Posted on 02/24/2010 4:42:22 AM PST by Kaslin
What are we to make of the Republican Party's future now that libertarian Rep. Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the well-attended Conservative Political Action Conference last week?
Is the GOP about to transform into the party of the gold standard?
Let's, for a moment, forget Paul (and how I wish this could be a permanent condition, considering the congressman is neither a serious politician nor -- and I can't stress this enough -- a serious thinker).
Libertarianism offers conservatives -- many of them new to political activism -- an earnest ideological alternative to the process-heavy politics that dominate Washington.
It allows Republicans to cleanse themselves of the GOP's failure to deliver on promises of smaller government and fiscal restraint.
None of which is new. The 1964 Barry Goldwater would be considered a libertarian today by many measures. The National Review constructed a "fusionist" effort to bring the parties together. Ronald Reagan explained to Reason magazine back in 1975 that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Two sticking points preventing this fling from turning into something more serious have been social issues and war. Has anything changed to alter the dynamics of the relationship? Probably not.
Patrick Buchanan recently claimed that the GOP is showing signs of turning away from its recent foreign policy positions. The focus of policy may have changed -- and perhaps there's more reluctance in nation building -- but polls pretty clearly illustrate Republicans still believe in a robust and proactive national defense.
Social issues are far more complex -- and they always have been, despite caricatures. But the reality is that most of the cultural issues that divide Americans have been mired in political stalemates. You can debate abortion all day long; policy won't be changing.
Economics, on the other hand, touches almost everything in a tangible way. That -- and one of the most aggressive left-wing economic agendas in American history -- makes the libertarian fiscal message seductive.
Does that mean we need Paul?
"Congressman Paul is committed to bringing the conservative movement back to its traditional platform of limited government, balanced budgets and a foreign policy of nonintervention," claims Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman.
If only it stopped there. Paul isn't a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades. Paul's newsletters of the '80s and '90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracyland today is no mistake.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Paul is that thousands of intellectually curious young people will have read his silly books, including "End the Fed," as serious manifestoes. Though you wouldn't know it by listening to Paul or reading his words, libertarians do have genuine ideas that conservatives might embrace.
A serious libertarian, David Boaz at the Cato Institute, found that 14 percent of American voters could be classified as libertarian. "Other surveys," he points out, "find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian."
Seeing as the two top concerns at CPAC were "reducing size of federal government" (35 percent) followed by "reducing government spending," it is obvious the message of individual freedom and small government has resonance. But accepting Ron Paul as the leader of this -- or, actually, any -- charge is a mistake for both parties.
lol.
“(Ron Paul) is neither a serious politician nor...a serious thinker”
“But then again, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. People want the RINO’s out, unfortunately this is a side effect of that.
It’s almost like what you’re seeing is some Socially Left people migrating strictly for economic purposes.
I know some personally, and this is what’s happening. They are rethinking the old FDR policies.
“I’m more concerned about the 22% at CPAC that cast their vote for Romney.”
“I’d take Paul over that guy any day.”
Bingo. It’s the Romney-RINOs of the past that helped get us where we are today.
Atleast Paul has a more or less clearly defined position on important taxation/fiscal issues. Sarah? Does anyone know what shi think about tax reform or fed.. anyone?
The problem I have with many modern conservatives is that they are content to leave the government behemoth in place that we have had since the 1970s as long as we don't make it bigger. I want Barry Goldwater style locking the doors on at least half of the Federal bureaucratic offices currently in existence.
If the Constitution doesn't explicitly permit the Federal government to do it, I don't want them to do it.
Perhaps turning back the clock isn't reasonable or realistic but that's what I want.
Thanks for posting that.
Too true. Despite acting, and sounding exactly them; the Republicans really are different than the Democrats. No, really.
So the author is clearly not in favor of auditing the Fed
wonder why?
In total agreement with your Post #10.
Very well-put.
"There can be no happiness without liberty, no liberty without constitutionalism, no constitutionalism without morality and none of the above without stability and order."
Ron Paul, anti war, money and supporters from the 9/11 Truthers.
Ron Paul has stated Iran and North Korea ar not a threat.
He states we were attacked on 9/11 because we are Imperial America and occupiers.
Ron Paul is the poster boy for the NeoLeft
I know. I even saw a comment that mentioned Paul as pro abortion because he stated, in-line with the Constitution (that everybody seems to comment on, but none seem to have read), these issues are to be decided by the states. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN physician that has delivered thousands-upon-thousands of babies and has refused to perform even one abortion.
