The Honor of Ron Paul - Joseph Sobran

Patrick J. Buchanan Blog ^ | June 26, 2007 | Joseph Sobran

[JJTHEBULL]

This isnt 1988, in that time unless you happened to come across an article with his name or knew someone strongly affiliated with the Libertarian party you wouldnt even know he existed. In 1992 Perot got 20%, how? media exposure, buying time on TV. You dont have to buy time on TV anymore. The internet is free and people can watch free videos all day and find the media they want to find without being spoon fed what CNN or Foxnews wants them to think.

[ejonesie22]

The IQ comment came from your statement on “single digit IQs”. I found it a tad patronizing to present such a broad generalization. Seemed a bit petty to me, in the same vein of the Ron Paul attacks you rightly show distaste for. Some very intelligent people support a wide variety of conservative positions along the spectrum of that ideology. So forgive me the bravado.

Which leads me to another point. I will never imply that Ron Paul’s stance is not conservative, indeed the only real issue I have with him is that he strikes me as being a tad to isolationist for my tastes and I don’t follow his stance on the “WOT”. There are a few other nits I may have but they escape me right now.

up.

And Indeed for many Americans the world did change after 9/11, and in the way and for the reasons you state. The perception of what was important shifted, and perception is reality for many. The learned there is a ME and they don’t really like us. I concur with you list of luminaries ( I am especially fond of Blackjack’s approach, the real one, not the pig’s blood crap.) But you know as well as I do that the average American is a visual person, and even at that, 6 years later they forget. I shudder to think what it will take to “lock in” what you an I know from history.

I stand by my statement about the “war on” trilogy, but understand my point before you label me a statist. The idea of not being robbed by a “crack head” (which has happened to me) is a good one. We must have some form of control because people are, well people. I think that any government creation should allow for and augment my pursuit of happiness. If I am doing what I am supposed to, leave me the hell alone. However I need help to protect myself from those who wish to rob me of said pursuit, mainly due to being out numbered. I have a gun and am not bad with it, but if 1000 crack heads were breaking into my house, well I ain’t that good. We have a government that was formed to support the Constitution and defend our rights. Here is were the problems lies. if the “War on drug” was a slogan for really getting in and busting up the drug cartels, clearing the streets, serious prison and rehab etc. then it would have been dandy and very possibly the crack head would not have stolen my Suburban a few years ago and I could pursue a large amount of happiness due to the cargo space. So in the end I agree with you on the out come, but as an idea, it made sense. Of course once anything seems to hit today’s politicians sense seems to be in short supply.

Same thing I see with the WOT. Execution, well it sucks. I agree with you that building democracies over there is a waste, Islam has no frame of reference for that ideology. I can’t figure what Bush is up to. I did like the noble idea of it all, and it seemed that there was a move a foot 2-3 years ago for real democratic reform sweeping across the region from Lebanon to the gulf. But they still are not ready to “change the spots” in the ME.

The problem I have is that for ill or naught we have become involved in these regions, mainly due to the fact that they have at least one major resource we need until someone in DC gets us drilling here again, and THEY chose to attack us. Hell we have been making them money in the ME. If it was not for our oil need, it would still be a desert with several tents propped. Of course to guys living in cave, not a big deal.

So we differ on approach and perhaps to our interpretation of what conservatism is. All is good.

Oh, except I like Toby Keith. Just sayin’.

[ejonesie22]

Where did that “up” come from. I need to quick freeping from my Treo...

[marsh_of_mists]

Thank you Cindy Sheehan.

Huh? I was talking about why so many freepers are against Paul.

[SJackson]

Thank you Cindy Sheehan. Huh? I was talking about why so many freepers are against Paul.

Right, it's because FR is full of relatively secular, war hawks who are against his foreign policy and Zionists. Out now is the Sheehan plank, it's not popular with secular, war hawks and Zionists, it's Paul's position, thus not popular here.

If you prefer I'll use Dennis Kuchinich next time.

