Posted on 11/21/2007 6:22:56 PM PST by canuck_conservative
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest. A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't. One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.
Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, Paul's dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional. This isn't to say he - or Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla). But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
(Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online)
The other main difference is that Ron Paul has no chance of winning. Huckabee does.
And that Ron Paul IS that scary
Common sense says to keep this dude away from the Oval Office. He may not be scarey himself, but his ideas of isolationalism today are.
He is incredibly naive to think that pulling back within our borders will stop terrorist attacks against America and our interests abroad.
Where is that and how does one get out of it?
“But there’s something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.”
**************
Thats what makes Hunter so great. He’s a social conservative and an economic conservative who throws away the worst of libertarianism; blind free-trade.
Paul isn’t a Constitutionalist. Constitutionalists are paleoconservatives, and paleoconservatives want to run the entire government on tariffs (not going to happen).
If the most you can say for him is that “he’s not that scary,” then that’s not much of an endorsement.
When you align yourself with truthers and believe we are responsible for 9/11 then one's other positions on issues becomes irrelevant.
He doesn't believe in the hyper-interventionist, nation building, world's cop, bankrupting our country with endless wars philosophy of Bush.
And guess what? A lot of people don't. Bush's foreign policy is not the traditional Republican position, it's not the constitutional position, the founders warned against it, and it has 'blowback'. And not only that, it is bankrupting our country, and causing us to be resented all over the world.
Paul believes in a strong national defense, the just war theory, and free trade - he is not an isolationist.
I think that 98-99 percent of Paul backers are anti-GWB. Would you agree? They may be wanting the most anti-GWB person, but Tancredo is also very anti-GWB.
But hey, maybe I'm in the minority...I would like to keep this republic, and that "piece of paper" called the constitution and bill of rights.
I got a dollar bill today with “Google RonPaul.com” stamped on it in red. As if I wasn’t already turned off by these loonies...
It would be more fair to say Paul supporters have no appreciable interest in the GWB administration. As to say they are not anti-GWB as much as they are pre-GWB. When their basic positions state the country has been off track for longer than GWB has been alive, GWB doesn’t himself represent more than the facade of the problematic cadre in power that the country faces.
Which is the same thing freepers would say about the Clinton administration.
Paul believes in a strong national defense, the just war theory, and free trade - he is not an isolationist.
All of that is Crap, and directly contradicted by his own public statements.
You Ron Paul supporters are nothing if not consistent. You consistently lie about Ron Paul's positions -- to the point where you don't even pay attention to the man's own words.
Why don't all you Libertarians get your stories straight and tell the same lie, it seems to work for the Democrats. And stop calling yourselves Conservatives or Republicans, you are neither. You are Libertarians, show some self-respect, own it, and be proud of it.
And I'm not a libertarian. (but thanks for assuming) In fact, there are a couple things I disagree with Paul on, he is more libertarian than I am, but since we have gone so far in the other direction, I think only a moron would NOT want someone who is liberty-minded and consistently votes to protect our rights and liberties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.