Ron Paul is the least objectionable Republican. The second-least objectionable Republican is Fred Thompson, and if he were likely to win the nomination I might be persuaded to switch my support. All the ones who are likely to win are indistinguishable from Democrats (and some of them are Democrats on Fire for Jesus which is just all kinds of not a good idea).
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayJanuary 14th, 2008 |
 59 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Can’t say I get the Ron Paul support or how he could be “least objectionable.” I worry when a candidate sounds so far “Right” he becomes “Left.” At least that appears to be how it is to my ears.
What exactly do left and right mean to you, then?
Honored to be SQOTD.
Ron Paul has some very extreme right-wing ideas (like eliminating the income tax), and some very extreme left-wing ideas (like not engaging in any foreign wars). He has taken what he believes to be the best ideas of the right-wing and the best ideas of the left-wing and combined them into a platform that emphasizes individual liberty. He is thus both a moderate, in the sense that some of his ideas are from the right and others from the left, and he is simultaneously an extremist, because the ideas he has chosen are some of the most extreme on both sides of the spectrum.
So there you have it. Ron Paul: Leftist, rightist, moderate and extremist. Truly a politician for all seasons.
Was gonna answer in my own but Andy pretty much covered it. I understand the libertarian appeal but his message just isn’t balanced. And most Americans today don’t respond to shrillness which he seems in constant supply of during debates. When he speaks of isolationism his message comes across as if he’s apart of the “Blame America” crowd and it doesn’t sound conservative in the sound bites. Not exactly his fault but then one must make do with today’s media society.
What do you mean by a criticism such as “not balanced”? Do you mean “uncompromising”? Or even “unmutual” and in need of social conversion?
He would probably do better politically if he was “more flexible” and prepared to “compromise” and “meet the other side halfway”.
And that’s the whole problem with the incumbents, isn’t it?
If two people disagree on a theoretically decidable issue then at least one of them is wrong. If they decide to compromise and meet halfway then both of them are almost certainly now wrong.
Least objectionable? Yeah, except for blacks, Jews, and anyone who thinks that 9/11 was committed by Islamic terrorists. Not to mention anyone who thinks surrendering in Iraq is a bad idea, which last I checked was pretty popular with my conservative movement. Oh, and let’s not let practicality intrude into the doctrinal purity realm.
Look, here’s what it comes down to: we do pick the lesser of two evils. That is the way it is, and yelling and screaming about it will not change that fact. Ron Paul will lose in a landslide to whoever the Dems put up. I won’t vote for him, because anyone who thinks the Trilateral Commission runs the world is not fit to command the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Yes, advance the cause of small government, but the best way to do that is by changing the Republican Party. The best way to do that is become active and involved, to bring small government/libertarian views to the forefront, to get people exposed to them. Shifting the Republican Party into a small government direction will be vastly more effective then nominating Ron Paul. This trend is already underway, and young conservatives like myself are strongly opposed to big government. So take the Party over, and then nominate a non-crazy candidate. Maybe that is not as instantly gratifying as the Revolution Blimp, but it is more effective. Which is what I tend to aim for. Actions that make a difference, not worthless protest votes that harm liberty instead of advancing the cause. Not that Mitt or Rudy or Huckabee will advance the cause, but they will not take as much as any Democrat.
Ron Paul does not oppose all foreign wars. Ron Paul opposes pointless foreign wars which are waged against countries which did not and could not attack us.
Since most of our insane wars (e.g. WWI, Korea, Vietnam), were started by Democrats (Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson), I would assert that until very recently the Democrats were the party of pointless, endless, no-win war, and the Republicans were not. If, however, you want to back up the implication that the essence of conservatism is pointless, endless war and unlimited welfare for foreigners, I’d be curious to read the evidence.
Nooo, just those that the US is fighting…
Come on libertarians – the 10% Pual got in the primaries is from the “Blame America” and “ANSWER” crazy loons, not from libertarians.
He gives libertarianism a bad face.
Since when did eliminating income tax constitute a “very extreme right-wing idea”?
Or, for that matter, did not engaging in any foreign wars become a “very extreme left-wing idea”?
