Posted on 08/11/2007 4:49:12 AM PDT by GFritsch
If there is one man who elicits a strong response across the gamut of GOP constituencies, it is Texas Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Because he is a genuine libertarian, Paul has been a gadfly to liberals and conservatives alike since his first election in Texas to the U.S. House in 1976, and his long-time presence in the GOP is an anomaly that deserves attention.
Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman, small-town doctor, retired Air Force officer and great-grandfather is, indisputably, a gentleman. In a legislative body where integrity seems an increasingly rare quality, Paul's is unquestioned. Not content merely to condemn unconstitutional taxes and expenditures, every year Dr. Paul returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury. In his medical practice, Paul refused to accept Medicare payments on principle. Recently dubbed "the most radical congressman in America" by a New York Times Magazine feature article, Ron Paul's "radicalism," clearly, is made of different stuff.
Contrary to Congress' dreams of ever-increasing power, Dr. Paul's congressional career is laced with legislation that seeks to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. During his first stint in the House (1976-1984), Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve policies of the era. From that time forward he has sponsored bills and voted to reduce and eliminate federal taxes, as well as federal spending and regulation.
Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for gun-ownership restrictions, and has voted against regulating the Internet. He is consistently pro family and pro life. In his own words, Paul "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Notably, Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1976.
Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?
The key is the difference between the meanings of "libertarian" and "conservative." As for Ron Paul's status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by "conservative" I always mean "constitutional conservative"), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.
Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty-the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.
Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of "the one and the many." Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society's individuals.
Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism-the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.
In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).
Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.
Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues-the one area where the Constitution couldn't be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the http://PatriotPost.US/papers/#anchor23">Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in "empire building" and cavalierly dismisses as a war "sold to us with false information." While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul's criticism repeatedly lends them credence.
This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul's view of Iraq as a "war of choice" conjured up by war profiteers and "a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy," is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.
I am no Libertarian; however, I am a friend of Dr. Paul, who fulfills his House seat with dignity and honor.
Foaming at the mouth ignorance of all reality is not “Dignity and Honor”
Dr Paul is a dangerous lunatic with utterly no grasp of reality. He clings to his demented 1930s Isolationist world view in the face of mass murdering thugs killing 3000 American civilians on 09-11-01.
He not only is totally unfit for the Presidency, he is completely unfit for his Congressional seat.
People fall in love with Dr Paul because he pushes this or that emotional hot button. Unfortunately you don’t elect a President to handle just this or that issue but the whole package.
And Dr Paul’s package, taken as a whole, is completely and dangerously insane.
He should pick Cindy Sheehan as a running mate.
Hopefully he would take Specter, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, and a few others with him.
Bullseye.
That this emotion-driven retreat junkie has vocal supporters doesn't mean squat. He's no different from Michael Moore where Iraq and 9/11 are concerned, and a politician can sink no lower in my estimation.
Today’s daily dose of Wyler’s....
Having lived in New Mexico when Gary Johnson, a Libertarian, was governor and was calling himself a Republican, I can truthfully say that the state was served well.
The majority of the legislation advanced by the vastly Democrat legislature was vetoed.
While I call myself a Republican, I can see where some Libertarian thought is good, but because they would impose no laws against excess it is wrong for anything but a minority to be tolerated in the national legislative body.
All that being said, I do recall a judgeship nominee sitting before the Cheshire grinning cat from Vermont being mercilessly grilled by him. Something he had written years ago wherein he had rancorously critized the out-of-control government was thrown in his face by Leahy.
Leahy asked him if his opinion of the evils of big government had moderated since his writing to which the candidate truthfully answered no. He still held to the belief that big central government is bad for America.
Leahy castigated the candidate bitterly and then said "I love my government." I thought that indeed this weasel should love his big government and all it has provided him most of his adult life.
Paul is against big government the continuance of which means that we will be taxed to death to provide it and for that viewpoint I applaud him. As far as the rest of Libertarian credo is concerned, I can never subscribe to it.
Our form of democracy, which today apparently means that federal government is good, more federal government is better, I find oppressive. Our elected officials keep throwing more nonsense on the heap, like FEMA for example.
I pick and choose my Republican candidates to whom I donate money for their respective campaigns. I never donate to the RNC and when they call for money to spread out to the RINOs I tell them that my political affiliation has changed. I then telll them that I have become a Monarchist.
Really? I must have missed that...
Except for isolationism, he’s more conservative about nearly every issue than Bush is and 95% of other Republicans. I have no idea why some of you utterly disdain him when in terms of national politics he’s harmless. While he wouldn’t make a good commander in chief, I wish we had far more of him in Congress.
Sorry, but your thoughts are asinine and not grounded in reality. Not only is Paul less head in the sand than those Republicans about Iraq, his is at least based on a belief more or less in the Monroe Doctrine. The others do it for political expediency. That is far more dangerous to America.
Accept for the fact they his foreign policy could get me and family killed he’s a great guy.
Really!! How dare a candidate actually give specifics on cutting government instead of just nice platitudes they have no intent to keep once in office like the 'conservatives' standing on the stage with him. I wonder how many in the party would even support Dr. Paul if his stance on the police action were different.
A lunatic who happens to agree with some of my political positions is still a lunatic.
My definition of a lunatic politician? One who wants us to retreat from Iraq, handing Al Qaeda the biggest victory they could dream of.
So could Bush’ in my opinion RE: handling Iran, Syria, N Korea, & Saudia Arabia. Some of you guys simply ignore way too many problems within the leadership of the current party and go far too out of your way to criticize one congressman who has absolutely no congressional power and would never get more than 5% in a national election.
We have a different definition of lunacy then. I disagree with Paul on Iraq, but also can understand his point of view.
Thanks for post.
Ping George.
Libertarian? I didn’t know he smoked pot... explains a lot.
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.