Clinton Conservatives, Go Home.

Writes Vox Day:

Now, it is true that some individuals are very liberal in their youth and become more conservative as they get older. But if one examines the "conservative" media, one notices a surprising number of individuals who were liberals and claim to be conservatives now, but still continue to advocate the same powerful and intrusive central government that they advocated in their liberal youth. And like young cuckoos and cowbirds, these parasites attempt to push the genuine intellectual heirs out of the nest, hence National Review founder William F. Buckley's attacks on Murray Rothbard and Joe Sobran, FrontPage's Ben Johnson's call for "modern conservatives" to repudiate Paul Craig Roberts, National Review's David Frum's call for "a conservatism of the future" to turn its back on Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis and Taki Theodoracopulos.

And just last week, National Review's Kathryn Lopez demanded "Ron Paul, Go Home" in bold-face type, which is a very strange thing for a supposed conservative to say about the man who is indisputably the only genuinely conservative Republican candidate for president.

This is not conservative behavior; it is the language and the controlling tactics of the left. These supposedly "conservative" individuals are not advocating anything that is even remotely recognizable as historical conservatism, but, nevertheless, claim that advocating big government policies, strong government actions, heroic government measures and imperialist government interventions are a new, shiny and better conservatism for the future. If this all sounds very familiar, it should, because it is nothing less than Clinton conservatism.

It is not the real conservatives, but the word thieves who need to go home; go home to the statist, authoritarian, big-government left where they rightly and truly belong.

Fascist Mitt

Think it's hyperbole?

Marc Ambinder quotes Romney:

"First, we have to tackle the problems head on. If I am your President, in my first 100 days, I will roll up my sleeves, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders to develop a plan to rebuild America's automotive leadership. It will be one that works for Michigan and that works for the American taxpayers." [emphasis added]

Uh...can anybody say, Corporativismo? Jonah, can we get a ruling on this?

(Hat tip: Laura Ebke)

More

More resented, more distrusted, more despised.

A reasonable barometer of sympathy for terrorism among moderate Arabs? Yes, I think so.

What's Wrong with the GOP

Mark Shea says it: "[C]onservatism as prostitution to the power of Leviathan."

My frustration with many rank-and-file conservatives stems from what I see as their affection for power...not that they wish to wield it themselves necessarily, as liberals do, but they are warm to its existence and ready to compromise themselves in defense of its exertion by those with whom they identify.

It's why "strength" is the magic word of nearly every Republican campaign.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

"I Want This Man For President."

Over at NRO Derb responds to Andrew Sullivan's remarks about Ron Paul yesterday.

Just so. Furthermore, I doubt Paul has ever been any different. I had a most interesting email yesterday from a friend in Texas. My friend's father was a slightly-cranky far-rightist who'd corresponded with Paul in the early 1980s. He'd send Paul one of his letters (my friend has preserved them) ranting about something or other. Paul would send a polite letter back, calmly agreeing with the bits he agreed with (limited government, Constitution) and pointedly ignoring the nuttier bits. Letters that were all nuttiness got no response from Paul.

That's our man. He's a rock. And if you're crazy, he's fine with it.

You can b-s in the sound bites, but you can't b-s for a full 65 minutes of questioning. Sit through this (noting, in passing, that the mean IQ of the audience is around 140), then tell me if you can that Ron Paul wasn't the straightest arrow on the stage last night. I want this man for president.

Ron Paul's Best Debate Performance Yet?

I think it was, far and away. Giuliani's vulturine giggle and McCain's frozen shield of a smirk could not have been more repulsive, nor more revealing of an ignorance determined to find a consensus.

Paul's intelligent answers shone through all the rubbish.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

Part 7 was probably his most outstanding moment.

Sticking It Out

Immediately following the disappointing result in New Hampshire, I had begun a post lamenting the fact that Ron Paul didn't get the 3rd place finish that I felt was the minimum he needed in order to generate the buzz of a major upset and go on to be a factor in this year's Republican primaries. My mood was dark.

Then I saw this:



Be change. It doesn't start anywhere else.

