Which casts into stark relief claims by modern-day “conservatives” like the hacks at Redstate.com that Ron Paul supporters are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.” Seven years ago, no one would have disputed that Ron Paul was a conservative Republican in the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan mold. But nowadays, the primary criteria for membership in the conservative coalition seem to be loyalty to the president’s agenda and a general suspicion of foreigners. ~Tim Lee
Tim is right. It still surprises me a little that the same people who continually prattle on about finding the “new Reagan” are so thoroughly hostile to the man who was among the first to endorse Ronald Reagan for President (in the 1976 cycle, before it was trendy). I have already commented on how strange and absurd it is that Ron Paul’s ideas are now seen as being wildly out of step with most conservatives. Ron Paul obviously hasn’t changed, so that says a lot about the transient and malleable character of conservatism for a lot of people that they literally cannot recognise a political position many of them used to treat with respect less than ten years ago. It is also remarkable how more than a few libertarians regularly belittle someone who takes a hard line on having a gold-backed currency, a view endorsed by no less than Murray Rothbard.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Ashish George
Is it really so obvious that Paul should be viewed as in the mold of Buckley, Reagan, and Goldwater?
It doesn’t seem like freedom has ever been high on Buckley’s list of priorities for good government. During the Cold War he said that an intrusive domestic bureaucracy might be necessary (and therefore acceptable) in the fight against the communists. He has supported every major American intervention abroad since National Review was founded, and despite his comments that the war in Iraq was, with the benefit of hindsight, a mistake, he favors staying. He supported Lieberman in 2006. His magazine opposed the civil rights movement because he thought letting blacks participate fully in civic and political life would cause upheaval. He supported Pinochet by drawing an analogy to the American Civil War: You have to break a few eggs, after all…
Reagan was more talk than action. And have antiwar conservatives forgotten Grenada? Or the aid to the brutal Contras? (You don’t have to like the Sandinistas–I don’t–to think Nicaraguan politics should have been left to the Nicaraguans.) And that’s before we even get started talking about Reagan’s disgusting bear-any-burden-pay-any-price approach to the war on drugs.
Goldwater is the most plausible candidate for comparison to Paul. But even he was pretty hawkish on Vietnam. Even the most anti-authoritarian strain of post-Taft Republican politics has had troubling simply saying no to war.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:33 am
bsebse
What may have been justifiable in the cold war often is no longer the case. This includes our nutty support of Israel, which has just become a human rights violation machine over the last 15 years.
The Soviet Union was a real threat. Islamofascism is not, unless we let them into our country voluntarily, which we are doing. The leading neocons don’t have a problem with that, however.
Also, Reagan got out of Lebanon, had interest in the gold standard and talked about killing the IRS.
I would say more similarities than differences.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Roach
People that think Reagan was a libertarian are embracing a figment of their imagination; he becomes the repository of their ahistorical hopes and dreams.
I’ll just paste what I wrote about Sully’s stupid rantings about Reagan and torture:
Well, let’s look at how he approached the wars in El Salvador and Central America. Liberals criticized him extensively for allowing American Special Forces to train and cooperate with “death squads.” This was considered a great moral failing of America and the seeds of “another Vietnam.” Bush is no Reagan, but Bush’s willingness to be aggressive in the war on terror is not one of the reasons. People forget that Reagan’s “optimism” was a function of his belief in America and American power. It stood in contrast to the dim pessemism of the Democratic Party, which was dejected after Vietnam and willing to accomodate Soviet expansion globally.
No one quite knows what Reagan would have thought about torturing a small number of guys like Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Ramzi bin Alsheib. But his record shows he wasn’t Pollyannaish about the bad guys, nor was he particularly wary of engaging in extra-legal activities behind closed doors–e.g., arms-for-hostages—to accomplish the broader mission. Among other events, he bombed Libya without Congressional authorization in response to terrorism and was also known for his rough treatment of hippie rioters as Governor of California. Reagan likely would not have shied from “waterboarding” or anything else he deemed necessary to win the war against al Qaeda.
Libertarians and moderate conservatives are enamored of an imaginary Ronald Reagan, a sainted figure misconstrued through the distortions of gauzy nostalgia.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
jsinger008
Ron Paul’s economic ideas are just plain silly. Here is everything you need to know about the gold standard:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQyYjc1ZjNjZTc5ZTcxODM1NDQ5ZDhhODZjZTU5YmQ=
Republican voters are right to ignore him as a fringe candidate.