Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

[Ben]

Constant Conservative Ron Paul


Jack Hunter April 29th, 2011
American Conservative Magazine...

When Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, polls showed that Americans-at-large were worried about an increasingly bad economy, angry at Washington for bailing out Wall Street and weary of the Iraq War. GOP primary voters found themselves defending a Republican president who was on the unpopular side of all three issues, supporting a Republican nominee who agreed with him, and having to choose from a Republican field of candidates virtually indistinguishable from their president, their nominee and each other. Except one.
With Ron Paul all but declaring his candidacy for president this week, polls show that Americans at large are most worried about a bad economy, Obama’s high negatives indicate a persistent distrust and disgust with Washington, and this president’s three Middle Eastern wars are arguably more unpopular than Iraq and Afghanistan were three years ago.
Yet, even though they will have adjusted their various positions accordingly, 2012 GOP primary voters will generally find a field of candidates willing to bash the White House for basically doing the same things these same candidates once defended a Republican president doing. In fact, most potential 2012 candidates will be as guilty of contributing to big government as the president they’ll criticize. Mitt Romney gave us the blueprint for government-run healthcare. Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich gave Republican support for cap and trade. Rick Santorum ran cover for Bush’s entire statist agenda by touting the president’s alleged social conservatism. Adding ideological insult to injury, most of these candidates still promote an astronomically expensive foreign policy while they simultaneously and contradictorily claim we must cut spending. By and large, these candidates are conservative in rhetoric only, not their records, as has been the case with most Republican presidential candidates for decades.
That is, again, except one.
During the periods when conservatives find themselves not defending big government Republicans and instead choose to stress the need for limited government and constitutional fidelity, they echo the sentiments of Ron Paul. The difference is Paul never changes his sentiment. When conservatives are not defending big government Republicans and instead choose to talk about the need to eliminate debt and deficits, they are repeating the philosophy of Ron Paul. The difference is Paul never changes his philosophy.
Paul’s conservative consistency remains true, even when—and perhaps especially when—his fellow conservatives disagree with him. When conservatives attack Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy views, the Texas congressman is quick to remind them that it is mathematically impossible to reduce the debt or deficits without addressing Pentagon spending. Cutting NPR, Planned Parenthood and earmarks will do nothing to effectively reduce the debt, no matter how much each might excite conservatives emotionally. Likewise, ignoring the need for military spending cuts will continue to help sustain and grow the debt, no matter how emotionally attached some conservatives are in their support for maintaining the status quo.
Obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate might be fun for some conservatives—but it only distracts from the United States’ economy’s impending death certificate, says Paul. Excitement over a reality TV star with a bad comb-over may hold conservatives’ attention for the moment—another moment wasted, says Paul, by not addressing the stark reality that is our collapsing dollar and economy. Many conservatives draw a battle line between Republicans and Democrats. Paul draws his line between those who support limited government and those in both parties who consider it unlimited.
Indeed, Ron Paul is the conservative constant in US politics. To the extent that the American Right is consistently conservative, it is generally in line with Paul. To the extent that the American Right gets distracted from conservative principles—typically in the name of Republican partisanship or some emotional attachment to a particular aspect of statism conservatives generally like—it finds itself at war with Paul.
But much of the GOP infighting Paul found himself in the middle of in 2008 has either vanished or significantly subsided. If the Republican leadership seems to have learned very little from the Bush years, the GOP’s conservative base has noticed this stubbornness and now sets its sights on defeating big government Republicans every bit as much as Democrats. For the political establishment, the Tea Party movement represents something new and perhaps unsettling in our politics. For Ron Paul and his admirers, it means there is finally a conservative movement.
With an overarching concern for limiting government and eliminating the debt, the now widespread conservative condemnations of “Keynesian economics” and attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve would’ve been unthinkable in 2008. Today, more Americans than ever seem willing to accept substantive entitlement reform and even oppose raising the debt ceiling, reflecting popular sentiments noticeably more radical than anything that could have been conceivable just a few years ago. Not all conservatives are in agreement with Paul’s foreign policy views, but they are significantly more open to them, especially within the context of criticizing a Democratic president’s seemingly foolish interventions and the absurdity of borrowing money from China to pay for them.
Heading into 2012, Paul’s poll numbers equal or exceed those of the perceived major potential candidates, his fundraising abilities equal or exceed those of the same candidates and the once perennial political outsider has now become a household name. More importantly, when it comes to the issues—most conservatives and perhaps most Americans are finding themselves increasingly in agreement with Paul.
Ron Paul is the conservative constant in American politics. In 2012 and beyond, may there be more Americans willing to be as consistently conservative.

[Ben]

Whaddya think the chances of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination? I'd like him to. But the chances are pretty slim. (I think Mitt gets the nod. I mean, well, he's a banker. We need a banker to protect the interests of bankers. I mean, their interests have been so neglected under Obama and Bush... ha! ha! ha!)
I'd hope Ron Paul would bring every single troop home.
And let us, once again, be a Republic. And not an Empire.