Apocalypse Soon

Not NOW, but very soon. We are in deep trouble and only one candidate has the guts to talk about it. Glenn Beck reveals who that candidate is during the course of his conversation with the Comptroller General:



What's funny about all this, in a most tragic, ironic way, is that the old goals of the communists are finally coming close to fruition. In 1938 J.B. Matthews wrote an autobiography he called Odyssey of a Fellow Traveler, in which he reported on his comrades' new strategy after their grandiose dreams of proletarian revolution in America had dissolved. The capitalist system of production, they perceived, might be sabotaged indirectly by method of

placing upon that system burdens of restrictive legislation and enervating taxation. These ends would, it is hoped, be achieved by the slogans of social security, unprecedented sums for relief of every sort, until the collapse of the currency and the drain upon production induced a major crisis in the working of the economy. Meanwhile vast political power would be built upon these governmental hand-outs - a veritable monster of politics insatiable in its appetite for compensation without toil. Not only upon the economy's currency but upon every other front of the capitalist system, this incessant sabotage would do its work until finally the system would require a receiver.

The idea was to work to activate greater and greater demand for government largesse; to pile so many government programs upon the system and encrust it with so many regulations that eventually it would come crashing down under its own weight. Now, one would have to grant too much genius to too fractious a populace to believe that such a plan could ever have been orchestrated much less deliberately carried off, but the result has been achieved just the same. It was enough that politicians comprehended the profit potential of a broker state and found gathered at every campaign stop a public of wide sympathies and narrow discernment.

There are many such politicians in the race today, on both sides. It seems Republicans and Democrats alike are infected with the psychology of the social crusader, intoxicated with the feeling of power, busy dressing—to quote Matthews again—"the naked lust for unearned power in the garb of a utopian impulse." In this race there are all sorts of utopias on display, domestic and foreign. Every one of them is false.

Andrew Sullivan, watching the South Carolina debate tonight, notes:

[T]hank God for Ron Paul.

No one else, except McCain, copped to the GOP's rank betrayal of fiscal conservatism, limited government, prudent foreign policy and civil liberties. ...

One other vital thing: none of the candidates seems to have the slightest nuance on the Iraq war. I don't find Paul's extreme non-interventionism to be palatable; but I don't think it's less inherently reasonable than McCain's belief in occupying half the planet for ever as long as we don't have US casualties. Giuliani is the nuttiest. Romney just vacuous and dumb. To listen to McCain, you would honestly think Iraq would soon become a peaceful, unified, independent nation. At best, that might happen in 50 years time. Until then, we have to occupy the place, constantly juggling various militias, appeasing various factions, arming those who will one day attack us and then the next day realign with us? Empire is a rough business. And when you're running an empire on borrowed money and your own currency is going down the tubes, it's not an indefinite prospect. And if McCain believes Arab culture will tolerate a permanent American occupation the way that Koreans or Germans have, he has learned nothing from these past five years and even less from history.

"Cheap fabric, and dim lighting. That's how you move merchandise," pronounced the character of Morty Seinfeld. It's certainly true in politics. The utopias these fast-talking peddlers are hawking are flimsy fabrics. They will unravel quickly and leave the empire with no clothes.

Republican vs. Conservative

It seems as if both parties—Republicans and Democrats—are now squarely located in the center. The welfare-warfare state is simply accepted, unquestioningly, by the leadership of both parties. At this stage the question must be asked: are Republicans conservatives anymore? David Hill has doubts:

Republicans, as a whole, are not as conservative as they once were. Research results I am seeing suggest to me that this is key to why the rules are changing. Conservatives no longer benefit from the domination they once enjoyed.

So does Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times, who observes:

Recently I met a general who had served over there, and I asked him why we had started a war with Iraq. He paused, dropped his voice, and made me promise not to quote him. Then he only hinted at an answer, which seemed to be that we invaded Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to.

What is the matter with Republicans that they get us into wars like this? Rarely does war achieve conservative ends. It pokes holes in the rule of law. It flouts morality. It sunders families. It unbalances budgets and undermines currencies. Look what it has done to the dollar.

My theory about Republicans is that the Cold War damaged their DNA. For decades they were the party that was ready to fight, fight, fight. Well, communism is dead. The Red Army is gone. The new enemy is a man hiding in a cave somewhere, and other men in Baghdad who make bombs in little rooms. To protect me from these guys, Republicans have declared a War on Terra, and I don't need it.

Somebody has to make this party wake up.
...
[Ron Paul] offers Republicans an idea for rebranding themselves as the nation's conservative party by scaling back on world management and foreign war. Paul will not decide the outcome in November, but his ideas matter for the future of America's conservative party.

Can't say it any better than that. This is an issue that won't go away. If something doesn't change, the GOP is in for a world of hurt.

