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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
