Ron Paul - What Happened to Conservatives?

House Web Site ^ | 7-14-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jjm2111]

Ron Paul bump.

[Support Free Republic]

Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!

[Wolfie]

Yeah, but you know, we "won".

[BlackElk]

I heard this speech live on C-Span. Ron Paul, once a terrific conservative, has pursued his ever more eccentric 1930s-style "conservatism" all the way around the bend. He is no longer anything but a political curiosity piece. His mind has gone to the Raimondoite, Rockford Institute graveyard. RIP. There was just no ivory.

[Huck]

offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity

Wellll???

[colorado tanker]

A couple of problems here. The Gipper was not a libertarian. And the Gipper's leadership is the main reason so many Reagan Democrats left the Rat party - and became neo-cons.

(My family has been Republican since before the Civil War, but I'll take help wherever I can get it.)

[Wolfie]

Voting (on both sides) pretty much just boils down to morality now. The rest of their platforms shake out pretty much the same, so if you're afraid of what people are doing in their bedrooms, you vote Repbublican, if not you vote Democrat. It makes for a nice dog and pony show every 4 years, but we're still headed for an ever-expanding State.

[joesnuffy]

(My family has been Republican since before the Civil War, but I'll take help wherever I can get it.)

But how much would one be willing to trade for such help?

[af_vet_rr]

Voting (on both sides) pretty much just boils down to morality now. The rest of their platforms shake out pretty much the same, so if you're afraid of what people are doing in their bedrooms, you vote Repbublican, if not you vote Democrat. It makes for a nice dog and pony show every 4 years, but we're still headed for an ever-expanding State.

A single major party? ;-) Hopefully it won't come to that.

[Kudsman]

They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power;

I am seeing this too. And I'm not liking it either.

[colorado tanker]

But how much would one be willing to trade for such help?

Well, for example, unlike Mr. Paul I will not trade parties like old cars and I will not sell out the party of Lincoln for the moral relativism of libertarianism.

[laotzu]

"those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter."

Amen!

I will not vote for those who decieve me, and will not represent me. The Republican party can kiss my ass.

I know...I know....just wait...I'll see.....

I did.....and, I've seen.

[Gunslingr3]

sad thing is, he's honest and correct:

"One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.

True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives- a name they gave themselves- are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President’s closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative."

[Pyro7480]

He does have a point here. However, I am very wary of the so-called "paleo" conservatives and libertarians too. Many seem to be painting with too broad of brush concerning the "neocons."

[bc2]

You have been deceived, friend. May your toils for Liberty no longer be in vain. Look at what we have "won" with our hard work: more socialism, more welfare state, more government, more regulations, and less freedom. Agreed, it may be slightly better than the Democratic alternative (for now), but is that what we worked so hard for?

For Liberty and the Constitution...

[laotzu]

"moral relativism of libertarianism"

Libertarians have no morals.
Republicans want to starve children.

Same broken, sheep-bleeting, B.S. lies.

Maybe if you pointed out how big your herd is compared to theirs. That would have to win them over.

[Pyro7480]

They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative."

This is where Paul is mistaken. The early debates amongst conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s was about how to respond to the communist threat. Reagan, Goldwater, Meyer, Buckley, Kirk, et al wanted to face the communist threat at home and abroad. So you can't say these conservatives were "noninterventionist." It was people like Rothbard who wanted the U.S. to withdraw from fighting communism. I'm glad the first group ultimately prevailed in the conservative movement.

[colorado tanker]

For Liberty and the Constitution...

On that we most definitely agree.

[laotzu]

"I will not sell out the party of Lincoln for the moral relativism of libertarianism"

And if the party sells you out?!! What then?