The Ron Paul Revolution will go on, but Paul really needed to get 3rd place at the very least in New Hampshire in order to be a factor in this year's Republican primaries. He needed the buzz of a major upset, and he didn't get it. Though I plan to continue working hard for his campaign and doing whatever I can to spread the message, I'm afraid I can't see how his support is going to grow enough from here on out to propel him to a much better finish in any other state. He may pick up a decent number of delegates as the race goes on, but even so I doubt he'll be offered a speaking slot at the convention.

I'm profoundly disappointed with the Republican Party. I have to admit, finally, that it's become virtually unrecognizable. When the party that once stood for limited government above all else overwhelmingly embraces candidates like McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, it's a sad day indeed. I remain optimistic about the future of libertarian ideas (Paul's support among young people is impressive), but I no longer believe they will find a home in the Republican Party—at least not for the forseeable future.

David Hill echoes my sentiments:

Republicans, as a whole, are not as conservative as they once were. Research results I am seeing suggest to me that this is key to why the rules are changing. Conservatives no longer benefit from the domination they once enjoyed.

That Paul's campaign appears to have stalled is, I believe, due entirely to this reason. I don't think it's the smears and accusations of racism. It seems perfectly clear from modest investigation that Paul did not actually pen the bigoted remarks that have been attributed to him. I think the most that can be said about that is that he made the error of placing his trust in the wrong person some years ago.

Nor do I think it's the unruly behavior of a small contingent of his supporters, though surely they haven't helped the cause. I, for one, am tired of YouTube videos entitled "Ron Paul kicks so-and-so's ass!" (yesterday the so-and-so was Laura Ingraham), and then finding as I watch or listen that the interviewer was actually quite civil throughout. That example of boorishness, along with many others, has been counterproductive.

But ultimately I just think most Republicans have lost touch with the roots of conservatism. The party—both parties, actually—are now squarely located in the center. The welfare-warfare state is simply accepted, unquestioningly, by the leadership of both parties.

Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times observes:

Recently I met a general who had served over there, and I asked him why we had started a war with Iraq. He paused, dropped his voice, and made me promise not to quote him. Then he only hinted at an answer, which seemed to be that we invaded Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to.

What is the matter with Republicans that they get us into wars like this? Rarely does war achieve conservative ends. It pokes holes in the rule of law. It flouts morality. It sunders families. It unbalances budgets and undermines currencies. Look what it has done to the dollar.

My theory about Republicans is that the Cold War damaged their DNA. For decades they were the party that was ready to fight, fight, fight. Well, communism is dead. The Red Army is gone. The new enemy is a man hiding in a cave somewhere, and other men in Baghdad who make bombs in little rooms. To protect me from these guys, Republicans have declared a War on Terra, and I don't need it.

Somebody has to make this party wake up.
...
[Paul] offers Republicans an idea for rebranding themselves as the nation's conservative party by scaling back on world management and foreign war. Paul will not decide the outcome in November, but his ideas matter for the future of America's conservative party.

Can't say it any better than that.

The Paleo-Neo Divide

American Conservative Magazine with a good article on the rift.

On one side: John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, Joseph Sobran, George Will, and Tucker Carlson.

On the other: William Kristol, Norman/John Podhoretz, Michael Medved, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, and Michelle Malkin.

Is that a difficult choice?

One Candidate Gets It. Not McCain.

Ron Paul:

"John McCain's statement in favor of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years or longer puts him out of sync with the majority of Americans, who want our troops to come home. Further, his comments recklessly put America at risk as such a statement will likely serve as a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, who appeal to radicals and incite violence against Americans by claiming that the US desires to occupy the Middle East indefinitely."

McCain is an old Cold-Warrior who seems to think that we're facing down something akin to the Soviet empire, and all we have to do is stand firm at the front and not blink. He is in la-la land. What will happen is exactly what Paul describes above. With Pakistan teetering on the brink and Saudi Arabia at risk of an Islamic revolution sometime in the near future, an arrogant comment like McCain's is just about the stupidest and most reckless thing a presidential candidate could say. He might as well get himself a poking stick and dare them to carry out more suicide attacks. What a dangerous fool. He's long on defiance and short on wisdom.

