Posted on 05/08/2011 9:31:49 PM PDT by 6ft2inhighheelshoes
Earth to Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson – you are running for the Republican nomination for president, not the Libertarian or Democrat nomination. At various times throughout the Republican primary debate last evening, I had to remind myself I was actually watching a Republican debate. Without the interludes of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Rick Santorum, and CEO Herman Cain, you would think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were participating in a Democrat presidential primary debate, siding with Democrats on major social and defense policy initiatives.
Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place.
For the record, I do not disparage Paul or Johnson from running for president as they have served their country honorably nor do I fundamentally disagree with them that our country is in deep budgetary and economic peril. Nor do I for one minute pretend the Republican Party is a homogenous entity where everyone agrees with everyone. Republicans have always had internal disputes over philosophical emphases and the occasional policy difference.
The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement.
The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles.
In order for any modern candidate to win the GOP nomination, they must embody these conservative principles, or at least appeal to these constituencies. With the exception of primary fiscal issues, Paul and Johnson consistently deviated and at various points were even hostile to the social and defense conservative branches.
Throughout the debate, Ron Paul stated positions that were contrary to mainstream Republicans. Nearly every response oozed of antipathy towards successfully concluding our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and utilizing enhanced interrogation techniques, even for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11.
He is against the use of prisons for enemy combatants, humanitarian and foreign aid, the reorganization and consolidation of our homeland security, traditional marriage, the AZ illegal immigration act, wants to get rid of the federal reserve, intonated a return to the gold standard and at one point stated he was for legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine – I’m not kidding.
The debate moderators at one point had to ask Paul and Johnson how they expected to win the Republican nomination with anti-Republican viewpoints such as these.
Politically though, no modern presidential candidate has won the Republican nomination being fiscally imprudent, negligent on social issues, and anti-defense. Look at the most recent Republican presidential nominees and how they were able to appeal politically to the three main constituencies.
While prickly with the conservative base, John McCain knew he had to win over enough people from each of the three main groups to win the Republican nomination. His position of strength was national security having served in the US Navy and was the leading proponent in congress for the Iraqi surge. He was consistently pro-life and appealed to economic voters using the line that government spending like drunken sailors was an insult to drunken sailors.
George W. Bush unabashedly was a social conservative referring to his reaffirmation of Jesus Christ in his adult life during the 2000 campaign. He appealed to fiscal conservatives touting his plans for tax cuts and appealed to defense conservatives supporting a missile defense shield and a non-nation building approach to foreign policy.
Like McCain, Bob Dole had a thorny relationship with conservatives but appealed to defense conservatives having served in combat. He was pro-life and appealed to fiscal voters by promising a 10% across-the-board federal budget cut and selected the tax cut icon, Jack Kemp, as his running mate.
You can see a consistent theme among these candidates that allowed them to appeal not only to the Republican base but to the national electorate as well. Republicans should reassess their standards of participation in nationally televised debates or risk losing or hurting their brand further.
Again, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have every right to run for president, but they are not Republican or traditionally conservative. While Donald Trump may have questionable political discrepancies of his own, he recently summed it up best that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. The Libertarian Party is still looking for their nominee, gentlemen.
Christopher N. Malagisi is the President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor at American University teaching “The History of the Conservative Movement: 1945-Present" and "Campaigns & Political Activism."
Horseshit! Reagan was a conservative, not a libertarian. He gave one interview in his entire political career about Libertarianism. That was to the Libertarian Party rag, Reason magazine. That interview came the year before he ran for potus against Pres Ford. Reagan was politicking, mining for possible votes. Reagan was the master rhetorician and used similar language when it came to the Republican Party and conservative principles.
He can debate all he wants but what the hell is a .. "progressive republican"?
Just another RINO who wants to give ILLEGAL CRIMINALS a 'Green Card' so that they can work "Legally" in the US!
The guy's an idiot!
Democrate?...Republican? surely you know they are one in the same by now. Who ever wins gets the lobbys... that give money out to the majority.
It’s all a 2 party/1 party establishment...it will not change till the American people take this government down and build a new one.
Hah hah hah.
Well, according to Santorum, McCain as a matter of practice blocked virtually all pro-life, pro-family legislation in the backrooms of the Senate.
“Santorum disclosed what happened behind the scenes when he held meetings to gather votes for proposed legislation, telling Levine (sic), “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done.”
“And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them” in preventing votes on such issues.”
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26460
McCain supports the destruction of human embryos for experimentation.
McCain as a matter of course has always pushed pro-abort candidates.
Like Gerald R. Ford he is pro-choice for states.
I could go on, but I’m tired...
Thanks EV, puts a whole new persepective on McCain.
Here's what Reagan said. You can claim he was not being honest and was just fishing for votes if you want, I think much more of the man.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
That is unsurprising. During his primary bid in 2000 he talked about taking control of the party away from the Falwell and Pat Robertson types. IIRC, he even mentioned that he might not support repeal of Roe v. Wade. Truth be told, I don’t think McCain holds strong views of any type regarding abortion. He’ll talk like a pro-abort if it benefits him (i.e. when he was trying to position himself as the liberal Republican alternative to George W. Bush), and he’ll talk like a pro-lifer if he thinks that will help him win.
Right...thats why they never challenged it on a FEDERAL level...sounds like more progressive horse-pucky to me....
One interview to a Libertarian Party magazine, during a public and political career spanning six decades, does not make someone a Libertarian. The last paragraph of Reagan's speech at the 2nd Annual CPAC Convention on March 1, 1975, "Let Them Go Their Way", sounded very similiar:
"I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."
This is just one example of the Reagan's use of rhetoric he employed in almost all his concept speeches from his 1970`s post Governorship. Reagan was always linking conservatism to the GOP. Why? Reagan was building a new majority coalition that he understood was needed to beat the Democrats. But Libertarianism was not any part that coalition or of Reagan's overall agenda.
Read ALL of Reagan's major speeches from back then --- City Upon A Hill 1974, Let Them Go Their Way 1975, To Restore America 1976, The New Republican Party 1977 and America's World Purpose 1978 --- and you won't find any mention of libertarianism or of the Libertarian Party either and for good reason. Reagan had no affinity for libertarianism or the LP. Reagan was a conservative, first and foremost.
And lets not forget that Libertarians from Murry Rothbard, the Godfather of modern libertarianism, to Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, ALL had/have a strong dislike or a pure hatred for what Ronald Reagan stood for.
Hate may be too strong a word.
I see you don't know wtf you're talking about. Read what Murry Rothbard had to say about Reagan. Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy If that is not hatred, I don't know what is.
At one time Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan. By 1988 things changed drastically. Paul decided to run for POTUS on the Libertarian Party ticket and he ran against the Reagan administration. In fact Paul called Reagan a "dramatic failure"as President. Read the Meet the Press transcript from Dec.23 2007 and GET INFORMED! Link.
My guess is, that picture of Reagan and Paul was from better days before Paul became a total kook!
Sheeesh. Looks like it’s “there they go again,” time. IIRC, that photo is from the time when RP led the Texas Reagan delegation at the National Republican convention in 1980.
The sheer ignorance of who Ronald Reagan was, by so many so-called conservatives is truly mind boggling. IIRC, in 1976 Ron Paul was one of 4-6 GOP House members who supported Reagan over Ford. I was thinking that might be the timeframe for that photo.
Bottom line. The spreading of obfuscation and falsehoods about the Reagan record is quite astounding. It won't hurt the Reagan legacy. Its just very sad to witness.
Ron Paul was one of the few who supported Reagan over Ford in 1976.
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.