"Ron Paul is right on all fronts."
"I cannot go that far, but I will concede to my Libertarian FRiends that Ron Paul is right on more than enough to be considered worthy."
My statement about RP being "right on all fronts", should be clarified -- I was answering the classic "RP is right on everything except the foreign policy front." I certainly don't think RP is some sort of omniscient saint.
But, I must disagree on the idea that "Ron Paul is a Libertarian". Ron Paul is a small "l" libertarian-Republican (as am I) and not "a Libertarian". I actually posted something on the differences between the two here.
"It is absurd to remove restrictions on drugs. The reason those restrictions are not working is because they are not truly being enforced, and because the power structure resides in the federal government rather than in the states, where it belongs."
Please understand, I am not suggesting some overnight "legalize all drugs". I am suggesting that our current strategy isn't working, so let's go back to the drawing board and see what battles are worth fighting. Legalize marijuana, see how it goes. Does crime go up or down? Work from there. Introduce the idea that people are responsible for their own choices gradually. It's much the same as a philosophy of child rearing: "You can't child-proof the world, so world-proof the child". You can't protect people from themselves, so demand that they be responsible for their choices -- and if drugs are their choice, fine, they are still held to the same standards the rest of us are with alcohol.
"That being said, I must differ with you again- We have begun the thing. We are committed. Once committed, we owe it to our soldiers to back them to the 9's. We sent them into harm's way. Their blood is on the ground. It is not honorable to turn them back now. They must be allowed to succeed."
While I agree with your sentiment -- my nephew just went to Iraq last week as an Army Officer -- I am just not sure what "winning" looks like.
Before we began, Iraq had a secular government. Yes, Saddam was a real bastard to his people, but he wasn't a direct threat to us and he was not allied with al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, before we began, al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq.
Now, Iraq has an Islamic Constitution. The Iraqi Christians have all but been wiped out. Al Qaeda and the insurgency is still alive and kicking, whether we like it or not. So forgive for asking, but what did we "win"? And if we do successfully stabilize Iraq, will our Iraq experience make us more, or less, likely to do exactly the same thing somewhere else? Because they know that once we are engaged, we will keep a war going "until we win", without ever asking ourselves, "win what"? This process will be repeated again and until when? Until we are always "at war"?
I seldom discuss Iraq or Afghanistan, because I know that my views irritate more than a few, but I am trying to use a level head about this, in spite of whatever personal feelings I have about my nephew being there.
"This is all about removing the conscience that keeps our country's might in righteous check."
Oh, that our Christian conscience would keep us in check! But, unfortunately, all too often current quasi-Christian thinking seems to have the opposite effect -- that "America is exceptional" so -- "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us" -- doesn't apply to us because "we are special". That "Blessed are the Peacemakers" is considered "politically naive". It's this quasi-Christian thinking that worries me, because it is filled with self-righteousness, hubris, and too little humility.
"As always, I must conclude that Reagan is the happy medium, the place where all the conservative factions must meet, and it is the only place where we will all find agreement, and thereby move forward."
On Free Republic, yes. And I certainly agree with all that Ronald Reagan said and his great ability to unite this country.
But Ronald Reagan was also a man of his time -- his great enemy was the Soviet Union and that required a very different way of running this country than is required today.
Unfortunately, many programs that were started during Ronald Reagan's presidency, are no longer appropriate to today and have since been abused in order to amass political power -- I am speaking about the National Endowment for Democracy that funds the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, both of which function to overthrow foreign governments and "re-educate them in globalist democracy". The very thing that we clamped down on the CIA for doing back in the 80's, both the NRI and NDI do regularly, and without the oversight of Congress or the American people. John McCain has been chair of the IRI since the early 1990's and Madeline Albright is chair of the NDI. The last ugly leg of that troika is George Soros Open Society Institute, and together those are the three largest and most influential NGO's in the world. We finance two of them, yet most Americans don't even know that they exist.