If Roe v. Wade hadn't happened and this decision was left to the states, millions of babies would have been saved from abortion. But, due to the fact that so-called small government conservatives want to unconstitutionally keep this as a federal matter, millions of babies die yearly due to the gridlock. That's why the forefathers advocated almost everything being handled by sovereign states; it's easier to change things at a local level than at a federal level and we could have had this battle won decades ago, state-by-state as the Constitution mandates.
What perplexes me is that he is the most small-government, pro liberty politician in the nation and those on FreeRepublic and elsewhere on other pro-liberty sites ridicule this man and those who support him. I just don't get it. But the message is thriving. For the first time ever, college students - the future of our nation and politics - are accepting and embracing a pro-liberty, non socialist, political ideology and there is now hope that, when all of these politicians and voters spawned from the liberal revolution of the 60's and 70's die off, our nation will return to the ideals of our founding fathers.
nuts!
It's because they absolutely hate his moral equivalence arguments (we made them mad, we started it blah blah blah) against the wars. I hate it when he does that. He could make so many more or less good and valid arguments against our wars:
America's worst enemies are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan.
Wrong. They tried having liberty without a stong national government with the Articles of Confedertion, and it was a dismal failure. So they adopted the Constitution. I didn't say or mean to imply a national government with unlimited powers, but one with carefully enumerated powers that is still strong enough to keep order at home and defend us from an often hostile world. That's where the I part with the libertarians and Paulpods. They seem to share the belief with liberals that if we just leave the world stage and are nice to everybody they will leave us alone, several thousand years of human history notwithstanding.
Actually, we're laughing. Everyone knows that the college kids stuffed the ballot box at CPAC. CPAC is a joke now, anyway, what with the ACLU and GOProud booths and the overabundance of Libertarians.
I mean, read the article and note the vein of humor running through it.
I think most of us here on FR would be happy never to hear of Ron Paul again. But since his acolytes like to swarm and spam, I suppose we just have to laugh at him.
Oh...and you used one of the classic Ron Paul Acolyte Glossary phrases. ;-)
Ron Paul Acolyte Glossary:
Neo-Con: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Statist: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
Paul-Hater: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
RINO: Any GOP candidate who is not Ron Paul.
Small-government conservative: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
Big-government supporter: Anybody who does not worship Ron Paul.
People who understand and support the Constitution: This only applies to Ron Paul or Ron Paul disciples such as Debra Medina or Rand Paul. Nobody else is allowed to claim this.
9/11: What the US deserved for refusing to roll over to Muslim terrorists in the Middle East.
Yes, I remember a statement he made not too long ago, he said that in his entire medical career he never saw a single case in which an abortion was medically necessary.
What perplexes me is that he is the most small-government, pro liberty politician in the nation and those on FreeRepublic and elsewhere on other pro-liberty sites ridicule this man and those who support him.
I don't think this is a pro-liberty site... pro-conservative first, pro-republican second, and somewhat pro-economic freedom, but not the whole spectrum of pro-liberty. That's why I'm a libertarian and not a republican.
For the first time ever, college students - the future of our nation and politics - are accepting and embracing a pro-liberty, non socialist, political ideology and there is now hope that, when all of these politicians and voters spawned from the liberal revolution of the 60's and 70's die off, our nation will return to the ideals of our founding fathers.
That's what I enjoyed the most about Dr. Paul's 2008 primary campaign - seeing all the young people, as well as all the minorities, at his events.
2 candidates attracted large numbers of those 2 groups to their cause during the 2008 election cycle, osama and Ron Paul, and you know that at least the vast majority of osama's young supporters are completely disillusioned with him now.
On the other hand, I don't see how any of us Ron Paul supporters can change our minds about him, unless our core beliefs were to change as well - he supported the same policies and political platform since the 1950s - back when his positions were very much mainstream republican beliefs.
It's amazing how far to the left the GOP has moved since then.
And vitriolic too. I mean, I always thought that personally attacking people who've done nothing but offered their opinion was a trait of Democrats and those to the left of them. But, if I say anything, no matter how truthful, that doesn't praise Palin (they've already anointed her President and the primary hasn't even begun) or toe the GOP line (no matter how unconstitutional), people go nuts and attack personally. My guy as of now is Ron Paul, and people say horrible things about him (on a personal level, not a policy level) and me and I have never resorted, in response, to their name-calling and the other childish stuff I've witnessed here. It's sad.
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.