Ron Paul: He’s No Conservative

The Hawkeye Cauci happens this Tuesday, and, as I write this, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is polling in second place, with 22%, just 2 percentage points behind “The Legacy” Willard Mitt Romney.

Dr. Paul’s election strategy is as mystifying to the rational mind as is his popularity:

With polls giving Paul a chance to win Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, the mercurial congressman has once again dismissed the conventional political playbook. He spent the last weekend before the 2012 voting begins at home in warm Lake Jackson rather than campaigning in the cold of Iowa.

It’s the latest in a long list of “He did what?” decisions that detractors point to when arguing Paul will be unable to build on a successful showing in Iowa and eventually capture the GOP nomination.

Supporters note his two decades of electoral invincibility in Texas’ 14th Congressional District. But some who live in Paul’s home district and know him best still question the viability of an approach and a political orthodoxy that would doom the average incumbent.

“His ideas are wonderful, but you wonder if you can really run the United States in 2012 with strictly those ideas,” said John Grotte, a Paul supporter and retired engineer. “He really hasn’t changed that much with the flow of the times. So you wish you could take about 60 percent of him, take another 20 percent of something, just a pure politician and stick them together, and you’d have a pretty jim-dandy guy.”

Paul has remained loyal to his brand of libertarianism while representing his coastal Texas district. When Hurricane Ike pummeled the Gulf Coast city of Galveston in 2008, Paul voted against money to help his imperiled constituents.

Officials at the district’s shipping ports try other members of the Texas congressional delegation when seeking money for dredging. Even neighbors who’ve carpooled with his children to swim practices and praise Paul’s principles say they wish he would have made some allies during all his years in Washington.

In his campaigns, Paul is true to his calls to shut down the Federal Reserve, return the country’s currency to the gold standard and halt all military interventions overseas.

Ron Paul is described as a “Libertarian”.  What exactly is one of these critters?  What does the modern Libertarian believe?  Is it just another form of Conservatism?

Per libertarianism.org:

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Libertarian ideas are becoming increasingly influential. Philosopher Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia helped to revitalize political theory and to focus attention on the proper limits of state power. Classical liberal economists and social scientists have pioneered the understanding of processes of social coordination and change, many of them earning Nobel Prizes in the process. And the broad global trend toward economic deregulation, freer trade, limits on taxes, toleration of minorities, and greater personal freedom shows the influence of libertarian ideas and libertarian thinkers and activists.

Ronald Reagan defined Conservatism as a three-legged stool:  Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and National Defense.

Today’s Libertarians misidentify themselves as Conservatives.  They discard two out of the three legs of the stool, identifying themselves as only as “Fiscal Conservatives.”

If you’re having a discussion with someone and they call themselves a “Fiscal Conservative,” 9 times out of ten, you’re talking to a Libertarian.

Dr. Paul is a Libertarian.  Among other arrows in his quiver, he wants to legalize marijuana.  That’s why the self-proclaimed “intellectual” college-age young folks, with their heads full of mush, want to vote for him.

That’s personal responsibility thingy is a pain, isn’t it, boys and girls?

I found myself in a discussion with one of these young followers the other day, who was posting his Paulian praises on the Facebook page of Conservative Pundit Michelle Malkin.  Needless to say, the young man got very frustrated with my insistence on remaining faithful to Reagan Conservatism and with my refusal to believe in the brilliance that is Dr. Ron Paul.  That young man called me ignorant and wound up his less-than-cogent argument by saying that my parents had never married, in a very crude manner.

Being a 53 year old  Son of the South, I must confess, I snapped and I proceeded to tell the young Paulnut the way the cow ate the cabbage:

Reality Check: Ron Paul is a old man, who has run for President several times. He is this generation’s Pat Paulsen (look him up). He is anti-semitic, pro-Iranian, and is a cranky, old isolationist nutjob, whom one would expect to find in a corner somewhere, with his underwear on top of his head, babbling , “I like cheese!” If he was the genius you idiots claim that he is, he would have won the presidency by now. Loosen up your tin foil hat, boy. It’s shaping your head into a point.

Now is not the time to redefine Conservatism.  Now is the time to vote for it.

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Ron Paul: He’s No Conservative

  1. Dana Pearson says:

    One thing is enough to disqualify Paul — the racist newsletters from the eighties and nineties. What makes it worse is that Paul claims he does not know who wrote the newsletters that had his own name on them, also some letters that had his signature block on them. If he did not write the newsletters, and I don’t think he did, he should stop protecting who did, doing so is positively Nixonian.

    I actually like some of his dovish foreign policy views. However, character counts, and the newsletter controversy and his reaction to it — tells me that he comes in last place among all the candidates (including Obama) on that score.

    He is also too ideological on the foreign policy front. While I think that America should cut back on its overseas adventures, there are times and places where American military might can do some good.

    Also, Paul strikes me as weak on gay marriage and immigration. His below the belt punch to Bachman (“she hates Muslims”) was a vicious slur that also shows Paul’s true character.

  2. Barb says:

    Oh, the reference to Pat Paulsen just had me cracking up!! I am awaiting the attack of the Paulbots to start coming in….juuuust waiting.