Do you have any historical understanding of what constitutes leftist or rightist values and pursuits beyond those held dear by the brainless oiks at DailyKos and other similar intellectual vacuums?
Andy L: “Ron Paul has some very extreme right-wing ideas (like eliminating the income tax), and some very extreme left-wing ideas..”
Is a libertarian actually suggesting that the elimination of income tax is too extreme?
Most folk who claim to be libertarian advocate a small state, the best way to make sure the state is small is to strangle its revenue stream. Getting rid of the income tax has so many benefits.
1. it restricts the ability of the state to spend money.
2. it removes the need of the state to hold information about the citizen. Why should the government know what you earn?
Anyway, Ron Paul claims to support the United States constitution. One might have thought that would recieve support both from Republicans and Democrats.
That’s easy to date. It’s from the cold war days , when the USSR preferred that the US did not interfere with it’s expansion program through Soviet organized violent revolutions. Since those days the left, in the US and Europe, under orchestration from USSR, started chanting: “no foreign wars!” (for the US). That is: “don’t interfere in USSR’s expansion.” “Preventing countries from becoming communist is a sin, is reactionary, is against the wish of the people, is colonialism. ”
Of course, the left (in Western countries) isn’t opposed to foreign wars, especially not wars the USSR was engaging in, by proxie. They only opposed the US’s feeble and hesistant efforts to help people stay free.
Well, he supports, at least, his own private interpretation of it. Especially the sections he likes.
This thread demonstrates the uselessness of “left” and “right” as accurate descriptors of views. For instance, if a pol. opposes foreign wars where his country has not been attacked, one can argue over the pros and cons but his being a right-winger or whatever is irrelevant.
Perhaps a better way to put it is to ask whether that politician generally believes that governments are a force for good or not. While I disagree with some of the libertarian movement on the Iraq case, I always felt their strongest argument against the Iraq II war was the argument that foreign intervention, like economic planning, was doomed to failure. The insights of Adam Smith do not end at the water’s edge, so to speak.
It is a shame that Ron Paul did not articulate that view more clearly. That is a good argument, rather better than most of the arguments that are used to claim that the overthrow of Saddam’s vile regime was “all about oil,” or whatever.
To James Waterton:
I consider eliminating the income tax a right wing idea because conservatives are typically in favour of cutting taxes, and I consider it an extreme idea because most conservatives advocate at most only a marginal decrease in tax, and not the elimination of an entire type of tax.
I consider not engaging in any foreign wars a left wing idea because liberals are typically opposed to foreign war (most of the support for withdrawing immediately from Iraq, for instance, has come from the left, whereas most of the opposition to it has come from the right), and I consider it an extreme idea because very few leftists actually advocate complete military isolationism the way Ron Paul does. Contrast Paul’s foreign policy(Link) page to Clinton’s(Link), and tell me which one sounds like more of an extremist.
I realize that the terms “left wing”, “right wing”, “liberal”, “conservative” and “extreme” are all somewhat fuzzy and open to interpretation, but I don’t think my use of them was out of line with the way they are commonly used in political discourse.
To APL:
I’m not opposed to the elimination of the income tax, I’m just aware that at this point in time, it’s a pretty extreme policy.
Also, has there ever been an American presidential candidate who hasn’t claimed to support the constitution?
Well, Huckabee states to be in support of eliminating the income tax (and replacing it with national sales tax), as well as Romney (proposing to replace it with a flat tax). Ron Paul is not exactly alone, then (and since he wants to replace it with freedom, he seems to be most reasonable one).
As for the foreign policy – traditional Republican stance is non-interventionism. Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft opposed the US membership in NATO.
In response to Andy’s post above — naturally, the Clinton’s foreign policy is the more extreme one. It seems to share the assumptions made by the radical Trotskyists (a.k.a. Neo-“Conservatives”), that “spreading the (democratic) revolution” somehow leads to a desirable outcome.
To that, there’s one appropriate response:
“spreading the (democratic) revolution” indeed leads to a desirable outcome. It takes a lot of time, though.
But topling lunatig megalomaniac dictators that start wars, kill people and endager world stability is a good idea, whether what follows is democracy or less lunatic dictators.
If Ron Paul is a Libertarian … why is he running for President? what business does a Libertarian have wielding Executive power? A contradiction, no?