[Ben]

[hippifried]

Now here's a perfect example of the fallacy of wing nuttery. Hope you don't mind, Ben, but I'm going to try to analyze you to a slight extent, just to make a point.

I can't predict Ben's positions at all. He doesn't fit the linear profile. In wing-think, he seems to be all over the place. But my observation is that he's consistent from issue to issue. From what I've seen, he'll give the same deference to Ron Paul & Noam Chompsky. How does that work in the current common political thought process? It doesn't. He's not alone. I've come across this a lot, just in these kinds of political forums. I imagine it could be a lot more prevalent among those who don't know & don't care what they're supposed to think, as opposed to what they already know they think.

What some would consider diametric opposites really aren't because of the wide range of overlapping ideals. It's harder to see the overlaps on the wing line because everything gets separated in the unworkable attempt to make the thought process fit the ill conceived dichotomy. It should be the other way around. Trying to change the reality to fit the description doesn't work. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Real wings aren't just a line across. They attach to a radial point. That allows for moving up, down, side to side, in a roll, etc... A sphere allows for even more freedom of movement through the myriad of issues we see every day. In the political sphere, there's no physical limits like gravity. All positions on all issues are easily reached from the central radius point, without the diversions of having to line up with someone else's mindset on other issues. Makes it a lot easier to explore the various positions, or craft your own. Spherically. Paul & Chompsky are very similar on social positions, but differ on economic issues & thoughts on government power structure. That can be said about almost any 2 people if you just list out the issues. Lockstep ideology is a myth. Time to debunk it.

[Stavros]

I think that it is evident to people who have 'engaged' with the public, quite apart from what they think themselves, that some people can be liberal on social policy, conservative in economic policy, and radical on foreign affairs. When I was in the Labour Party in London there were people who believed it was a 'woman's right to choose' on abortion, and one man I recall who opposed it absolutely, and he had lived through the era of illegal abortions and knew what happened in those dark times. Any number of Asians from the Indian sub-continent who voted Labour for decades, did so because of the perception Labour was relaxed on immigration, crucial for bringing in the husbands from the villages of their youth for their daughters. On social issues like homosexuality and drugs, and on issues like capital punishment, Asians are 'natural conservatives'.
Looked at in terms of precise issues, if somebody is 'completely' left or right wing, they probably are indeed, nutters.

[hippifried]

But isn't the whole point of politics to look at the different angles so as to deal with precise issues? Otherwise, why even bother with governance at all? My complaint with the wing line is its promotion of rigidity & polarization. Get inside the fringes, & everybody starts jumping back & forth all over the place. The closer you get to the center, the harder it is to find. The linear dichotomy loses its meaning in the confusion, so other positions (liberal/conservative, nationalist/internationalist, hawk/dove, Keynes/Friedman,etc...) get substituted without changing the terminology. That adds more confusion & further erodes the discussion.

I maintain that the left/right dichotomy primarily describes extremes & not much else. It's so convoluted that it serves no other purpose than to drive wedges between people over positions irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's just an interference with any kind of constructive dialog about anything. It's supposed to be a tool for visualizing an abstract. The straight line visual worked when there was seats & an aisle. It doesn't work in general to visualize all points of view. I'm just trying to introduce a different shape that works from all angles, & doesn't limit the number of approaches to a problem. I don't like arbitrary limits.

[Ben]

Now here's a perfect example of the fallacy of wing nuttery. Hope you don't mind, Ben, but I'm going to try to analyze you to a slight extent, just to make a point.

I can't predict Ben's positions at all. He doesn't fit the linear profile. In wing-think, he seems to be all over the place. But my observation is that he's consistent from issue to issue. From what I've seen, he'll give the same deference to Ron Paul & Noam Chompsky. How does that work in the current common political thought process? It doesn't. He's not alone. I've come across this a lot, just in these kinds of political forums. I imagine it could be a lot more prevalent among those who don't know & don't care what they're supposed to think, as opposed to what they already know they think.

What some would consider diametric opposites really aren't because of the wide range of overlapping ideals. It's harder to see the overlaps on the wing line because everything gets separated in the unworkable attempt to make the thought process fit the ill conceived dichotomy. It should be the other way around. Trying to change the reality to fit the description doesn't work. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Real wings aren't just a line across. They attach to a radial point. That allows for moving up, down, side to side, in a roll, etc... A sphere allows for even more freedom of movement through the myriad of issues we see every day. In the political sphere, there's no physical limits like gravity. All positions on all issues are easily reached from the central radius point, without the diversions of having to line up with someone else's mindset on other issues. Makes it a lot easier to explore the various positions, or craft your own. Spherically. Paul & Chompsky are very similar on social positions, but differ on economic issues & thoughts on government power structure. That can be said about almost any 2 people if you just list out the issues. Lockstep ideology is a myth. Time to debunk it.