[freeandfreezing]

We still see, as your quote above seems to explicitly suggest, that libertarians believe in some non-existent "right" to emigrate across borders, in contravention of the laws of the country to which they are emigrating.

No, you misunderstand the sentence, or you are trying to read some nefarious intent into the position of the Libertarians. Nobody is suggesting that anyone should be able to emigrate across borders in contravention of the law. What the Libertarians are suggesting is that obtaining a visa to enter the country should be fairly easy -- as it is today -- but anyone doing so would simultaneously agree to forgo any government benefits for them and their children, including such things as attending public schools, social security, etc. The "right to immigrate" mentioned in the quote isn't a fundamental right, but one conferred by law, like the right to drive a truck which is conferred by obtaining a CDL.

[freeandfreezing]

Incorrect, the Libertarian Platform on immigration only denies benefits to illegal immigrants.

Sorry, but you're confusing a "Transitional Action" with the overall position. The transitional actions are proposed actions in the light of the current circumstances. What's wrong with "End[ing] federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally"? That sounds like a pretty good start on solving the problem to me.

Libertarians would not ‘regulate’ the borders.

Not really, here's what their platform says on that topic:

"A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked."

"The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property."

"Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements."

"Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives."

If our government actually took those steps, like "preventing trespass" we'd be a lot better off than we are now.

I certainly don't agree with all of the party's position on immigration, but I also think it should be represented accurately. Many people have a stereotypical view of libertarian ideas. A lot of the points they make are valid options, and as I noted before many of them are more conservative in nature than the ideas being promoted by politicians who call themselves conservatives.

[radioman]

Unless you know history, where "conservative" was used as a political term by Edmund Burke's disciples in the 1790s, even forming a "conservative" political movement in 1830.

There were no "conservatives" in America until 1964. No politician in America claimed to be a "conservative" until 1964. People who described themselves as conservative or liberal before 1964 were both republicans and democrats, the word "conservative" did not designate political affiliation. There was no conservative platform before 1964....better?

Interestingly, "libertarian" wasn't first used until decades later where it was a synonym for French anarchy (they couldn't call it anarchism since their books would have been burned).

That's true. What we call libertarian today was called liberal back then.
.

[Larry Lucido]

Despite my profound differences with Paul on some issues, I agree that he is honorable. But this fans need to cut the superlatives. He’s not the ONLY constitutionalist and he’s not the MOST honorable man in government. There are lots of others JUST as honorable and JUST as committed to the Constitution who have different views on defense matters.

[radioman]

I suggest you read Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind before you try and claim there were no conservatives before 1964

The Conservative Mind of 1953 is a good read but in 1953 there were as many Democrats as Republicans who were of a conservative mind. There was no political interest in conservatism until Buckley published the National Review in 1958. It grew into the Conservative Movement in 1964. Name me one Republican who ran on a Conservative platform before 1964.
.

[radioman]

I could be wrong, but I don’t see any fundamentalist attacks on Ron Paul, at least in no relevant degree.

You're right, they are irrelevant. It just gets irritating that the usual suspects show up on every Ron Paul thread to slander him no matter how many times they are corrected with fact.
.

[taxtruth]

You forgot to point out that the founders of America were nuts to and even Bush told us that the Constitution was a GD piece of old paper.It sounds like via your post you are really on to something.

[taxtruth]

The problem is they are all dead except for Ron Paul.Go figure!

[x]

Name me one Republican who ran on a Conservative platform before 1964.

There wasn't any sort of "conservative movement" until the 1950s, but surely Landon was more conservative than Roosevelt, Dewey than Truman, Eisenhower than Stevenson, and Nixon than Kennedy -- maybe not in all things but by and large and in most areas. And the platforms they ran on were more conservative than the Democratic alternative.

But what about since 1964? How many Republican candidates have been the one candidate of the single, united conservative movement? Goldwater to be sure: he lost by a landslide. And Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents. Nobody else. Unless you want to count Bush in 2000, but that's such a stretch and few people now would agree that Bush fit.

