as people who believe in a free-market economy and personal liberty were then known), socialists and Christians. It was wrong for individuals to (only) be selfish, and it was wrong for countries to (totally) deny the moral autonomy of each individual. Christianity stood somewhere in the middle. As to where, I don’t know. Indeed, I don’t think this view of Christianity could even exit except in contrast to the two alternatives. This view eventually lead, in Quadralisimo Anno, to an endorsement of Mussilini’s form of fascism. So much for Christianity not being in the extreme.
Ditto the Social Gospel Movement, a Protestant-led movement in Great Britain and this country. Initially, they merely distinguished a Christian society from the supposed alternatives of liberalism and socialism, or at least tolerated a range of views on the matter. But, eventually, they wound up as socialists in the guise of progressivism.
Is there a “middle ground” where libertarians and conservatives can agree? Actually, there is, except that it is not a middle ground. It is a place that is politically libertarian and privately virtuous. It is to distinguish morality from law, and good private behavior from what is allowed by the state. This is precisely the opposite of what Horowitz says is the view of libertarians. Because “we” do criticize people for the choices they make; but, it is not us as individuals standing in judgment of each other. Rather, it is in the consequences of one’s choices that each of us is criticized.
Oh, by the way, Ron Paul served in the Air Force. I served in Army. What branch of the military did Mr. Self-Righteous serve in? For that matter, what about the other neo-cons, like Bill Kristol? Isn’t it strange that the neo-cons who criticize libertarians for being selfish did not avail themselves of the opportunity to serve. Or, is service to others merely something for us peons and beneath the neo-con intellectual elite?
I never clicked on it because I couldn't understand why it was excerpted.
I just responded to the Paul-worship on the thread instead.
“I’m saying Paul objected to Reagan , so to say it’s only the last “22 years” that he’s had a problem with US policy is not factual.”
Lol, we are talking about different things then, and I misunderstood your point. I was referring to neocons masquerading as conservatives, not Paul’s views on foreign policy.
Those people could "Progressives" in the Teddy Rooseveldt vein..
Would explain a lot about dubbyas seeming turn to BIG government conservative treason..
Not to speak of how "we" got John McQueeq to run against Zero.. in a magical gambit..
And maybe how "we" got Dubbya in the first place..
Both McQueeq and Dubbya made me go "Whats up with that?"
In those days I always punched(vote) (R).. no matter what.. Sometimes Worse than democrats.. like the ditz's from Maine..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.