(Hat tip: Lew Rockwell)

Ron Paul's NH Townhall Meeting

Part 1:


Part 2:

Oh What a Tangled Web Some Weave

The New York Times does a nice job of exposing a few (just a few) of the lies and half-truths that so many of the candidates routinely drop. "In Debate Clashes, Accuracy Takes a Hit".

I've said it before...the number one political issue must always be honesty. If you can't trust the person to be straight with you, none of the rest matters.

McCain's 100-Year War

This may be old news already, but McCain's blithe answer to the question of how long we should stay in Iraq is so outrageously absurd that it defies belief:



"Make it a 100 years," he says. And here's the kicker: according to McCain, our presence will diminish al-Qaeda's influence and recruitment!

What planet is he living on? He doesn't seem able to understand that you cannot solve a political problem with military force, and that is frightening. He even invokes Korea in his answer, just as I knew he would. He really believes that the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in the Middle East. McCain may deserve respect for some things, but his foreign policy views are not among them.

Radical Ignorance on Radical Islam

The ABC News GOP debate in New Hampsire produced a serious exchange on foreign policy (transcript). The candidates were asked whether they would continue the Bush policy of nation-building and attempting to spread democracy throughout the world.

REP. PAUL: Well, I certainly agreed with his foreign policy that he ran on and that we as Republicans won in the year 2000 -- you know, the humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don't be the policeman of the world. And we were strongly critical of the policy of the Clinton administration, that did the opposite. And we fell short. Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this. And that all options are on the table to go after Iran? This -- this is not -- this is not necessary. These are third-world nations. They're not capable.

But I think it's the misunderstanding or the disagreements that we've had in this debate along the campaign trail is the -- the nature of the threat. I'm as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous. And there are radicals in all elements on -- in -- in all religions that will result to violence. But if we don't understand that the reaction is -- is because we invade their countries, we -- and occupy their countries, we have bases in their country, and that we haven't done it just since 9/11, but we have done that a long time.

I mean, it was the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 that was given as the excuse. If we don't understand that, we can't win this war against terrorism.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, unfortunately, Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is -- what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from, and the fact is it is trying to bring down, not just us, but it is trying to bring down all moderate Islamic governments, Western governments around the world, as we just saw in Pakistan.

It's actually Mr. Romney that needs to enhance his understanding by cracking a few books on the subject. As former CIA analyst and station chief Michael Scheuer explains, "The threat facing America is the defensive jihad, an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory, or on all three." [1] He goes on to say that "one of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe - at the urging of senior U.S. leaders - that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." [2]

The reason that al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups are trying to bring down the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, the Mubarak government in Egypt, et al, is because these regimes are viewed as corrupt dictatorships that are propped up by America, through American military intervention and/or arms sales and financial aid. They are seen as puppet governments the same way that the Shah of Iran was. Musharraf for example is favored by only 8% of the population in Pakistan, yet we have actively supported him since his coup and we continue to send him billions of dollars. The recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto warned that "[America's] policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country. I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years." [3] In another interview she remarked, "The West's close association with a military dictatorship, in my humble view, is alienating Pakistan's people and is playing into the hands of those hardliners who blame the West for the ills of the region." [4] Islamic fundamentalists, and even moderate muslims, perceive our hegemonic presence and military intervention in the Arab world as an obstacle to their self-determination and a threat to their way of life. Bin Laden has said so explicitly on numerous occasions.

Romney then made a statement of unintended and monstrous irony in regard to curbing radical Islam:

But we're going to have to move our strategy from simply being a respond to military threat with military action to an effort that says we're going to use our military and non-military resources -- non-military resources, combined with other nations who are our friends, to help move the world of Islam towards modernity and moderation.

From Woodrow Wilson to George Bush to Mitt Romney. Trying to "move Islam towards modernity and moderation" is unquestionably a recipe for more radicalization and more terrorism. Devout muslims do not care what Mitt Romney wants for Islam. They want to live their lives and practice their religion as they see fit and to be unmolested by the ministrations of those who wish to "move Islam" one way or another. Romney's is the kind of rhetoric that leads muslims to see the West, and America in particular, as an imperial, existential threat to their way of life. Continuing down this road is a surefire way to breed extremism. It happened in Iran already. Does he not understand the progression of events that led to the Iranian Revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini? It happened in Afghanistan, and it is currently in progress in Iraq, Pakistan, and places like Chechnya.

In Bin Laden's own words:

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US?

BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian Peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end.
...
The US today as a result of the arrogant atmosphere has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say you are terrorists.

