Anyway, away we go...
"Ron Paul Wins the Democrat Presidential Debate – oh wait!
"Earth to Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson – you are running for the Republican nomination for president, not the Libertarian or Democrat nomination."
They know that, Chris. Do you? Contrary to your views, there's no political party called the "Fusionist Party" or "Neoconservative Party". Hate to break it to you.
"At various times throughout the Republican primary debate last evening, I had to remind myself I was actually watching a Republican debate. Without the interludes of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Rick Santorum, and CEO Herman Cain, you would think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were participating in a Democrat presidential primary debate, siding with Democrats on major social and defense policy initiatives. "
Translation: "Hey, wait a minute... not everyone is espousing imperialist foreign policy and authoritarian social policies! Is this some kind of joke? I thought we'd sufficiently co-opted this party and run off the old-school conservatives that these views weren't prevalent any more!!!"
"Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place."
Well, gee, Scooter, maybe it just might be possible that there are significant components of the Republican primary electorate who've gotten tired of your Douchebag Conservatism! No, couldn't be...
"For the record, I do not disparage Paul or Johnson from running for president as they have served their country honorably nor do I fundamentally disagree with them that our country is in deep budgetary and economic peril."
Translation: "But now, let me disparage the two guys that were onstage who embrace the philosophy I truly hate and fear, conservatism. Problem is that they're so damn CORRECT on fiscal issues, even a devout neocon stoolpigeon myself is unable to sufficiently shroud the issues in mist! Blast!"
"Nor do I for one minute pretend the Republican Party is a homogenous entity where everyone agrees with everyone. Republicans have always had internal disputes over philosophical emphases and the occasional policy difference."
Translation: "But I sure would like things that way, and guys like me work every day to try and make them so. Did I mention Newt is THE MAN, and the embodiment of everything we'd like to morph the Republican Party into? Speak not ill of him, he is infallible!"
"The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement."
Okay, Chris, let's look at what the influx of former Trotskyite statists, aka neoconservatives, have done to those supposed "fundamental principles." Incidentally, the former Democrats knows as neoconservatives bear ideas which are neither new, nor conservative in any recognizable form.
Individual freedom: The Republican party has drifted far away from support of individual freedom in many ways. The creation of DHS, TSA and the attendant security theater in airports, which accomplishes NOTHING, other than violating travelers' civil liberties. Support for a greater, more intrusive federal government... medical records, financial records, property rights, the list goes on.
Limited government: What a joke. The Republican Party has been ripped so far off its moorings, it would hardly be recognizable to Calvin Coolidge. The party establishment has given up trying to roll back what the progressives have inflicted on Americans since 1932. They're not even trying to eliminate the Department of Education any longer, one of Ronald Reagan's stated goals! With the bunch in charge now, supposedly the goal is to "fix" massive unconstitutional ponzi schemes known as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare! Either they're guilty of craven ideological cowardice, or they support those programs. I tend towards the latter explanation. Why? Because the GOP establishment came up with huge expansions of government like Bush's Medicare prescription drug boondoggle, the Department of Homeland Security, and "No Child Left Behind." The GOP... slightly less collectivist than those other guys... Vote for us!
Free markets: Also a joke. Support of the cabal known as the Federal Reserve, and its constant monkeying with the markets. GOP-led Congresses and administrations bear some blame for the housing bubble, the dot-com bubble, the farm bill, the bailouts, the stimuli, and many other statist interventions in the economy. They also love doling out corporate welfare.
Strong national defense: Here, at least, the record is decent. The GOP has generally opposed the Democrats' attempts to weaken our military over the past 50 years or so. The real problem here is the GOP's relationships with the various elements of the military-industrial complex. It propagates corporate welfare like the F-35 "competitive engine", and creates a conflict of interest at the highest levels of government.
"Preserving our traditional values": Once upon a time, REAL conservatives understood that social mores and cultural traditions were passed down from one generation to the next by the people, not the government. Men like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater understood this. Regrettably, Ronald Reagan gave the social "conservatives" a seat at the table, and they haven't gotten up.
"The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles."
There are a number of issues here, the most prominent being the inclusion of the social "conservatives" as some kind of integral part of a conservative coalition. The second most prominent is that ANY conservative principles have any chance of "being legislated" with the current gang. This book lays it all out, from the perspective of a REAL conservative.
"In order for any modern candidate to win the GOP nomination, they must embody these conservative principles, or at least appeal to these constituencies. With the exception of primary fiscal issues, Paul and Johnson consistently deviated and at various points were even hostile to the social and defense conservative branches."
