Will America's Conservatives Ever Feel Comfortable Voting for What they Are Supposed to Believe In?
Brian Doherty | August 2, 2007, 9:10pm
Occasional reason contributor Todd Seavey explains to the mainstream conservative audience over at National Review why they should be pulling for Ron Paul.
Seavey starts off with what I think is a very doubtful premise--that Ron Paul could be a serious challenge to Hillary in a one-on-one. And he goes on to underestimate the extent to which normal American conservatives of the current day love Bush-era foreign escapades and war. Oh, he mentions it toward the end, but it's a bigger barrier to mainstream conservative embrace of Paul than he gives it credit for. See the famous Giuliani jab in South Carolina.
But Seavey certainly explains to conservatives why Ron rises above the rest of the GOP potential nominee herd in all other respects. An excerpt:
Do conservatives not really want all the things Paul has to offer? Then why do we fight at all? If it’s merely for power and mainstream acceptance, one might as well support Hillary Clinton or wait until after November 2008 and support whoever comes out on top. But if we want a radically smaller government — precisely that thing that a Republican Congress neglected to do for the last twelve years, which has created the current mood of conservative frustration — we must support Ron Paul. Remember how small government was at the nation’s founding and consider how perhaps even conservatives have since then become de facto socialists, accepting the leviathan state as inevitable. But it’s not inevitable if they vote against it when history hands them that chance.
My most recent writing on Paul--on why some libertarians are leery of him--here.
madpad | August 2, 2007, 11:44pm | #
I admit, I like and agree with about 70% of Ron Paul's platform. Aside from his disgraceful stand on the Secure Fence Act, I think he's pretty spot on.
However, despite his endorsment by the Congressional Quarterly as one of the 50 most effective members of congress, he has some distinct weaknesses.
First, to become president, you've got to be able to consolidate some power and I don't see this talent in Paul. Were he to become president, I believe he would only wind up being the Republican answer to Jimmy Carter...so outside, his own party screws him.
Second, his stance on health care is - while admittedly conservo-libertarian - simply going to kill him.
There are two issues to watch in the coming election - Iraq and Healthcare. Iraq, being a fluid situation, is still a bit of a wild card. But healthcare is where politicians will make or break themselves.
And in an environment where Insurance companies are rapidly screwing themselves with their wan and banal reactions to Michael Moore and the increasing cacaphony of "dude, where the bloody fuck is my healthcare?", Ron Paul is offering absolutely nothing that voters want to hear.
Third, his economic policies, while very free market and worthy of any true conservative's admiration, is a distinct 180 from where conservatives have manipulated their adoring ignorant, Fox-news watching public to these days.
VM | August 3, 2007, 9:44am | #
Hokae -
Dan -
Small government" is code for "cut my taxes and eliminate other people's social programs".
Certainly there is an element of that in many people's views. They feel that they, or theirs, shit marble, while the rest of us don't. Also, you hear stuff about "freedom" from certain quarters that does entail "for me, but not for thee".
You are certainly correct about that.
If you look at the groups hier, it is undoubtedly possible to break us out into those groups.
(although I'm not sure if you can find consistent views - for example, Paul's fetus and gay marriage stances (and his "gold standard" loonieness [sic]) mean that I will never support him - but for others, those views are perfectly consistent or reconcilable with them)
And this is a discussion board. It lends itself to sound bite (DEMAND KURV) argumentation instead of deep substance.
See Douglas Gray's comment up above. "leading the country to economic ruin"????? that's exactly the hyperbole that works well on these boards.
You have perfected such a style, too: you hit and run, and you generate lots of comment - you and your nom de keyboards really get people up and commenting.
When looking at issues that do not have black/white solutions, the quick format makes it tough to discuss.
What do you see as the five most important issues that have to be confronted/changed, and what are some thoughts of implementation do you have?
Others - check out the Center for Advanced Sarcasm site - there is some really funny stuff there.
But having it both ways - trolling (highly effective and oftentimes funny) but then wanting serious discussion - is rather difficult...
Lamar | August 3, 2007, 10:04am | #
Dan T.:
"'Small government' is code for 'cut my taxes and eliminate other people's social programs'."
That's just the far left frame. People actually believe that private business can do things better than big gov't. Of course, "big" or "small" gov't can mean many things.
In the case of the Postal Service or gov't businesses, clearly private biz does it better. Maybe you've got a hardon for the USPS, but those people are generally miserable and they provide an inferior service. UPS people, on the other hand, are actually doing quite well.
In the case of regulating business, your "end social programs for others" frame doesn't apply. I've argued for and against regulations. It really depends on the situation.
Social and nanny state laws, i.e., bans on gambling, are big gov't and have nothing to do with social programs (unless you want to make the case that gambling or hookers lead to welfare, in which case, there was a Reason article a few months back on the totalitarian implications of national healthcare).
There is also military spending for questionable foreign policy goals creating an ever bigger gov't bureacracy and complicated funding scheme which is also big gov't.
Finally, we come to your beloved social programs. They are certainly big gov't, and a lot of libertarians want to get rid of them. I tend to think we're rich enough as a country to give somebody a helping hand when things go bad. Most people would do this with private insurance, but not all are able to. There is a real problem, in my view, with income disparity and some of these social programs address that. Of course, social programs fall prey to the biggest problem with big gov't: sheer incompetence.
All in all, your assessment of "small gov't" meaning just a way for GOPers to chomp on more expensive cigars isn't quite accurate in my view.
Craig | August 3, 2007, 2:27pm | #
Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton? Let's see....
One starts out with 47% of the American people committed to voting against her, no matter what. The other is still unknown to 75% (i.e., he has major upside).
One voted for the unpopular Iraq war, and continues to threaten another mess in Iran. The other has opposed the war from the beginning, and promises peace.
One has a history of shady dealings, abuse of government power, carpetbagging, and triangulating to get big corporate and PAC donations. The other has arguably the most consistent and principled 30-year public record in the history of the US Congress.
One has produced numerous speeches and writings indicating that she believes that our money and our children belong to society, and should be sacrificed to the common good, as defined by experts in Washington. The other has produced numerous speeches and writings extolling the virtues of human freedom.
You're right -- it wouldn't be close. Senator Clinton would be lucky to win New York and the District of Columbia.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, as could happen with a small core of dedicated supporters (6 million votes might be enough to win the primaries), the media will have to cover him, and people are going to love what they see -- a political outsider with a track record of excellent judgment, who is incorruptible and actually defends the Constitution that 90% of Americans still consider relevant.
People have been waiting all their lives to vote for an honest candidate. They are going to ignore the few issues where he goes to far, and the bleating of the mainstream press that he is radical.
It's going to be fun....
