Posted on 11/26/2007 1:54:54 PM PST by rob777
He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries. But for Ron Paul’s quixotic bid for the White House, it’s “Mission Accomplished.”
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a “libertarian Democrat,” though he’s never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.
Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredo’s embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownback’s campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.
As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.
The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.
If they’re serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.
Source, please
the more Paul is known, the more he is disliked by his own base.
His base pretty much consists of everybody. I don't think Dr. Paul gives a crap about GOP insiders and hacks angry that he's spoiling their fun.
Do you seriously think that the press NEEDS any grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation, and so on?
You've got to be kidding me.
Man, I’m so glad I took FReeper’s George W. Bush’s advice and installed ad-blocker on my browers. It’s nice looking at red Xs instead of photo-shopped garbage.
I agree. Ron's vehement anti-war message simply strengthens Democrats, who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party. The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq. His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe', which benefits no one, least if all, political conservatism.
The concept that Paul has 'won' by losing is fantasy. He hasn't brought libertarian values to the GOP, but simply made himself appear a political lightweight and his libertarianism to be more about isolationism (under the anti-war banner) than a responsible approach to the threat from Islamic fanatics.
Ron Paul has his attributes but he is far from being a libertarian missionary, imparting libertarian 'values' to the heathen GOP minions, as the lead article tries to make us believe. He is a marginal candidate, soon to be blown away in the primary voting and quickly forgotten as the real presidential campaign begins.
And they call the Paulbots “spammers.”
Judging by the latest FR poll results, it’s the contest between Hunter and Thompson that’s splitting the Republican party.
And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the party’s adoption of the “Clinton Doctrine” of “humanitarian warfare?”
If there is any ad blockers, let me know. That means you have an infected machine. My pics come out of private web space. You have a direct link to the pics.
He’s attracted a lot of nuts. Temporarily.
The press is enjoying the Ron Paul dynamic right now. Just wait until he isn’t positioned to take down conservative Republicans and you’ll see what I’m predicting.
While the press does diss conservatives, it’s never advisable to see them given another club with which to further that cause.
he has already “won” by garnering lots of support and not being easily dismissed.
***************
Your statement doesn’t convince me. The same thing could be said about Algore-global warming, gay marriage, open borders, gun control, Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton-racism, etc.
That is, unless one considers winning differently than I do. No protest campaign is foolish enuf to eliminate all positions that others can support.
Ooo wah, ooo wah cool, cool kitty Tell us about the boy from New York City Ooo wah, ooo wah c'mon kitty Tell us about the boy from New York City
I agree Jim.
I'd never thought I'd see the day when supporting federalism and the Constitution in its original intent became "moonbatty."
True constitutionalist as well as true conservatives think his stances are bunk.
How many more statements are you going to pull from your anus?
Republicans fund him
No Republicans, corporations, globalists, or leftist organizations are funding Dr. Paul.
in the hopes he runs as a 3rd party candidate
He has stated millions of times he's not running as a 3rd party candidate. But you knew that already. You want Paul to run as a 3rd party candidate so the GOP will have a scapegoat when they lose.
and in doing so pulls votes from the Democrats- not because his message “resonates.”
Mind telling me why leftists would support someone who's the polar opposite of their beliefs?
He’s given libertarianism a black-eye.
You mean he's given the pro-dopers, pro-open borders, anti-war kook big L libertarians black-eyes, not the small-l libertarians who make up the bulk of his support.
Wishful thinking? Not on my part.
I believe you are correct. It is the Democrat liberaltarians coming to support him in greater numbers than even the Neo-Nazis.
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.