I can hear it now: "How DARE those guys get off our script! We NEED to invade third world hellholes every few years for sketchy reasons! We NEED to appease the religious nuts by instituting invasive authoritarian social policies at every level of government! Harrumph! Harrumph!" Well, Chris, the last GOP presidential nominee even resembling a conservative was Ronald Reagan, and he had to compromise with those in the GOP who were, well... not conservative. The last true conservative to obtain the GOP nod was Barry Goldwater, 47 years ago.
"Throughout the debate, Ron Paul stated positions that were contrary to mainstream Republicans. Nearly every response oozed of antipathy towards successfully concluding our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and utilizing enhanced interrogation techniques, even for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11."
Oh my goodness, not positions "contrary to mianstream Republicans'... anything but that! (To be fair, I disagree with Rep. Paul and Gov. Johnson on enhanced interrogation techniques. These people aren't protected by the Geneva conventions, since they're not soldiers.)
"He is against the use of prisons for enemy combatants, humanitarian and foreign aid, the reorganization and consolidation of our homeland security, traditional marriage, the AZ illegal immigration act, wants to get rid of the federal reserve, intonated a return to the gold standard and at one point stated he was for legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine – I’m not kidding."
Well, no kidding, Chris... of course he's against humanitarian and foreign aid, DHS, the Federal Reserve, and wants to return to the gold standard and sound money. HE is an actual CONSERVATIVE... unlike YOU.
"The debate moderators at one point had to ask Paul and Johnson how they expected to win the Republican nomination with anti-Republican viewpoints such as these."
What both Chris and the moderators either don't fully understand or don't choose to acknowledge is that political parties are brands, not ideologies. For most of the 19th century, the Democrats were the exponents of limited government, not the GOP. Things change.
"Politically though, no modern presidential candidate has won the Republican nomination being fiscally imprudent, negligent on social issues, and anti-defense. Look at the most recent Republican presidential nominees and how they were able to appeal politically to the three main constituencies."
Oh, THIS will be good.
"While prickly with the conservative base, John McCain knew he had to win over enough people from each of the three main groups to win the Republican nomination. His position of strength was national security having served in the US Navy and was the leading proponent in congress for the Iraqi surge. He was consistently pro-life and appealed to economic voters using the line that government spending like drunken sailors was an insult to drunken sailors."
John McCain won the nomination because everything broke just right for him. Rudy didn't make an effort until Florida, when it was too late; Fred Thompson didn't have a real campaign, Huckabee was rightly seen as a tool of the religious nuts and couldn't get much support outside that base, and the three candidates who could be called conservative in some way, shape or form, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, were marginalized by the party establishment and media. He won by default.
"George W. Bush unabashedly was a social conservative referring to his reaffirmation of Jesus Christ in his adult life during the 2000 campaign. He appealed to fiscal conservatives touting his plans for tax cuts and appealed to defense conservatives supporting a missile defense shield and a non-nation building approach to foreign policy."
Simply put, Bush had the religious nut vote in his back pocket, along with the establishment types... he then flat-out LIED about a "humble foreign policy" over and over again before pursuing a neocon agenda once in office. Running to the right of John McCain is no big trick.
"Like McCain, Bob Dole had a thorny relationship with conservatives but appealed to defense conservatives having served in combat. He was pro-life and appealed to fiscal voters by promising a 10% across-the-board federal budget cut and selected the tax cut icon, Jack Kemp, as his running mate."
Bob Dole got the nomination because of the weakness of his competition; no other reason. Lamar Alexander? Alan Keyes? Come on. It was "his turn".
"You can see a consistent theme among these candidates that allowed them to appeal not only to the Republican base but to the national electorate as well. Republicans should reassess their standards of participation in nationally televised debates or risk losing or hurting their brand further."
No, not really, Chris. What republicans need to do is re-examine their own priorities, and see if they match the principles they claim to believe in, starting with "limited government." They also need to reassess the standing of self-appointed gatekeepers.
"Again, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have every right to run for president, but they are not Republican or traditionally conservative."
Hahahahahahahah!!!! What a complete crock! Those guys are each more conservative than you, Newtie, Rick Santorum and John McCain combined on your best day.
"While Donald Trump may have questionable political discrepancies of his own, he recently summed it up best that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. The Libertarian Party is still looking for their nominee, gentlemen."
The one with "questionable political discrepancies is YOU, Chris. Thanks for playing.
"Christopher N. Malagisi is the President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor at American University teaching “The History of the Conservative Movement: 1945-Present" and "Campaigns & Political Activism"
Holy hell, THIS guy teaches a class on "the conservative movement"? I'd bet his students barely even hear about "Mr. Republican" or "Mr. Conservative", since they clearly would stand forthrightly against his neocon worldview. No wonder AU is so far left!
Spare me your smarm, your condescension and your arrogance. No sale. Don't you have a Newtie event to go to?
No comments:
Post a Comment