The conservative movement should be very weary of any self-congratulatory talk right now, because in truth, it's as split as is the conservative-progressive divide.
I've been a registered-Republican for 23 years (since my 18th birthday), but the continued vitriol thrown at Ron Paul, is building a resentment in me towards the conservative movement that I've been apart of since Ronald Reagan's first election. A resent shared by millions of other conservatives, especially the up-and-coming young.
What's different about Ron Paul as compared to just about any other politician, is that he represents an idea, a philosophy ... his movement is not about the man. So when "conservatives" attack Ron Paul, what they don't understand is that their attacks don't resonate as attacks on some politician, but as attacks on Americans who believe in restoring our representative republic.
These cheap, name-calling attacks are building a resentment towards the conservative movement in millions of Americans like just like me. For example, if I don't see the conservative movement working towards restoring our representative republic, I'll turn on them faster than they could ever imagine. My loyalty starts with myself, not some abstract hive mind mentality.
Mark Levin and Bill Bennett recently fanned the flames of this burning resentment. What they don't understand is, in their attempts to control the message, they're effectively starting a civil war ... One that will take all conservatives to a place they wish not go.
And don't kid yourselves either, because the economy is only going to get worse ... Meaning people are going to grow more restless and less patient with Big Government ideas, perpetual war, and people telling them how to think.
For more of my thoughts, please see my comments here and here. As I was thinking about writing this post, I came across another that says it better than I ever could, so I leave you with this:
Ron Paul!
Neocons hate people who talk about the elites in less than reverent tones, because they think you’re talking about them – which is often the case. They hate any sort of populism, whether of the right or the left, because they see in it the seeds of revolution, and, of course, anti-Semitism. Most of all they hate Ron Paul, because he and his followers embody the Jeffersonian values and culture of the American heartland, the old America of Bob Taft, America First, and a Republican party that was skeptical of overseas adventurism. They are the "real Americans" Rabinowitz hates and fears, and, this year, they came to CPAC in droves.
A rebellion among conservatives has long been brewing, and the CPAC convention represents the first skirmish in a civil war on the right, a war that is essentially over foreign policy. The Paul movement is well-organized, activist-oriented, and well-funded: more importantly, it has a well-grounded ideology, one that offers an alternative to the brain-dead neoconservatism of Republican party hacks and third-rate politicians like Rudy Giuliani – whose single delegate to the 2008 Republican convention fairly represents the strength of the Rabinowitz wing of the conservative movement.
Rabinowitz & Co. have their work cut out for them if they’re going to try and convince conservatives that the Paul movement is "leftist." Good luck with that one. The neocon method, however, is simple repetition: if you tell a lie long enough, and persistently enough, maybe, just maybe people will come to accept it.
"Conspiracy theorist," "zealot," "deranged," "truther" – rinse, and repeat. There is something oddly childish about the taunting polemical style of the neocons: what it boils down to is simple name-calling. Rather than engage Paul’s actual views, the idea is to drive him out of the public square by means of pure epithets.
The whole neocon pack of attack dogs is bound to be out in full force by Monday morning, on that you can depend. Angry, paranoid, and full of hate – that describes Ron’s critics to a tee. They are merely projecting these attributes which they possess in full measure onto Ron Paul and his supporters.
The Rabinowitzes and Gersons of this world are angry that people are beginning to question the previously unquestionable: they’re paranoid that their positions as opinion "leaders" and official arbiters of what’s kosher and what’s not are being overturned – and they’re chock full of hate for anyone who, like Rep. Paul, challenges their power. As well they should be. Because if Ron and the movement he leads is successful, their day is over and done.
UPDATE:
Must Read Post: Common Sense
i'm unconvinced that i should support RP and linking the contemptible Antiwar.com doesn't help. Jefferson fought a war overseas so there is a time and place for war. i find many of RP's views agreeable so i'm not against him but i haven't been converted to being a Paulinian either. as for a fight brewing, i agree. the RINOs will be converted or kicked out.
My point wasn't about supporting Ron Paul, it was about the cheap attacks made on him, thus his genuine limited government philosophy, which is tearing the movement apart. Just as is all the attacks on Beck's speech. If the movement insists on attacking and burying their heritage, the Old Right, I don't believe anything significant (kicking the RINOs out) towards turning this country around can happen..
On RP, a) he was in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11 and b) you should read his idea on how to deal with the Somali pirates, straight out of Jefferson's playbook, and quite aggressive too! What's he's against (as am I), is Wilsonian nation-building.