Jacob: No, it doesn’t.
Here’s yet-another-fitting-quote:
Perhaps I should just point to a source.
(Yeah, forgot about Hitler.)
Spreading Liberty, on the other hand, does lead to a desirable outcome (here: free people). The necessary condition for liberty is free market. Democracy is not even a sufficient condition.
As for the Iraq — Islamo-socialistic theocratic regime (take a look at Iraqi Constitution, with Islam as a “the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation”, constitutionally enforced socialized medicine, education, the only officially recognized union being the Communist one, etc.) with Chavez-like approach to the economy (like, say, nationalized oil fields, with the Minister of Oil arguing for “no privatisation of Iraqi oil” ever) is hardly a desirable outcome.
Nick: not all of the libertarians (capitalization notwithstanding) are anarcho-capitalists. There are also some minarchists, you know 🙂 As for the Libertarians, the stated purpose of the LP is actually enforcing the Constitution, which indeed does provide for an executive branch.
As for the foreign policy – traditional Republican stance is non-interventionism. Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft opposed the US membership in NATO.
That was two Republican Parties back, though. Back in the 1950s, the Taft noninterventionist Republicans got replaced with the Eisenhower/Nixon anticommunist Republicans, who supported a strong military presence overseas and a less interventionist economic policy than the Democrats wanted; that is, they were about half in sympathy with libertarian ideas (and the standard Republic foreign policy was already diverged from what you describe). In the 1980s, they got replaced with a new variety of Republicans who still wanted a strong military presence overseas, who wanted to institutionalize Christianity as the basis of American government (in flat opposition to that classic Enlightenment document the Constitution), and who weren’t even sound on economic and fiscal policy, as the financial collapse of Orange County demonstrated. Not only are the current Republicans not Taft’s Republicans, but they don’t even remember Taft’s Republicans; to them, the old-style Republicans, the classic “don’t touch my money” crowd, are the ones who agree with them about militaristic foreign policy but don’t support their religious goals. Giuliani is sort of the last survival of that breed of Republican, and he’s not very libertarian.
I’m not very sympathetic to the Democrats, either, but given the choice between theocratic Republicans and vaguely Enlightenment Democrats, I find the latter marginally less bad. I could imagine voting for Richardson, for example, where I could not imagine voting for Paul.
Saying the other Republican candidates are indistinguishable from Democrats is only true if you’re intentionally not paying attention. Just on foreign policy alone there’s a host of differences. Tax policy, judicial philosophy, the list goes on. Hell, Giuliani has even claimed an 11th hour conversion on guns. They might not be ideal, but saying they’re identical to Democrats is ridiculous.
Of course, as far as Huckabee goes I would agree. He is definitely a pro-life Democrat.
(With apologies to Python)
SAMIZDATA: I don’t understand it. Why doesn’t every sensible person love Ron Paul like we do?
COMMENT 1: Well, there’s the racism.
SAMIZDATA: What?
COMMENT 2: The racism. Have you seen those newsletters?
SAMIZDATA: Oh yeah, yeah. There’s the racist newsletters, that’s true, yeah.
COMMENT 3: And the anti-Semitism.
COMMENT 4: Oh yeah, the anti-Semitism. Loads of Ron Paul’s followers hate the Jews.
SAMIZDATA: Yeah, all right, I’ll grant you the racism and the anti-Semitism are two things sensible people dislike about Ron Paul…
COMMENT 5: And the foreign policy.
SAMIZDATA: Well yeah, obviously the foreign policy. The foreign policy’s ludicrous. Only an idiot could like Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
COMMENT 6: The bizarre obsessive nature of his basement-dwelling fan-boys.
COMMENT 7: And the cult of personality.
SAMIZDATA: All right, but apart from the racism, the anti-Semitism, the ludicrous foreign policy, his insane supporters, and the frightening cult of personality… what is wrong with Ron Paul?
COMMENT 8: The 9/11 Truthers.
SAMIZDATA: The Truthers? Oh, shut up.
Samizdata: For all of your Ron Paul discussion needs!