No I don't mind. And my positions are unpredictable -- ha ha ha! (Oh, Noam Chomsky has said that Ron Paul is probably a nice person but he disagrees with him. Quite profoundly.)
And I don't want Ron Paul to be President. I think he'd make profound cuts that would be devastating to millions of Americans.
We're seeing this in Britain. Cameron is making deep spending cuts. Which'll hurt a helluva lot of people.
But Paul is the only well known -- and he is consistently in the spotlight -- politician that is speaking about ending the wars (and he does want to end them) and closing offshore military bases (he does want them closed) and ending the asinine war on drugs. He has said it's a health issue. Not a criminal issue.
So, there is no, say, popular left-wing politician or Presidential candidate out there. Ralph Nader is nearing the 80 year mark. And will likely not run again.
Dennis Kucinich isn't that well known. And he's, well, vertically challenged... which is bad for a politician -- ha ha ha! It's true though. People want tall Presidents.
So, Paul, who is well known, is appealing to a slew of people. On the left -- as he speaks about ending wars. And he appeals to people on the right because of his wanting deep spending cuts. But those on the left, as it were, should grasp his economic polices. In which case they wouldn't support him. They'd rally around, say, Dennis Kucinich. Which they could've done in '08. Instead of the, well, irrational frenzy surrounding the corporate candidate Barack Obama. People exhibited such irrationality in '08. Obama is and has always been a moderate Republican.
But I think Paul's cuts -- and he would cut -- would be quite devastating to a large portion of the population.
But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

[onmyknees]

No I don't mind. And my positions are unpredictable -- ha ha ha! (Oh, Noam Chomsky has said that Ron Paul is probably a nice person but he disagrees with him. Quite profoundly.)
And I don't want Ron Paul to be President. I think he'd make profound cuts that would be devastating to millions of Americans.
We're seeing this in Britain. Cameron is making deep spending cuts. Which'll hurt a helluva lot of people.
But Paul is the only well known -- and he is consistently in the spotlight -- politician that is speaking about ending the wars (and he does want to end them) and closing offshore military bases (he does want them closed) and ending the asinine war on drugs. He has said it's a health issue. Not a criminal issue.
So, there is no, say, popular left-wing politician or Presidential candidate out there. Ralph Nader is nearing the 80 year mark. And will likely not run again.
Dennis Kucinich isn't that well known. And he's, well, vertically challenged... which is bad for a politician -- ha ha ha! It's true though. People want tall Presidents.
So, Paul, who is well known, is appealing to a slew of people. On the left -- as he speaks about ending wars. And he appeals to people on the right because of his wanting deep spending cuts. But those on the left, as it were, should grasp his economic polices. In which case they wouldn't support him. They'd rally around, say, Dennis Kucinich. Which they could've done in '08. Instead of the, well, irrational frenzy surrounding the corporate candidate Barack Obama. People exhibited such irrationality in '08. Obama is and has always been a moderate Republican.
But I think Paul's cuts -- and he would cut -- would be quite devastating to a large portion of the population.
But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

So you post all these Ron Paul clips because you don't want him to be President? Ben you're perplexing ! lol And the reason is he'll make cuts that hurt people. The reality is that train has left the station. There has to be entitlement reform. Unless this economy experiences unprecedented levels of growth, and therefore more taxpayers funding the treasury, there's going to have to be cuts....And since the current administration does not seem capable of implementing pro growth policies, and the markets have little confidence they will....there's going to be cuts. It's simply a mathematical reality....Sure you can raise taxes, but that's not going to get you where you need...and wealthy people have a threshold and they're not going to let Uncle Sam take 40-50% of thier money. They'll shelter it or sit on it, and the anticipated windfall to the treasury will never be realized. ...which is what S & P message was. Now the rub comes when the demogoguary begins. Paul Ryan's plan did nothing to people who are 55 and over and/or are currently receiving benefits. You may not like his choices, but he put forth a fiscally sound plan. 5 minutes after his plan hit the presses, Pelosi, Turbin Durbin, Wasserman-Shultz, and Schumer hit the micophones with their usual shtick about starving our seniors. How do you negotiate with people like that? But that's what politicians do. Never confuse them with patriots.
Which is again why S&P did what they did what they did. They have no confidence people like Pelosi can set aside the political demagoguery long enough to reform these programs for future generations.

[Stavros]

But isn't the whole point of politics to look at the different angles so as to deal with precise issues? Otherwise, why even bother with governance at all? My complaint with the wing line is its promotion of rigidity & polarization.

Hippifried I think you are being too indvidualistic (I almost said too bourgeois)-there are people who feel secure and comfortable knowing that they are identifiable with a group: the sort of people who make an effort to go to rallies, be they public ones or partisan and cheer their hero to the rafters: its the latin dictum, coniungi dilectissime: it doesnt smooth over the divisions on specific policy, but a sense of belonging after all, is fundamental to ideology, identity politics, and retains a degree of power to affect the way people think and also vote..and go to war...

[hippifried]

But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

& that's a major problem I see with most ideologies. They don't take dishonesty into account, & none of them can even work in theory unless everybody plays by the same rules. We already know they don't work in reality. & when it falls apart because of all the corruption, we see part 2 of the same problem, where everybody stamps their feet & points their fingers. "It's all their fault! Waaaaaaaaaa!" Mix hubris & intransigence with insecurity & gullibility, & you end up with ideologues. All very entertaining, but without a single workable solution to any problem.