Ron Paul's Candidacy: The Stuff, Uh, That Dreams Are Made Of...[*]
Nick Gillespie | August 11, 2007, 1:00pm
A while back at NRO, John Derbyshire feels the love for the Ron Paul Revolution before deciding that the Texas Gold Bug isn't worth supporting:
You have felt the Ron Paul temptation, haven't you?...And why not? Look at those policy positions! Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO; end the War on Drugs; overturn Roe v. Wade; repeal federal restrictions on gun ownership; fence the borders; deport illegals; stop lecturing foreign governments about human rights; let the Middle East go hang. What's not to like?...
Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don't often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father's conservatism - the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul's policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So far so good (though it's surprising to see NR putting Rothbart [sic] back in their pantheon; WFB euolgized Mr. Libertarian thusly: "We extend condolences to his family, but not to the movement he inspired...Murray Rothbard had defective judgment.").
What's keeping the jailbait-loving, Bruce-Lee-fighthing, Calvin-Coolidge-appreciatin' Derb from stuffing envelopes for Paul?
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! - whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain't gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!
Whole thing here.
The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page loves Ron Paul here.
reason's Brian Doherty asks whether Ron Paul is good for the libertarians.
[*]: Headline allusion explained here; misquote explained here.
James Anderson Merritt | August 11, 2007, 6:10pm | #
Fluffy said, "Paul seems to put his Constitutionalism first." Which would make sense, if he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, wouldn't you think?
People say that Libertarians cannot compromise. It seems to me that SWEARING AN OATH to support the implications and prescriptions of a document that often defeats the aims of libertarianism is quite the compromise.
Don't get me wrong. I am a great admirer of the Constitution. I think it defines a system of government that may be as libertarian as practical politics can produce. But it isn't perfect on the libertarian scale, not by a long shot.
Think of Ron Paul, the physician. He is asked to treat a criminal -- a murderer, even. He may not approve of his patient's deeds, but he will give the best care and advice he can. And in Dr. Paul's case, that care and advice is undeniably influenced by a libertarian philosophy that is remarkably pure for a successful (as in, continuing to win elections) politician.
Now think of Ron Paul, the politician. Again, he is bound by oath and honor to respect his "patient," the Constitution and the Republic it defines and authorizes. He may not approve of everything that patient is and does, but he is going to give the best care and advice he can. Again, the care and advice is undeniably influenced by libertarian philosophy.
Above, someone said that Ron Paul is no libertarian. In a purist sense, that might well be true, since I've heard some good "purist" arguments in support of the position that no philosophically consistent libertarian can participate in practical politics, much less the government itself; also, that a philosophically inconsistent libertarian is no libertarian at all.
But nobody's perfect. That is , unless someone is a perfectly small-minded horse's ass for trying to enforce a foolish consistency. (And Fluffy, I'm not referring to you here, just in case you might have thought so, since yours was the only name I have used in this post. Peace.)
I am still a long way from deciding how to cast my vote for President in 2008. But I do believe Dr. Paul is a libertarian, and I do believe that he has made a sacrifice to swear an oath to the Constitution. But, having done so, I observe that he has comported himself as honorably as any libertarian might in a similarly no-win situation. For example, it seems as if Dr. Paul has remained more faithful to his libertarian principles than Alan Greenspan did, once the latter ascended to a top DC position. And let's not forget that Milton Friedman brought us income tax withholding "just for the war," and that he and his associates paved the way for the gawdawful insurance-based, hideously broken healthcare system we have today (the birth of which he described very well in "How to Cure Healthcare"). There are no libertarian saints. That being the case, I think there are a few good libertarian men and women. Can we find a few of them to send to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office? Should we not consider Ron Paul as being in that number?
Finally, someone likened the womb to property and said that a woman has a right to evict a fetus from that property. Maybe so, but if you're going to take that position, than it is only fair to observe that the deliberate taking of a human life is at least manslaughter, and often murder. You are certainly within your property rights to evict a deadbeat tenant into a deadly storm. But if he or she dies, moments after stepping into the elements, can you not be held responsible for the death? You are within your rights to use force to eject a trespasser. But if you use deadly force when the trespasser was not putting you in fear of your life, can't that end with your conviction in court on charges of the aforementioned manslaughter or murder?
Dr. Paul has delivered thousands of babies, and he naturally sees the world through the lens of his experience. His opposition to abortion seems to come from perfectly libertarian origins. Again he compromises because of his oath to defend the Constitution: he understands the Constitution as putting the question of abortion squarely in State hands, so he won't stand in the way of States that want to legalize the practice, even though he is personally against it. Here is a man who takes his oath of office seriously, especially when it comes to life and death. Surely that merits due consideration from the voters ... doesn't it?
iih | August 11, 2007, 6:37pm | #
But if he or she dies, moments after stepping into the elements, can you not be held responsible for the death? You are within your rights to use force to eject a trespasser. But if you use deadly force when the trespasser was not putting you in fear of your life, can't that end with your conviction in court on charges of the aforementioned manslaughter or murder?
I believe (i.e., from a religious point of view and, not, it is not Christianity) that James Merritt got it right. But I would add to it the following.
Lets first acknowledge that a fetus in the womb is not really a trespasser in almost all cases as I believe James would agree. If a fetus is in the womb as a result of willful/consensual sexual act, then the owner of the womb put the fetus in there willfully, even if not intended. So the fetus is not trespassing in this case. It was "invited" in. The owner of the womb (as well as the sperm owner) are obliged to safeguard the new human entity they created.
In the extreme case when the fetus is a result of rape -- the rapist is the one responsible for the fetus' existence in the womb, and not the fetus itself not the owner of the fetus. The true trespasser is the rapist. My belief is that this fetus has a right incumbent on society (including the womb proprietor) to protect that fetus-- though it is not entirely clear.
The other gray-area case, I think is when a fetus is the result of a minor's consensual sexual act. A minor, by definition, should not be entirely held responsible in society -- though some responsibility should be held. And the fetus still, certainly, has a right to be protected.
But other than this case, the fetus' life can not be taken away.
The other exception that is clear, at least to me and through own religious doctrine, is when the birth of the fetus endangers the life of the mother. There are very logical and reasonable arguments for why the preference is given to the mother and not the child, but unfortunately I have to go now, but will check later on in the evening.