So you're really not going to find the candidate of the conservative movement. You'll have to pick and choose, and maybe it's just as well, since life is itself a mixed bag.

The thing about 1964 is that "the movement" really believed that it could drastically change how things are in the country, that it could restore a way of government that had disappeared a generation or two before. That's what the movement was moving towards. Nowadays few people think that hope is realistic. Even in 1980, few people had Goldwater's enthusiastic optimism, and that was a more hopeful time for conservatives.

[DugwayDuke]

“Sorry, but you’re confusing a “Transitional Action” with the overall position.”

Not really, both the Solution and the Transitional Action both allow unlimited immigration to those who can pass a criminal background check, a security check, and a health screening so once again you’re being misleading.

“What’s wrong with “End[ing] federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally”?”

Not a thing, but once again you’re being misleading since in an early post you said the Libertarians would deny benefits to all immigrants.

You’re also being misleading when you say that the Libertarians would ‘regulate’ the borders. Calling the few restrictions called out in this platform ‘regulating’ is on a par with those in the Senate saying their proposals would ‘solve’ illegal immigration and not provide ‘amnesty’.

“I certainly don’t agree with all of the party’s position on immigration, but I also think it should be represented accurately. Many people have a stereotypical view of libertarian ideas. A lot of the points they make are valid options, and as I noted before many of them are more conservative in nature than the ideas being promoted by politicians who call themselves conservatives.”

I have accurately summarized the Libertarian platform on immigration. You see, I also believe the Libertarian proposed solutions should be accurately presented since I believe that once these solutions are clearly and accurately presented, most people will see just how far from the mainstream these positions really are. For example, to call these ‘solutions’ conservative is at best misleading.

[freeandfreezing]

“What’s wrong with “End[ing] federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally”?” Not a thing, but once again you’re being misleading since in an early post you said the Libertarians would deny benefits to all immigrants.

You've apparently read the Libertarian party web site too, so you should at least not mischaracterize my post -- what's the point of saying "you're being misleading" because I quoted their web site saying:

"Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, Social Security, health care, business subsidies, and the public schools."

Isn't it pretty clear that their position applies to all immigrants?

[radioman]

The thing about 1964 is that "the movement" really believed that it could drastically change how things are in the country, that it could restore a way of government that had disappeared a generation or two before. That's what the movement was moving towards.

Yes, we really did believe we were going to restore the American dream...That's why we signed the pledge. In '64 the movement crossed party lines. There were as many Democrats as Republicans in the room when I signed the pledge.

Nowadays few people think that hope is realistic. Even in 1980, few people had Goldwater's enthusiastic optimism, and that was a more hopeful time for conservatives.

Things change. The country wasn't ready for true conservatism in '64. I think it will be very soon.
.

[DugwayDuke]

“Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, Social Security, health care, business subsidies, and the public schools.”

“Isn’t it pretty clear that their position applies to all immigrants?”

I simply cannot find the words you quoted in the Libertarian Pary Platform. I can find the words I quoted in their position on Immigration.

BTW, while searching for your quote, I did find this little gem: “The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.”

Let me point out the key part: “recognizing the right to unrestricted ... immigration.” Now, didn’t you claim that Libertarians were in favor of regulating immigration? How does one ‘regulate’ a ‘right’ in the Libertarian world?

[Stultis]

“An exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.”

Oops . . . . sorry, wrong pic.

Let me fix that...

...er, well, close enough.

[freeandfreezing]

I simply cannot find the words you quoted in the Libertarian Pary Platform

Try looking at the page titled "Issues and Positions"

How does one ‘regulate’ a ‘right’ in the Libertarian world?

The same way as in our nation today - with laws created by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch, with the courts adjudicating disputes related to the permissible scope of the laws under our constitution. Most of the policies advocated by libertarians have already been tried out in our nation in the past, and worked well at the time. Many could work well now.