Comments on: Conservatives Against Palin

By: Political Blog Weekly: 10 July 2009 | U.S. Common Sense

Political Blog Weekly: 10 July 2009 | U.S. Common Sense — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:50:24 +0000

[...] Values – "Conservatives Against Palin" Connecting.the.Dots – "The Politics of Personality Disorder" Taxes, Stupidity, and Death [...]

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:17:34 +0000

Goldwater, while not himself a racist, held such strong views on individual freedom that he believed the government did not have the right to legislate against segregation in many facets of ‘private’ society. He believed (at least in 1964, during the turmoil of the civil rights era) employers should be allowed to hire those whom they were most comfortable working with, that private clubs should have the right to be restricted, and that desegregation of schools was a fundamental violation of the democratic rights of school boards. All of these positions attracted a great deal of support from the elements of the ‘old right’ from which Paul descends, and many of the Goldwater Republicans were such conservatives.

Of course, to be fair, Goldwater also supported the same economic and social rights of exclusivity for blacks as he did for whites and prominent radicals (he was endorsed by the Black Panther Party) or conservatives (he was endorsed by Effa Manley, an owner of the Negro National League Newark Eagles who opposed desegregation because of what she saw as the threat it implied to the black community’sd economic structure) among the black community supported his candidacy because they either overtly supported their own system of separatism or feared the consequences of premature desegregation before the problems of racism were fully solved. One can certainly argue this was a valid view, though it is an equally valid view to argue that the problems of racism could never be solved in a system in which blacks and whites could avoid facing those problems directly.

Certainly Goldwater would disagree with Dr. Paul’s social positions on more than a few issues, especially abortion and national defense.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:37:04 +0000

Fritz,

Some of the old statements from Ron Paul (which he probably had hoped would remain under the radar) made it sound like he was taking credit for writing them. It is possible that he was taking a position of claiming authorship for things under his name written by others, but even then should have repudiated them when raised earlier as opposed to implying authorship.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:21:32 +0000

IIRC, those weren’t Dr. Paul’s racist writings, but were written under his auspices and he should have stopped them. He’s not the only politician (and I am not only talking Republicans) who has let similar notions go through (with a hope they stay under the radar) in order to keep some supporters. The radar’s a lot lower these days.

I really dislike guest worker programs. “This is not your home” is a terrible belief to instill in people who live here.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:28:22 +0000

I wouldn’t consider Paul a Goldwater Republican either. Goldwater wouldn’t go along with Paul’s social conservatism, such as on abortion. We can’t really say where Goldwater would stand on Iraq as he wasn’t around. I would hope that he would realize this was a foolish use of military power. Regardless, Goldwater would not go along with Paul’s overall views on the military. Of course Paul did not always support his own views on cutting military spending as his campaign mailings often gave the impression that he was a big supporter of military spending, depending upon the target audience.

Unfortunately Paul is a throwback not to Barry Goldwater but other portions of the old right, as was demonstrated when his racist writings came out and his initial denials of responsibility were shown to be untrue. At least this opened the eyes of many libertarians. While I don’t think it ever made much sense for libertarians to see Paul as their hero, the racist writings ultimately did get most (but certainly not all) libertarians to drop their support for him.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:10:34 +0000

Fritz is correct, Dr. Paul IS anti-illegal immigration while supporting a much more ‘liberal’ immigration policy than, say, Barack Obama.

Immigration is one issue on which both parties are frequently very wrong. Some of the individuals with whom I have most agreed on the issue have been Republicans who understood why amnesty and reform of the legal immigration system would do much more good for the country than a fence on the New Mexico border. Unfortunately, GOP immigration reform came to mean not an increase in the ease of legal access but a guest worker program designed to allow corporations to continue to exploit workers legally. And the nativists won out in the end anyway, as they usually do in the Democratic Party as well.

I have to agree with Ron that Paul’s political philosophy is far preferable to that of most neoconservatives… in many ways he is a ‘Goldwater Republican’ in the 1964 model… but the Goldwater of 1964 would have been a disaster as president for many of the same reasons as Dr. Paul.

However, Dr. Paul is also still fundamentally in bed with the Republican ‘mainstream’ on choice, workers’ rights, poverty, and other important issues.

His differences with them, despite the significance of those differences, are outnumbered by the commonalities and when Anne Coulter denies that he is even ‘really a Republican’ she is missing the mark.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:14:50 +0000

Actually, Ron Paul’s stance on immigration is that he is against illegal immigration and wants the economy of the USA to be so vibrant that we would be opening the floodgates in order to get more workers to immigrate. I think that he is vastly overestimating the intelligence and the sense of the American populace there, but so it goes.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:51:33 +0000

Being better than Huckabee is a pretty low bar. While Paul has many faults and it would be a disaster if he had any chance of actually getting elected, his views on some issues such as drug policy are preferable to those of more conventional Republicans.

By: Mr. Jeffersonian

Mr. Jeffersonian — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:26:49 +0000

But he is still Anti Choice, anti Immigrant and anti health care reform so I wouldn’t give Ron Paul kudos over huckabee just yet.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:24:45 +0000

True, he is not a social conservative in the Huckabee mode.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:23:41 +0000

Ron, while Ron Paul is in some senses a social conservative, it is also true that the second time I met him (in 1988) was at a fundraiser for his Presidential run — the event was held at the home of Timothy Leary. It is an odd breed of social conservative that would win the personal support of Dr. Tim. I wish I had taken a picture of the two of them sitting together.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:49:52 +0000

I do find it sad to see how the libertarian label has been destroyed by conservatives who have taken it over. Agree or disagree with them, there was always something attractive about the consistency of libertarian belief in the days when it generally referred to people from true limited-government types to anarcho-capitalists. It still had some meaning when used to refer to those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal but over time this meant those who back Republican economic policies and there was little focus on anything else. It is bad enough when social conservatives such as Ron Paul are lumped with libertarians. When people who support the Iraq War and the Patriot Act also claim to be libertarian, the word has lost all meaning. This leads to those such as “Libertarian Republican” Eric Dondero who backs what is essentially a military dictatorship to fight for “freedom” in their war on “Islamo-Fascism.”

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:42:29 +0000

There were issues with rogue elements of the GOP in the Republican Party before last year. The paleoconservatives of the Ron Paul and Bob Barr stripe have flirted with the LP since before Barr’s nomination, Paul was their nominee not too long ago as elections go. Republicans like Robert Stacy McCain consider themselves ‘libertarian’ because their misunderstanding of Hayek fits very nicely with their John Calvin + Kenneth Copeland take on the theology of wealth. An element of the libertarian party whose focus is on economics above all else, has always flirted aggressively with such Republican ‘libertarians’ because of their desire to grow their power base.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:20:02 +0000

The Barry Goldwater wing got 86′ed from the GOP. Some became Libertarian Party members. Some bagged politics. Then the LP got taken over last year by rogue elements of the GOP.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:35:39 +0000

I’ve mentioned Barry Goldwater many times here, especially noting how liberal his views on social issues would be compared to the current views of the Republican Party. Goldwater had no use for the religious right.