I see us on the way to the Ron Paul singularity, where every unmoderated thread on every blog everywhere becomes about Ron Paul. At the rate this is going, I’ll open the book I’m trying to finish[1] and find that someone replaced my bookmark with a Ron Paul flyer. And the RMGO and “I Brew the Beer I Drink” sticker on my truck will be replaced with Ron Paul stickers.
ETA: I just found that my dog’s rabies vaccination tag was replaced with a Ron Paul tag. This has gone too far.
[1] Hollywood Division by Joseph Wambaugh. Excellent story.
Heh. Funny, DB, no doubt about it.
My responses are here and here.
And:
Anyone who obsesses about any politician is a weirdo.
And which of the candidates is not running on the basis of their personal radiant wonderfulness? Anyone who runs for the highest political offices surrounds themselves toadies in varying proportion. They also attract obsessives and/or delusionals who actually think ANY human being should have that amount of power over other people. RP is worse how exactly?
Sunfish,
Yeah, I’ve noticed that – The ‘net is beginning to resemble the end of Matrix Revolutions, except with Ron Paul, the Agent Smith of Politics.
Matt,
As long as they murder a little less people, and don’t start any wars, and don’t support terrorists, the current regime is an improvement over the last one. A great improvement. For everyone – not least – for the Iraqis themselves.
Jacob: “don’t support terrorists”–well, part of the problem with the Iraqi gov’t (or the respective local gov’ts, for that matter) is that this part of your statement doesn’t exactly apply to it. As for the (lack of) wars–you seem to make an assumption that we’re having stable (as in stable equilibrium) situation in Iraq, which is also not the case. (Noteworthy, it’s under civil war right now.) There was a reason for emphasizing the distinction between sufficient and necessary conditions in my previous post–democracy is merely a byproduct of a free society. Liberty (including free markets) is the requirement. Granted, it’s good Saddam’s gone (further, Mission Accomplished => no reason to stay there.) However, as long as the approach taken is the reverse one (attempting to achieve the results by striving to establish their byproducts first), I wouldn’t hold my breath for a “free people in a stable Iraq” outcome (which would be a desirable one, indeed)–not today, not in 50 years, not in a century.
William,
I happen to disagree to some extent. While in general what you say reflects the change in position (though not equally applicable to each and every GOP member), I’d argue it’s rather a temporary deviation during the Cold War era, rather than a permanent change in general trend. During the Soviet expansionism one could argue for the merits of the interventionism. However, we live in a 21st century now, and the challenges faced by the modern world are somewhat different. Nowadays, traditional Republican stance seem to be more and more appropriate. This was reflected in a policy, as well. As recently as in 1990’s you had Republicans criticizing the Clinton administration for its intervention in former Yugoslavia, and then there was Bush running (and winning) on a “humble foreign policy.” Granted, 9/11 lead to a setback in this respect–hopefully, solely of a temporary nature…
My understanding is that the reason he did not want US membership in NATO was that it would weaken our responsibility to the UN. Paul said the same line in the debate.
Either way, according to this link it seems to me that Taft didn’t object to having troops overseas. So it appears to me as if there are some inconsistencies with Paul quoting Taft on the matter of overseas military occupation.
I will give Paul this, investigating further into what he ends up speaking about has made me more familiar with the history of the Republican party. Unfortunately for him it doesn’t make me necessarily agree. But regardless I’m more then willing to see further into what he argues about.
This Left/Right dichotomy has really gotten out of hand.
The P.C. multi-culti statist-collectivist totalitarian wannabes of MoveOn.org think of themselves as the Vital Center – midway between two other flavors of statist-collectivist totalitarianisms. In such a world, the concept of Liberty just doesn’t compute.
A disturbingly large portion of Western citizens has lived with this dichotomy all through life, and never thought it through. I think this is what leads to so much confusion over Ron Paul. Lefties think he’s an extreme right winger, and traditional conservatives think he’s a moon-bat. None of them gets his point.
“What exactly do left and right mean to you, then?”
Well. That is the 64 dollar question, isn’t it?
Voting for Dr Paul …
Cheers
It is true that Iraq is less stable than it was under Saddam, but on the other hand it is definitely more free. But the bottom line for me is not the well being of Iraq, although that would be a very nice side benefit if possible, it is how much more or less of a threat Iraq is to the West. I think it is less of a threat with Saddam (and his sons) gone.
