Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
My condolences.
Earlier on, Reagan had a different viewpoint.
"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."
- Ronald Reagan, 1975 in an interview with Reason Magazine
Prohibition is irrelevant to your argument, because alcohol and pot are not the same thing, and never will be. For example, while plenty of people enjoy a glass or two of wine with a meal, the only reason anybody ever smoked pot was to get stoned. Period.
He’s a pothead like many young people.
Indeed, no one better articulated the fundamental libertarian hypothesis, that Governmental meddling is more apt to be the problem than the solution in human social interaction. That awareness captured the true, practical, essence of libertarian values.
If Dr. Paul could articulate the same philosophy as well as Reagan, he would be leading in the polls.
William Flax
Say what? When was Reagan pro-big-government?
You missed the point. When voters have to weigh competing considerations, a pro-life Republican candidate becomes more of a barrier to a Paul supporter willing to overlook that position.
You can be a pro-choice Republican, you can be a "Log Cabin Republican," and as we saw in the CNN debate, you can even be a Palestinian Republican (though I thought that guy was a plant and was proud that even Romney didn't suck up to him). However, if you want to call yourself a Conservative, it is imperative that you be pro-life. That litmus test is a deal breaker.
For example, JimRob has made it abundantly clear that pro choice opinions are not welcome on this conservative web forum, and I agree with him.
...cause grampas’ will give them everything they want?
I am not turning against my Alma Mater, I actually--as a Conservative in High School--decided to go there to prepare for a lifetime battle against what the Left has been trying to do to America for almost two centuries--tragically with accelerating success. So, in a perhaps tangential way, I benefited greatly from my four years there.
William Flax
Because of their youth/not yet formulated political beliefs, they haven’t had time to become cynical yet.
Dr. Paul is constitutionally correct there, but that doesn't change the perception of him as 'pro-legalization,' nor does he spend much energy disabusing that impression.
Dr. Paul is not anti-war, only anti-undeclared wars, and against wars by which we try to change other people's cultures. So were George Washington & Thomas Jefferson. (And see Pseudo Pragmatism.)
See the above reply. A candidacy is as much built upon the priorities of the supporters as it is the actual positions of the candidate, the rose-colored glasses of wishful thinking.
Finally, how is Dr. Paul anymore "anti-tax" than any of the other Republican candidates, all of whom--with most of us approving--favor drastically reduced tax burdens. Bravo for that!
Absolutely true, and the principal reason he enjoyed so much support here for so long. It was easier for FReepers to be against stupid wars when Bubba was initiating them.
Dr. Paul's appeal to the young, is that he has been the most consistent, through the years, in maintaining the traditional American stand for limited Government & maximum individual responsibility.
Not true. Young people have not been following Dr. Paul's positions for decades, so the benefit of "consistency" isn't there. They tend to derive their preferences as part of a herd. Upon rejecting conservatism for its social values (because of their ignorance of social conservative mechanics and the consequences of liberalism and the media-driven amplification of their hedonistic drives), while simultaneously feeling revulsion for their Marxist professors, where else is there for them to go?
That consistency has tremendous appeal--especially to those who have recently gotten out of high schools and colleges, where Leftist teachers harped on the contradictions in the voting records of many nominal Conservatives.
College professors don't harp on the voting records. That would require research or something. Too hard you know, nor is it part of the job description, which is really all about agreeing with their peers and writing grant proposals.
Your paranoia is unwarranted.
RP is pro-drug, anti-war, and anti-tax, the “no consequences” candidate.
What’s not to like for a young person?
***************
In a nut shell. Very good summary. That said, some of these positions are correct to a point, and none of the other candidates are much touching on them with any conviction. The two remaining conservative candidates would do well to address a couple of these, and poach some votes from him.
This really is an open primary for GOP nominee. There are two Republicans, a Democrat and a Libertarian running.
Young people meld with mush peddlers. They’ve grown up with fantasy and the lunatics of pop culture.
Every time I get involved in a Ron Paul thread it is virtually guaranteed that some dopey libertarian will recycle that quote and think that it makes him scholarly. What you either don't know, or don't understand is that Reagan made that quote to the entirely libertarian readership of Reason Magazine as he was mounting a primary challenge to an incumbent Republican president (he was looking for votes). You are correct to include the full paragraph from a much longer interview (most libertarians do not), so that we see a more full context. Even in Reason Magazine, it was never Reagan's intention to equate that two political philosophies. He merely observed that they were traveling along the same path. In other words, they both fall under the Republican umbrella, but Reagan wanted to make it very clear, even to this audience, there is quite a bit about libertarianism that he disagreed with. He never expressed another positive public opinion on libertarianism for the remainder of his life. And he proceeded to run his presidency in direct opposition to libertarian principles at every turn. He pretty much invented federal drug enforcement policy as we know it. He engaged in foreign military activity around the globe. He increased military spending. The list goes on. And it is in large part because of these differences in political philosophy that conservatives revere the man (and honest libertarians think somewhat less of him. Ronald Reagan the president is a modern saint in the conservative movement. Not Reagan the Democratic leader of the screen actor's guild, not Reagan the governor who legalized abortion in California, and not Reagan the candidate who refused to disown liberatarianism when it was political expedient that he not do so.
I know lots of Ron Paul supporters, and none of them ever smoke pot, nor have any desire to.
They just happen to like liberty, and a small government.
I’m for Newt, but would vote for Paul as 3rd party over Romney in a heartbeat.
Older people are brainwashed into thinking it is OK for government to steal from one to give to another. Social Security for example. Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, “Forign Aid”, etc.
Ron Paul speaks to millions that do not buy into such Communism.
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.