CL, I'm a name-caller, that much I admit. I've also called Ron Paul names, that much I admit as well. But my name-calling, while admittedly juvenile, is borne of a deep-seated belief that Ron Paul's (and Lew Rockwell's) version of American Libertarianism comes from a deeply flawed understanding of American History and a general contempt for pragmatism in international affairs. I call him names because I think if we adopted the entire scope of his platform, we'd all be dead. It's that simple.
There's only two things here: One, if Ron Paul thinks that our overseas involvement in the Middle East is in any way responsible for their animosity towards us and their willingness to indiscriminately kill civilians, he has literally no idea whatsoever of the history of Islam. While perhaps only a glisten in history's eye when it began, Islam has been at war with the idea that would one day become America for over a millennium. This is a fact. Two, if he does understand Islam and still decides that it's better and smarter policy to completely disengage, then he's stupid. I can't make it any clearer than that.
I've read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" and "The Revolution" and have them both prominently displayed on my bookshelf. When I was in D.C. for Reagan's funeral I made it a point to stop by Paul's office and his alone. I just cannot for the life of me understand why he thinks our bedrock foundational principles would ever tolerate a foreign policy that would knowingly permit another nation, unabashedly dedicated to our destruction, to gather momentum and act on that dedication. Suffice to say, I think he's wrong.
Now, this is not to say that I don't agree with Paul that our present FP isn't hopelessly convoluted. That much is undeniable. He is and always has been right that the "entaglement" in foreign affairs causes much grief and creates intractable conflicts of interest. We are FAR too involved with FAR too many issues for our FP to be considered consistent or coherent.
But that issue in no way justifies the Rockwell/Paul doctrine that we have to wait for the bombs to be en route before we act. That has NEVER been the truth and no matter how badly Lew and Ron want it to be, God willing it never will be either. Personally, after having read Rockwell for a good five years now, I think he is a leftist at heart who just happens to understand Austrian Economics well enough to make it seem like he's being consistent and rational when he's neither. At best he's an anarcho-capitalist, which at the end of the day is so ridiculous as to warrant ridicule. To the contrary, I believe Ron Paul is a Patriot first and foremost who simply has taken the wrong path on American Foreign Policy.
I am greatly enjoying your posts on this by the way. Thanks CL.
In the struggle,
Russ
Totalitarianism is the extreme on the left, and anarchy is the extreme on the right. If you think Old Right conservatives like myself (Rockwell, et. al.) are on the Left, you're sadly mistaken. I mean seriously, who is more supportive of Big Government? Neocons or libertarians? Think about it. Which one of those 2 loves them some Roosevelt?
I think you and I need to have a blog debate. I'll email you in a little while.
I think that's correct. The problem I see is that in the world today, it is simply unreasonable to withdraw on a national level. Who's gonna fight the Jihad? You and me? Really? While I'd love to believe that, it is an untenable position. It's also why the Founders decided that a Government was necessary "to secure those blessings", among other things. One of the ways to do that is to fight those who would deny them. Islam, would deny them.
The problem with anarchy is that it makes any such society ripe for, yup, totalitarianism. This is the flip side to Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". An anarchistic society will inevitably devolve into the purest form of "might equals right" thus leading to the guy with the most guns ruling everyone else. That is the same end result as unbridled "progressivism". Both are disturbing.
The key, I believe, lies in the Declaration and Constitution, neither of which support a Rockwell/Paul version of foreign policy, in my opinion.
I'm down. I have a distinct feeling I'm gonna get my ass kicked, but in the name of knowledge, wisdom and most importantly, learning, I'm in.
Russ
I'd like to see one of them try to get through my front door.
That's the thing though...they don't have to get that close anymore.
If I can add this; I personally think that while this debate is an important one, it isn't NEARLY as important as the us v. them fight in which we're engaged right now. At the national level, I for one am perfectly willing to put aside ALL differences and work to elect fiscally conservative candidates only, regardless of whether I agree with them on anything else, including foreign policy.
If we don't get our fiscal house in order, the debt bomb that's coming down the tracks will destroy us just as completely as any nuclear bomb could.
[...] There’s a Fight Brewing in the Conservative Movement What’s different about Ron Paul as compared to just about any other politician, is that he represents an idea, a philosophy … his movement is not about the man. So when “conservatives” attack Ron Paul, what they don’t understand is that their attacks don’t resonate as attacks on some politician, but as attacks on Americans who believe in restoring our representative republic. [...]
Damn! I left home before I saw this. Will link later.
I'm really pleased to see these discussions across the web. Will they do any good?