Also the Reagan Administration gave birth to the political careers of the neocons -- Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc, -- whose socialist thinking seems to have had more of an effect on Conservatism than Conservatism has had on them. Conservatism used to lean "libertarian" as seen in Ronald Reagan's quotes, now it often leans "statist" thanks to the influence of that neocon cabal.
Again, this neocon crew may have been a valuable asset against the Soviets, because it was closer to their thinking, but it also made us forget who WE Conservatives really were.
When I qualified "Reagan" as the happy medium "on FR", I am afraid that if libertarian-leaning Republicanism will have to be the ultimate "happy medium" if we ever want to build a coalition large enough to return a Conservative Constitutional government to power again, because they have the base, the energy & enthusiasm and the ability to reach across the aisle and pull the anti-war, small government element (rug) out from under the Liberals. The small "l" libertarians don't scare the mainstream, and aren't scared of bringing over the great unwashed to win. Forgive me but RINOs and the Religious Right are far too prissy to do that, but that is exactly what needs to be done.
Thank you for the kind words, but I assure you, the honor and pleasure is all mine. While you and I have never discussed these things in depth, I have read enough of your work to know that while we may disagree in some small part, those disagreements are not so much a matter of principle as they are a matter of perspective. I respect your positions and your tenacity; and your style of writing and sense of humor make for very enjoyable reading.
["Ron Paul is right on all fronts."]
My statement about RP being "right on all fronts", should be clarified -- I was answering the classic "RP is right on everything except the foreign policy front." I certainly don't think RP is some sort of omniscient saint.
Oh, no one is perfect, to be sure, and your position requires no clarifying for me to understand it quite perfectly. Foreign entanglements and overseas wars have always been a hard thing for libertarian minded folks to swallow, and that's a good thing, as I said before: It keeps us all honest.
But, I must disagree on the idea that "Ron Paul is a Libertarian". Ron Paul is a small "l" libertarian-Republican (as am I) and not "a Libertarian". I actually posted something on the differences between the two here.
Thanks for the correction, but I am well aware of the difference. It is my personal inconsistency coming to light - Yet another perfectly good word becoming liberalized to the point that distinctions must be made, and those distinctions offend me. Perhaps at some subconscious level I am rebelling against it. I will try to become more accurate.
Please understand, I am not suggesting some overnight "legalize all drugs". I am suggesting that our current strategy isn't working, so let's go back to the drawing board and see what battles are worth fighting.
I am with you in spirit, and in principle in the entirety of this statement. Something different must be done, that is all too apparent.
But I am adamantly against the idea of legalizing any more intoxicants. One will get more of whatever one advocates, whether it be abortion, no fault divorce, or marijuana. And one more step down the slippery slope does not make it easier, or better equip us, to climb back to the top.
Before we take such steps, I think there are several less severe things we can do, first among them being attempts at real enforcement, and first and foremost regarding enforcement must be closing down that damnable border, over which 75% of the drug trafficking travels. That border is such an insult on so many levels that I would happily favor having it walled off with concrete for all the good it would do for this nation.
Secondly, as I said before, the nature of the WOD must surely be changed to reflect the sovereignty of the states and to remove the tremendous power that has been vested in the fed in it's name. This still would require the states to come up with some unified agreement as to what is legal and what is not, and probably distribution of monies for states with less funds, but the authority must lie in the sovereignty of the states, singly and collectively, and be removed from the fed.
This means that drug traffickers must bribe officials in all fifty state houses rather than feed the singular good ol' boy network in DC- A much harder bill to foot- Not that it cannot be done, but it is far less likely to be done easily, and the people can resist it at the ballot box much easier.
I know this isn't exactly where y'all would like to go, but it (or something similar) is where you are likely to go with the strong support of the Christian Right. They will be strongly against you in any bid to legalize any drug, and thus that whole issue becomes a wedge. To my knowledge, it is mostly the expensive lack of results, and the overweening and unconstitutional federal power that is behind the issue for libertarians anyway. The Christians will heartily agree with you that there have been no results. They would be willing to listen to solutions.