J.M., from that link:
This reminds me of what’s-her-name back in 2000 in FL. Both Bush and Gore had a share of their unhinged supporters at the time, so what. I don’t support RP, but it seems to me more and more that basing one’s support of a candidate on who part of his other supporters may be is falling under the influence of a spin machine too easily. I think I am better off confining myself to my personal impression of the man and the things he actually says, as much as possible (easier said than done, I must say). Neither make me want to support him.
We have the example of Turkey. It has it’s millions of problems, but it’s a very nice country compared to what Iraq was.
I don’t see why Iraq couldn’t develop into a Turkey-like state within maybe 10 or 20 years. If it does it would be a great aceivement of the US intervention. And US troops, permanently stationed in Iraq (under peace), as they are in Turkey, would help stabilize this sensitive and resource rich region. And that would be great for mankind and for the US.
It’s far from certain this rosy scenario will happen, but it might. It seems to me worth trying.
You may say: no, chances are too small, the expenditure is too great, we can’t afford it. To which I say – maybe… but this is a plausible argument.
But Ron Paul’s shrill “illegal and immoral” – isn’t a sensible argument.
Joshua:
They say Ron Paul supported the Afghanistan war.
Was there a “we declare war on Afghanistan” resolution in the Senate, or is this war unconstitutional too? Ron Paul supports it anyway ?
“For the record” (as the saying is) only two of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, have a record of inventing new government mandates or supporting the expansion of existing Welfare State schemes and regulations.
Both deny they would same way if elected President – I do not believe them, but they do deny it.
All three remaining Democrats support a vast expansion of the size and scope of the Welfare State.
Ron Paul does indeed have a record of opposing these programs – although he is not so good at producing proposals for how to take to deal with them.
Fred Thompson is very good on this – but can he win? South Carolina will tell us.
Rudy G. is good on taxes and regulations – but rather quiet about the spending progams.
John McCain has a very good record on earmarks and other pork – but is quiet on everything else. Apart from supporting deregulation of the health insurance market (allowing buying over State lines).
Ron Paul thought Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan and THAT is what he supported.
On war:
It is quite true that Ron Paul is the only candidate (of either party) still in the race who wishes to withdraw American forces from the Middle East.
He voted for the war in Afghanistan, but the Rothbardian influence seems to be stronger now.
So I do not think his position is “we should retreat from where we are winning” (the Democrat position on Iraq) “but carry on fighting where we are not winning” -Afghanistan (also the Democrat position).
Of course surrender in Iraq would make victory in Afghanistan as likely as space aliens landing on the White House lawn.
Therefore a full noninterventionist should vote for Ron Paul.
If one believed that withdrawing all American forces to within the borders of the United States would make the forces of radical Islam no longer seek to destroy the West, voting for Congressman Paul would be the logical move.
I’m hardly what you would call a ‘fanboy’ – but in my business a rapidly declining dollar has monstrous consequences.
Whatever his faults, at least RP knows what he is talking about when it comes to monetary policy. Nobody else even has a clue, its pathetic.
We’re looking at US sovereign debt, supposedly the safest investment in the world, declining below AAA status in a couple years, inflation the highest in 26 years, and banks going out of business.
And you’re calling Ron Paul nuts for predicting all of this?
But, as matters stand now (no “declaration of war”), does Ron Paul support the war in Afghanistan, or does he claim it’s unconstitutional and therefore “illegal and immoral” ?
No. For other reasons.
On the national debt (a smaller proportion of the economy than in most Western nations).
If Ron Paul had made a big thing in the debates of attacking the entitlement programs (the Welfare State being the real cause of the present and future debt problem) I would say that had a point.
But he did not make a big think of it, he hardly mentioned them at all.
What there was was a pretense (and it is a pretence – because Congressman Paul knowns the truth) that the big problem is overseas military spending.
I have still not seen a single major reform plan from Ron Paul – nothing on SPECIFICALLY how he would move the United States away from the entitlement programs.
On the wars.
Congressman Ron Paul supported sending troops to Afghanistan.
But, yes, the resolution passed by Congress did not say “the United States declares war on Afghanistan”.