Giuliani then had to jump in with his two cents:

MR. GIULIANI: Just make one point. Ron's analysis is really seriously flawed. The idea that the attack took place because of American foreign policy is precisely the reason I handed back a $10 million check to a Saudi prince, who gave me that money at Ground Zero for the Twin Towers fund and then put out a press release saying America should change its foreign policy. It seems to me if you don't face this squarely, to have an Islamic terrorist threat against us, it's an existential threat, it has nothing to do with our foreign policy; it has to do with their ideas, their theories, the things that they have done and the way they've perverted their religion into a hatred of us. And what's at stake are the things that are best about us -- our freedom of religion, our freedom for women, our right to vote, our free economic system.

Our foreign policy is irrelevant, totally irrelevant.

Our foreign policy is irrelevant?! These are the words of a complete lunatic. This is the view of Norman Podhoretz. 'They hate us for our freedoms' is the old canard, which was debunked when Giuliani first floated it back in May. He continues to beat this drum because the horror of 9/11 is all he's able to run on.

[1] Scheuer, Michael. Imperial Hubris. Brassey's, 2004. pg 7.
[2] ibid, pg 8.
[3] Bhutto interview
[4] Bhutto speech to CFR

Will Bushism March On?

McCain is the equivalent of Bush the First. Huckabee and Romney are Bush the Second.

Last Iowa Ruminations

The more I think about it the more heartened I am by Ron Paul's 10% in the land of corn and mammoth super churches. Iowans tend to care most about two things: religiosity and handshaking. The candidates that fare best in Iowa are those who publicly converse with God and exercise "retail politics". Ron Paul had the fewest visits to Iowa (27) of any candidate except Duncan Hunter (data here). I wish it weren't the case, as more palm pressing might have yielded better caucus results, but then again, maybe not. I trust the campaign knows where his scarce time is best allocated. Perhaps they sensed diminishing returns in the breadbasket. New Hampshire, on the other hand, is a no-brainer. A straight primary vote in a state with a penchant for liberty and contrarians.

If this is indeed a change election, as the pundits keep crowing, those looking for real change have a giant clue staring them in the face. There is only one candidate the establishment fears. If Fox News is deliberately trying to derail him, you know he is truly different.

Thoughts on Iowa

My prediction that Ron Paul would come in third was not born out, but he didn't miss by much. He garnered a respectable 10%, which, for that kind of candidate to accomplish in a state like Iowa isn't bad and is a good deal better than the mainstream media have ever given him credit for. It was a strong finish within an unfavorable framework and I have to believe that he will break upward by a substantial margin in New Hampshire.

And of course, beating Giuliani so soundly does make one smile.

Thompson and McCain supporters surprised me tonight, I'll admit it. I do not, however, believe for a moment that Fred can go the distance. For one thing, he's out of money and not likely to get much more. Whether he hangs on by his fingernails or throws in the towel tomorrow is of no real import. McCain, also broke, will have his ability to go on determined soon in New Hampshire.

All in all, the Iowa caucus doesn't seem particularly meaningful. The Hucka-Romney duo strikes me as just so much Robertson and Dole.

It's also clear (fourth table) that Iowa GOPers overwhelmingly still bounce to the beat of the Bush drum.

New Hampshire is the real test.

Jonah Goldberg States the Obvious

"It's ultimately kind of sad that the controversial person in the race is Ron Paul rather than Huckabee."

(Interview)

Ron Paul Wins Independents

Andrew Sullivan points out that these are the people you need on your side to win a national election. The Christian evangelical base can make you shine in Iowa as it did for Pat Robertson in 1988, but it cannot deliver a general election. A much, MUCH broader coalition is needed for that, and (forgive the pun) Huckabee hasn't got a prayer.

Reason and Ron Paul

Reason magazine's Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie acquits Dr. Paul very well in this short interview.




Nobody has been able to explain to me just how, precisely, Iran—or Pakistan—is a threat to the continental United States. Vague accusations are all I ever hear.

We've had over fifty years now of incessant global interventionism and it has blown up in our faces time and time again. If you believe it makes us safer, read Another Century of War? by Gabriel Kolko for the whole sordid history of our Middle East meddling. The rise of al Qaeda and other militant Islamists was an inevitable outcome, and not just because we supported them in the Afghan-Soviet war. How Bill O'Reilly can convince himself that more of the same will bring a different result is senselessness personified.