[With regard to the GWOT]
While I agree with your sentiment -- my nephew just went to Iraq last week as an Army Officer -- I am just not sure what "winning" looks like.
Prayers for your nephew, and BRAVO!
What our warhawk FRiends are incognizant of is that you (y'all) are representative of true patriotic dissent. Far from the liberal commies they are so quick to associate you with, the basis of your remarks are the same prerequisites that Conservatives have always demanded of our leaders before committing our warriors' blood and honor to war. This is precisely what is so dangerous in throwing the libertarians out of the "Big Tent".
If one has convinced the libertarians that there is a need to exercise military might abroad, one is guaranteed that one's cause is just, as the libertarians will stand for no less! Had there been libertarians involved in Bush's council, they would have demanded answers to your questions before we had begun. Their principles demand it of them.
[With regard to "Christian Conscience"]
Oh, that our Christian conscience would keep us in check! [...] It's this quasi-Christian thinking that worries me, because it is filled with self-righteousness, hubris, and too little humility.
But you misunderstand me. Yes, our Judeo-Christian conscience is necessary. But a properly informed American Conservative conscience must inherently contain two parts: Part Judeo-Christian, and part libertarian. That isn't to say that either is impinged by the other, but that each informs the other, even though they stand in amicable opposition at times.
What you describe above is "Christianity" unhindered by libertarianism. It is God's will that people should be free. Within our system of government, and our tradition, it is libertarianism which limits the government and thereby preserves that freedom. But I am afraid that the "Big Tenters" have set us up for a reflex swing too far the other way - What, pray tell, hinders libertarianism uninformed by the Judeo-Christian conscience, and what is the result?
[With regard to "Reagan Conservatism"]
When I qualified "Reagan" as the happy medium "on FR", I am afraid that if libertarian-leaning Republicanism will have to be the ultimate "happy medium"[...]
I disagree. While everything you said is true, what you are describing is the Baker moderate wing co-opting what Reagan built, not Reagan Conservatism itself.
In the first place, Reagan Conservatism uses libertarianism as it's core tenets, so you have inherently, not a "libertarian leaning", but an actual libertarian core model via Goldwater.
On top of that foundation, Reagan added the SOCON, FICON, and DEFCON factional camps under the agreement that no conservative faction would be asked to compromise its basic principles, and that we should vote *for* candidates who not only hold our own particular factional principles, but also uphold the principles of each of the other factions as well.
This is the power of Reagan Conservatism, and this is what I promote.
Ever since Reagan, the NeoCons have been promoting "pragmatism" and the idea that we must all move further to the left to win, compromising every principle across the board. Because of this loss of principles, each faction now believes it must wrest away the steering wheel itself, and promote it's own philosophy as the salvation of the country, at the expense of the others.
It will not work. If forced to defend themselves, the primaries will split us on wedge issues every time, and a McCain't or a Giuliani will waltz to the finish. You will not get your libertarian because the Christians will block you. Not on purpose, of course, but they will lift up a candidate who works for them according to their principles, which are not the same as yours, and the Warhawks will do the same.
What you will find is that the Christians are inevitably the only ones with the muscle to get their way, and their candidate will go all the way, while the rest will die on the vine. But the Christians alone cannot beat the Rinos, so the Rinos win.
But Reaganism resolves the issue about "who gets to drive, and who must take a back seat". No compromise on principle. Not for anyone. This is the obvious answer, because *nothing* beats the Conservatives when they unite.
[Conclusion]
In closing, let me say that I may have dwelt over long on the subject of differences between the Christian Right and the libertarians. I believe those differences to be relatively minor in reality, but escalations between the two camps have caused some rather strong feelings. I think that needs to be mended. After all, the founders held to both creeds without any problem, so the two must not be incompatible.
Regards.
- Bruce