Congressman Paul did not support sending troops to Iraq – but the same sort of resolution as the Afghanistan one was passed by Congress.
So saying Afghan war is constitutional and the Iraq war is not would make no sense.
As you know I do not support RP on foreign matters (which makes this comment a bit ironic), but…
Even if he thinks the war in Afghanistan was started unconstitutionally, he did indeed support war in Afghanistan, he just wanted it to be done in a constitutional manner… thus he is demonstrably “a supporter of war in Afghanistan” regardless, he just disagrees with how it was in fact done legally. It would make little sense for him to argue for the war to end therefore until it is concluded satisfactorily, just that the legal constitutional forms be restored to make it legal. They are two separable issues.
Then, why does he make such a big issue of the Iraq war being “illegal and immoral” ? It’s exactly as illegal and as immoral as the Afghanistan war.
It’s like with the little lies that tell about the character of Hillary – the little absurdities tell about the intellectual stature of Paul.
Ron Paul…
Illogical, Jacob. There are two issues: both wars may or may not be constitutional (i.e. legal). Both wars may or may not be justified (moral).
He supported going to war in Afghanistan because he thought it justified (moral). That does not change the fact he thought it was initiated unconstitutionally (illegal). But that illegality is not the same issue as the war’s morality. A war can be ‘illegal’ by a nation’s own laws and still perfectly moral (and visa versa).
In the case of Iraq, he takes the view it is both illegal and immoral. Nothing illogical there. I disagree with him but that does not prevent me from understanding what his position is and is not. I did (and still do) support both wars.
Regarding the constitutionality of the war in Afghanistan.
There is in fact no specific mention of Afghanistan at all in the resolution that authorized that conflict. It authorizes military force against anyone who is determined to have aided in, helped in the planning of, or participated in the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban was never recognized as the official government of Afghanistan by the United States (or the United Nations, though that is of course irrelevant), so I suppose someone could try to argue that it authorizes the use of retaliatory force against a non-state militia rather than declares war on a nation. This would be a hard argument to make, however, considering that “nations” are included in the list of authorized targets.
No matter – Paul himself seems to consider the bill unconstitutional. Though he doesn’t clearly call it that, does note in this article on Counterpunch that the bill (which he incorrectly called HJ Res 65 – it was in fact 64) doesn’t mention proper Congressional authority to declare war.
Which really does beg the question why he voted for it if he considers it unconstitutional. Looks like a contradiction to me.
Hadn’t noticed Perry’s comment when I posted this last one.
Yes, the issues of legality and morality are indeed separable. Presumably Paul considers the war in Afghanistan illegal but not immoral, whereas the War in Iraq is both.
Another specific objection he has to the War in Iraq which hasn’t been mentioned much in these discussions is the fact that UN Resolutions were cited as justification for it. Paul strongly objects to UN resolutions as a basis for US troop commitments – a point on which I very much agree with him.
I should add that after three days of discussion Jacob has been successful at pointing out exactly one contradiction in Ron Paul’s application of constitutional principles, a contradiction that Paul himself seems to acknowledge in the article linked. I don’t think you will find another candidate for president who’s record is as consistent.
Yes, but there was another resolution (cited above in the thread) that explicitly authorized war against Iraq.
Even leaving aside the discussion of why one war is moral and the other not – the question remains why RP makes such a fuss over the “illegality” of the war in Iraq, and does not oppose, or even mention, the “illegality” of the war in Afghanistan.
(I thought the illegality was the reason for declaring the war immoral).
The “illegal” argument is extremely ridiculous in my eyes as all probably already know….
That’s more than you admited a day ago… and I didn’t (and am not going to) analyse all of RP’s positions, just this one little issue.
Yes, but why leave that aside? The relative morality of a given conflict is surely crucial to the decision of whether to support it or not.
This is a strange thing to say underneath a Ron Paul quote that expressly does mention it. I think what you mean to say is that it’s disingenuous of him not to mention his own vote in the same paragraph (which, of course, it is).
