"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?