Ron Paul Isn't That Scary

Townhall.com ^ | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | Jonah Goldberg

[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)

[Eastbound]

"He is incredibly naive . . ."

I don't think so. There's not much he's not aware of and what consequences are going to be for pulling back. I think he's just plain skeert of those muzzies and think he's going to save his head by trying to placate them.

America is on the list slated for destruction, Doctor Paul, regardless if you pull back and keep all the troops home. If you don't believe that, ask yourself why they are currently engaged in warfare and terrorist activities in at least 18 other nations?

Even so, I'd like to know what his prescription is for curing the islamic problem here when the SHTF again? Or doesn't he realize it's not a racial problem -- nor necessarily a religious one? How about a political/economic one, Dr. Paul? There going to try to shoot your pants off regardless of how placating you are.

Seek and destroy the forces of evil whereever they may be found. The world is smaller than you think, Dr. Paul. Don't lead your sheep to the slaughter.

[been_lurking]

If you're going to argue, then point out specifically what you think is untrue, and refute it.

I'm not going to argue. I'm going to reiterate my previous post. All that I quoted from your earlier post is crap. You made the statements, so why don't you support your statements?

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He only switched parties to win an election. And once again he is running in another election under a false flag. Is he so ungrounded in his own principles that he can't even be honest to himself or his supporters?

Why are you all running away from your Libertarian flag?

[Gondring]

Do you know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Ron Paul is clearly NOT an isolationist!

[kb2614]

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.

LOL!!!! Damn thats funny!! :-)

When you align yourself with truthers and believe we are responsible for 9/11 then one's other positions on issues becomes irrelevant

EXACTLY!!! "Truthers" should not be pandered too. If it could be legally done, they should be beaten with a lead pipe. The 9/11 "Truthers" are despicable.

[Theodore R.]

Which candidate do you think is the favorite of the GWB die-hards? I think it is Romney.

[Captain Kirk]

Hunter supported both No Child Left Behind and the prescription drugs boondogle. Next question?

[Eric Blair 2084]

Ping.

That is a good article. Sounds exactly word for work like something I would write. I couldn’t agree more.

[CJ Wolf]

‘Which candidate do you think is the favorite of the GWB die-hards?’

Thompson.

[Captain Kirk]

Paul does not think we’re responsible for 911. Perhaps you’re thinking of Pat Robertson who said we caused 911 by our sins. Rudy, of course, not only refuses to repudiate this “blame America” Pat but embraced him.

[Eric Blair 2084]

This is not really about Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee per se. This is about the spat and potential divorce of Frank Meyers 50 year old fusionist marriage of libertarians and social conservatives. Neither one of them is going anywhere. Paul will go back to Congress and Huck will retire to make excercise videos. They are just the bit players in a much larger and more serious debate:

To the FReepers in attendance and the millions watching around the world on Pay Per View…Ladies and Gentleman...

LLLLLLLets Get Ready to RRRumblllllllle!!!!

“LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!"® is a registered Trademark of Michael Buffer, all rights reserved.

1,500,000,000 rounds of posts, arguments, insults, cheesy graphics, name calling, and ad hominem personal attacks that pass as debate for the FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

"Introducing first, to my right, fighting out of the red corner, wearing their Sunday best with a gold crucifix...weighing in at 810 and 1/4 pounds...the social conservatives, the religious right, the champions of family values...from the Southern States...The Evangelicals!" (wild applause)

"And in the blue corner, wearing an off the rack suit, Goldwater ’64 lapel pin and a belt 2 sizes too small...weighing in at 141 pounds soaking wet...the fiscal conservatives, the last champions of limited government...from the Western States...The Libertarians!" (wild applause)

Chapter 1: Live From the Reagan Building

The winner of the bout gets to take on the Neo-Cons for the undisputed GOP Heavyweight Championship of the World!

[Eric Blair 2084]

Ping.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path".

--Ronald Reagan

Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview from July 1975

[incindiary]

"I'm not going to argue. I'm going to reiterate my previous post. All that I quoted from your earlier post is crap. You made the statements, so why don't you support your statements?"

If it's crap, it shouldn't be hard to refute, should it? I'll be here if you want to have a civilized debate. If you can't, or don't want to, oh well.

"Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He only switched parties to win an election. And once again he is running in another election under a false flag. Is he so ungrounded in his own principles that he can't even be honest to himself or his supporters? Why are you all running away from your Libertarian flag?"

I said I am not a Libertarian. I have never voted Libertarian, and I have never considered myself a libertarian. This is the first time I'm supporting a candidate with views that are more libertarian than mine. Your presumptuousness and attitude of telling me what I am, as if you know me, is a bit rude.

As far as Ron Paul, he has served in congress for many years as a Republican. Yes, he leans libertarian, but he is a constitutionalist first and foremost. And he is a Christian, a family man, pro-life, for limited government, against raising taxes, strong on 2nd amendment.... are those things no longer Republican?

Apparently not, since many here seem to not have a problem with big government, socialist-lite politicians and will probably end up voting for Giuliani, a pro-abort, gun-grabbing, pro-gay agenda, open borders RINO... while simultaneously calling Paul supporters "not true conservatives."

(I would laugh, but it's very sad, actually)

[Turbopilot]

How the flip does an article about Nanny Huck turn into an anti-Ron Paul thread? It’s not like we don’t have a big slate of Republican candidates, all of whom have some flaws. But whenever the name ‘’Paul’’ is mentioned, however tangentially, it sets off a Pavlovian response in some posters, at which point no further rational discussion will occur on that particular thread.

[Eric Blair 2084]

see my post 31, as if you can miss it even if you tried.

[DakotaRed]

Pedal that canard somewhere else. If paul believed in “a strong national defense” and “the just war theory,” he would see the necessity of fighting terrorists wherever they may be and any who may be supporting them.

Perhaps he missed the speech by recently elected President Sarkozy of France? If he thinks we are so hate now, perhaps he can explain resentment against America long before any of us where born.

Sorry, he is just a blame America first Liberaltarian masquerading as a Republican. Liberal infiltrated the Democrat party and look what they did to it. We won’t let you do it to the Republican party.

[DakotaRed]

He proves his incredible naivete by desiring to walk away from a fight against terrorists that we are winning.

Only a fool or a Liberal would do that.

[DakotaRed]

Do you know the difference between fighting terrorists over there and fighting them over here? That’s what Paul would bring to us is fighting suicide bombers and radical Jihadists in our Malls.

NO thanks!

[Eric Blair 2084]

Paul has one glaring weakness in the minds of GOP voters. Being anti war and anti what some call nation building. Asking Republican primary voters to overlook that would be the equivalent of saying “Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” He is reliably limited Gubmint, pro borders, pro life on everything else.

Conversely, Huckabee only has two conservative position RIGHT. Pro life and pro 2A. He is a lib on everything else.

It really is a fascinating dichotomy (fancy SAT word). This should be an interesting thread.

[Turbopilot]

LOL. If you have a ping list based on that post, I’d like to be on it.

[plain talk]

“Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” he (Ron Paul) said.