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff, kid. If the inconsistency in Ron Paul’s votes on the two wars was the real basis for your claim that he is selective in his application of the Constitution, you should have said so rather than dragging out, as you did instead, lame examples of the Post Office and the Gold Standard – especially considering you were forced to admit, on questioning, that you didn’t actually have a clue what Ron Paul’s position on either was or how it was meant to be “unconstitutional.” It is evident that the inconsistency in his war votes has only just yesterday occurred to you, which hardly inspires confidence that you know enough about his positions on much of anything to be in a position to claim that he’s “nuts.” Which is, I strongly suspect, the real reason for this bit:
The truth is you are unfamiliar with Paul’s positions and are just repeating impressions you got from the MSM.
To be fair, I agree that Paul is a little “out there.” I have indeed cited this on other threads as a kind of bonus (if the purpose of supporting Ron Paul is to send a wakeup call to the RNC – which is indeed the major reason I support him – his being a bit weird underscores to them that our votes are an act of desperation and our commitment to small-state politics therefore not negotiable). It’s just that I object to any kind of argument that uses moronic labels in place of laying out an actual case. I can’t “let it go” here because support for Paul on Samizdata is tenuous at best (one editor supports him, one editor does so with extreme reluctance, two major contributors support Thompson instead, one hasn’t said who he supports but has made it clear he thinks little of Paul), and I’m hoping to persuade some readers who may be voting in Republican primaries in the States to cast one for Paul. If neither Paul nor Thompson is going to win the nomination, but Paul will not support the eventual nominee whereas Thompson will, then Paul is the only one of the two capable of causing the RNC any headaches. After 8 years of “compassionate conservatism,” headaches are what they need. Writing off Paul because he’s “nuts,” especially when you don’t seem to have much basis for thinking so, distracts from the issue and doesn’t really get us anywhere.
Paul,
Actually Ron Paul has repeatedly discussed entitlement programs, for which his specific proposal is to allow people to opt out of it, while maintaining the government’s existing obligation to folks that have been paying into it for years. He proposes financing part of this by
a) Shutting down the 700 US bases in 130 countries
b) Not using Social Security funds for any other govt programs, unlike the current practise
c) Drastically reducing govt spending, by shutting down departments including Education, Energy, HUD, etc.
Ironically, he is the only candidate from either party with an actual plan for addressing the chronic deficits set up by the current system. I cannot imagine why people ignore this.
And Percy – I supported the Iraq war earlier, since I would rather the US looked strong (the Republican position) than weak (the Democrat position). But Ron Paul has the only true libertarian position – that we should vigorously attack and pursue countries that have harmed us, but the internal affairs of other nations are not our business. The US is not interested in being the policeman of the world.
He wants US troops out of Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Korea etc. He pursues the issue from a position of strength, of weilding a big stick and minding our own business, while trading with all nations (i.e. no more silly sanctions that only embolden dictators).
I cannot imagine how a blog with that most excellent Karl Popper quote would not be fervently for Ron Paul!
Well, I also read Reason magazine.
Then RP became a candidate, and I read some of his speeches, on his own site. After which I changed my original favorable impresion on him, and stopped digging farther.
Speaking of Reason, they have an article online today about the issue that sparked a lot of this discussion in the first place.
Make that two: Jacob Sullum’s just posted an op-ed.
Well Joshua,
There is nothing in those articles to make one want to support Ron Paul. On the contrary, I learned a lot of ugly things I didn’t know before.
Funny how I got the feel of this nut by just reading a couple of his speeches… He is intellectually unbalanced.
He is poison, no matter the change Reason claims he underwent, but which he refuses to acknowledge.
Kudos to Reason for their informative and fact rich article, and thank you for the link.
Had to chuckle at that one. No doubt Kaiser Wilhelm II, whatever NorK Kim was running N. Korea in 1950, and Ho Chi Minh had nothing to do with any of the above wars.
Typical Paulite response, though: whatever war we ended up fighting, it was fundamentally all our own fault.
Whatever’s wrong with the world, America isn’t it. The converse of that proposition, however, is common to Paulistas and to the Left.
Actually Kim, I think there is a connection. One of Chamberlain style, head in the sand, appeasing, isolationist vulnerability. It seems the Democrat’s attitude towards defense had consequences and it seems funny that Paulites would want to draw attention to it. A hard target is seldom challenged.