CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007

[Beet]

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

[Beet]

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.

Paul is anti-government. He is probably the most anti-government candidate in the whole field. He is against the military government, yay, and the financial government, and the social government, and the so called world government. Even the insurgent nature of his campaign channells heavily on an outsider theme and a not a small dose of his special kind of populism either.

On the other hand, what was Louis XIV's motto again? "L'État, c'est moi". So I'm not sure that he'd be quite on the side of the Bourbon monarchy. It's in that sense that they are opposites.

[Beet]

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.

Paul is anti-government. He is probably the most anti-government candidate in the whole field. He is against the military government, yay, and the financial government, and the social government, and the so called world government. Even the insurgent nature of his campaign channells heavily on an outsider theme and a not a small dose of his special kind of populism either.

On the other hand, what was Louis XIV's motto again? "L'État, c'est moi". So I'm not sure that he'd be quite on the side of the Bourbon monarchy. It's in that sense that they are opposites.

That's over-simplifiying him, for example he supports banning abortion.

I never said he was a libertarian, far from it. He's just run the most anti-government campaign in general, when you take into account the issues that he emphasizes. He doesn't emphasize abortion much, and when he does, he focuses more on a states' rights argument. IIRC, in the last debate, he apparently does not equate abortion with murder, as he doesn't support charging a woman who has an abortion with a crime.

angus, it looks like we differ on exactly what is meant by conservatism, but that is ok. American conservatism wasn't well defined before the 1950s anyway.

[Beet]

Ah, so I was misinformed about Paul's beliefs. When I saw him answer that he wouldn't charge a woman with a crime I automatically assumed he didn't consider abortion murder, since an accomplice to murder always deserves to be charged with a crime.

Hey, given that 'moralism' and 'traditionalism' are not polar opposites, one can see how Kucinich and Paul might arrive at the same conclusion from different premises.

[Beet]

But paul isn't a traditionalist or a moralist.  (To be clear I'm using Jacob Elazar's terms regarding political culture.)  Paul is an individualist.  At least as far as I can tell.  A cowboy, as it were.  Individualists often reach the conclusion that US foreign policy must necessarily be non-interventionist.  In fact, it is the two other groups (moralists, in the case of always wanting to aid rebels attempting to overthrow right-wing fascists, and traditionalists, in the case of always want to aid rebels attempting to overthrow left-wing dictators) who generally support intervention.  There are two ways for me to be able to talk you into going to war in Iraq:  mention Saddam's brutality, putting people in paper-shredders, oppressing speech and assembly, and the like; or mention that he's intent on destroying the good Christian American way of life, and has the weapons to back up his plans.  One of those arguments works with bleeding-heart moralists, and the other works pretty well with traditionalists, or the so-called religious right.  And Bush had some success on both counts, clearly.  87 senators giving him authority ain't too shabby, right?  That's a coup.  Then again, at the time his approval rating was about 75%.  Distant memory. 

Anyway, Paul is just a small-government conservative.  But he's also a federalist.  And that's significant in explaining Jfern's point.  Federalists, whether anti-abortion or abortion-friendly, really don't want federal courts getting in the business of legislation.  To them, it isn't whether the judge will overturn or uphold Roe.  And on that federalists of all stripes agree.  It's a question of sovereignty.  Sure, Paul happens to feel sympathy for foeti, and that's not all that surprising given his chosen original profession.  It's just that he thinks such decisions, as well as all decisions, should be made by the people, through their state legislatures, and not by judicial fiat.  Of course a soundbite or a pamphlet needn't go into to all that.  The purpose of the pamphlet is to gain votes, not to educate.  And it needn't be comprehensive in pointing out anyone's views on anything.  In fact, full disclosure and complete information, about any candidate, is more likely to lose rather than gain votes.

No, I have no objection to using Daniel Elazar's political cultures to categorize Paul or the branches of American politics in general. Still, the most conservative branch of that is not necessarily the individualist branch. Individualism is geographically in the middle and one could argue that it's politically in the middle as well. Of course, not if personal liberty is your number one  hot button issue. Then it's not in the middle at all- it's at one extreme.

Yes, there is a certain moralist case for intervention. This is what Bush was running against in 2000 when he stated that he was not in favor of nation-building. I really think Bush kept his promise there. For the last 4 years he has largely resisted nation building in Iraq, but that has cost him. Now that he's putting more of an investment into law and order in that country to save his legacy, he's getting at least some better results.