Posted on 11/26/2007 1:54:54 PM PST by rob777
He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries. But for Ron Paul’s quixotic bid for the White House, it’s “Mission Accomplished.”
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a “libertarian Democrat,” though he’s never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.
Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredo’s embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownback’s campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.
As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.
The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.
If they’re serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.
Duncan Hunter is a non-starter. Rasmussen shows him with less than 1% which is hardly a threat to Thompson, who is at 13% (tied with Romney).
And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the party’s adoption of the “Clinton Doctrine” of “humanitarian warfare?”
I think it has to do with the free-spending Republican congress - that was defeated in 2006 - (we showed them) and the stupid stands on illegal immigration taken by the Bush administration and some Republican congressional Representatives and Senators last summer. The liberalism of Rudy Giuliani, the Republican leader in the GOP presidential nomination 'horse race', is also a dividing factor.
However, I believe that the majority of conservatives will bind together to support and vote for the Republican candidate that is selected via primary to run against the putative Democrat nominee, Marxist Hillary Clinton, who makes Giuliani's 'liberal' positions on 'cultural issues' look a lot less scary compared to her determined socialist plans for this country. I refuse to act like a petulant whiner and give up my right to vote next November because the GOP nominee isn't exactly to my liking. The '08 presidential election is too important for that kind of childishness and frivolous candidates like Ron Paul with his 'get out of Iraq' message and flirtation with 9/11 'government conspiracy' theories simply waste everyone's time.
Actually it's having the opposite effect. Paul has exposed the Democrats' anti-war hypocrisy, and in turn most of the independents who voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms are angry and disappointed. They're now backing Paul.
The extreme left - the Code Pinkers, etc. are still behind Hillary & Obama. They support things like using our military for "peaceful" purposes, such as intervening in Darfur. Paul opposes this, and whatever amount of leftists that are supporting Paul are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out he's not a pacifist.
who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party.
The Republican Party is fractured because it gave the middle finger to fiscal conservatives & right-leaning populists for six years. It is already weak because people believe in fighting wars and getting them over with rather than trying to spread "democracy" to a bunch of heathens. Democrats had nothing to do with it.
The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq.
Dr. Paul has outlined his policies on dozens of other issues. The Iraq war is prominent because of the spending on it. Perhaps you should visit his online library, rather than getting the spin from the establishment who highlights his foreign policy views to make him seem like a kook.
His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe'
He never "suggested" or implied any such thing.
I’d never thought I’d see the day when supporting federalism and the Constitution in its original intent became “moonbatty.”
How many more statements are you going to pull from your anus?
No Republicans, corporations, globalists, or leftist organizations are funding Dr. Paul.
He has stated millions of times he’s not running as a 3rd party candidate. But you knew that already. You want Paul to run as a 3rd party candidate so the GOP will have a scapegoat when they lose.
Mind telling me why leftists would support someone who’s the polar opposite of their beliefs?
You mean he’s given the pro-dopers, pro-open borders, anti-war kook big L libertarians black-eyes, not the small-l libertarians who make up the bulk of his support.
***************
Absolutism is so “Ron Paul”
s/o
Al Gore is a “rock star” to the average young Sheeple. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not only household names everywhere, they’re heroes in the Black community.
I think you just proved his point - if you wind up being better-known, you have, in a way, won.
Not in my opinion. Gore etal. may think they have won, once again proving their disdain for out country. The country has clearly lost.
Well, you’re going to have to care what the GOP insiders and hacks think when you’re trying to get their support.
Don’t EVER ask me to back up what I say again, took forever to find:
“Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 76%, Huckabee by 65%, Giuliani by 74%, and Thompson by 73%. Those numbers reflect a six-point gain for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged from a month ago.
McCain’s numbers, while still weak, have improved over the past month. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 61% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 38% have an unfavorable view. A month ago, just 53% offered a positive assessment of the man once presumed to be the GOP frontrunner.
Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 33% and unfavorably by 55%”
Ahem! Would that be like the Ross Perot movement? Ross was a lot bigger.
“In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party”
Great! THIS is why I have supported Ron Paul. Not because he would be a good president, but because the GOP has got their collective head up their a$$ and has so for years. They need to be pushed into being more conservative. The term Republican has become a bad word lately. Just listen to the talk hosts.
Ron Paul is wrong on several items. His idealism is to be admired, although I would be more pragmatic. I’d take Ron Paul over RINOs like Trent Lott any day. He drives me crazy. Good riddance, Trent.
The problem is that DC will kill most anybody. Freshmen come in and are idealistic, then after a few years they start accepting the good old boy deal and begin voting for pork like everybody else.
The GOP has drifted from principles (Ron Reagan) to Finger in the Air Democrats. I’m glad Ron Paul has had an effect on the campaign and love many of his libertarian principles. Our government will survive only if it adopts a few. Tough economic times are coming and a burgeoning government under Hillary Clinton and a democrat Congress will be hard to reverse. Government bankruptcy will get us before AQ.
Come November I will be voting for ABH - Anybody But Hillary.
Judging by the latest FR poll results, it’s the contest between Hunter and Thompson that’s splitting the Republican party.
Hunter isn’t splitting anything as he’s not known well enough to be that kind of a force. He’s a solid conservative Republican but can’t find support among the GOP at large. I think he knows that, gave it his best shot and can feel satisfied with his effort.
Goldwater. because what we really want is a candidate that will only win 6 states
Quaker Parrots are neat, and we have them wild in spots around the US.
To my horror, I find the traditional catholic newspapers have gone over for Ron Paul. I can only assume they want to punish the GOP frontrunners. Paul is not pro-life and they no he can’t win. Awful.
Optimism is understandable, delusion is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is wrong on several items.
-
where he is wrong, he is deadly wrong. I couldn’t care less about his shrimp pork. He gives comfort to our enemies.
Get real - he’s a nutcase and those that follow him with just go on to the next nutjob, so nothing is really gained as everything happens in the middle and one cannot get to the middle from outer space.
Posting articles about nutjobs is a waste of space.
I agree wholeheartedly Ron Paul is a no starter and his supporters have no intention of supporting the Republican candidate. I know of no evidence that shows that Libertarians have ever voted Republican in large numbers. They mostly sull up and sit home or vote Democrat.
I admit I’m no expert but don’t the traditional catholic newspapers usually support democrats.
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.