Contact
Subscribe


RonPaulinfreude

Feb 22, 2010
By .
Effluvia

We're not exactly huge fans of Ron Paul here. We've made fun of his blimp and decried his connection to Birchers and his nasty racist newsletters.

But you have to give the guy this: he's stalwart in his beliefs, even when those beliefs are inconsistent. He's much closer to a faithful devote of small-government libertarianism (in the style of a federalist, rather than in the style of a civil libertarian) than nearly any other visible politician out there. And hes got an extremely devoted and effective following. Hence, his victory in the CPAC straw poll of potential 2012 presidential contenders.

The reaction from the more mainstream Republicans is about what you would expect — outrage and horror. The Village Voice has a round-up of conservative blogger reactions that is every bit as biased, mean-spirited, and gleeful as you would expect. My favorite part:

Some leaned on the angle that Paul's people had organized effectively, thereby rendering his victory invalid.

It's funny because it's true.

I wish I could believe that the Paul victory at CPAC indicates that the Republican pendulum is swinging away from socially conservative authoritarianism and towards libertarian principles. But I suspect that it doesn't. "Security" and "values" just draw too many votes.

Last 5 posts by Ken

9 Comments
Tags , ,

9 Comments

  1. SB7  •  Feb 22, 2010 @3:17 pm

    Say what you will about the tenets of RonPaulism, at least it's an ethos.

  2. Charles  •  Feb 22, 2010 @3:48 pm

    Wasn't this Hillary's argument about Obama and the caucus states? The stakes were higher there so the argument was even weaker.

  3. Ezra  •  Feb 22, 2010 @4:38 pm

    Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is not socially conservative? Because, despite his Libertarian patina, he is anti-gay marriage and abortion. He even suggested that Roe v. Wade was dangerous to the Constitution.

  4. Ken  •  Feb 22, 2010 @6:16 pm

    Ezra, he's a federalist-style libertarian on issues like those, meaning that he is against federal intervention. But I agree that he is not much of a civil libertarian.

  5. Chris Berez  •  Feb 22, 2010 @7:25 pm

    I'd still argue that taking any stance that interferes with individual liberty– even if such stance is categorized as being "federalist"– disqualifies one from positioning themselves under the umbrella of libertarianism completely. Violations of individual liberty are no different whether being committed by states or the federal government itself. I'm definitely one of those that bristles at the merest association of Ron Paul's name and libertarianism. However, I see what you're getting at, and fair enough.

    That said, this CPAC has been a very strange animal. An anti-gay bigot gets booed off the stage pretty much from the moment he sets foot on it; and a guy like Ron Paul, whose ideas about limited government and fiscal responsibility you'd think would be embraced by an assembly claiming as it's goal the restoration of core conservative principles, gets met with venom and ridicule.

    Strange days…

  6. Chris  •  Feb 22, 2010 @7:57 pm

    Isn't every election won by merely being "organized effectively"?

  7. Robert  •  Feb 24, 2010 @7:05 am

    Ron Paul is incredibly inconsistent!

    For example, he has a hang-up on same-sex marriage. You'd think a true libertarian / constitutionalist would say "Why the heck is the government in the marriage business in the first place! That's between you, your Church, and G-d."

    And he's a staunch supporter of the Boy Scouts Of America's privileged access to federal parks, military bases (to have their Jamborees), and government funding. What's up with that? Why should this "church" get special treatment just because he likes it?

  8. PatrickKelley  •  Feb 24, 2010 @8:39 am

    The Boy Scout thing is just mainly a way of protecting tax-exempt status. You can make the argument that if you take it away from the Scouts, you can take it away from any church that preaches against homosexuality, or gay rights. As long as they're a legally recognized non-profit organization with a tax exempt status, they have a right to use federal lands, even if they do exclude gays from membership. I boils down to free speech and, perhaps more importantly, freedom of association, something which is greatly overlooked today.

  9. PatrickKelley  •  Feb 24, 2010 @8:51 am

    About Ron Paul, lets be clear on something. Republicans main objections to him, aside from his unfortunate seeming tolerance of the 9/11 truther movement, is basically his stand against US involvement in global affairs. He's seen by the GOP derisively as an isolationist. He actually merely believes in the Washingtonian principle of the US remaining neutral in foreign affairs and avoiding entanglements with foreign nations. Whereas he would probably be fine with a bilateral trade policy with say Columbia, or possibly a bilateral defense agreement, depending on the circumstances, he would never go along with a multilateral "free-trade" agreement or defense pact binding us under one treaty to several nations and subject to their whims of the moment.

    He would never sanction or condone a unilateral policy of invading or attacking another nation just on the off chance that they might attack us first. There would at the very least have to be very compelling and convincing evidence to the effect that such a strike was imminent.

    Mainly though, Republicans detest this policy simply because it would amount to an end of the current welfare state involving corporate civilian arms manufacturers. They may be conservative when it comes to government spending, but that's one gravy train they are going to make damn sure remains an exception to the general rule of conservative governance.