When I said previously that Libertarians should support Ron Paul's campaign for US President in 2012, I guess I should have been directing my comments to a different audience: Congressman Paul's own party members, i.e., Republicans. Their ongoing dismissal of him, which dovetails nicely with liberals' dismissal of him, highlights what seems to me a basic fact: The so-called Republicans of today are not really conservative. The main problem they have with Ron Paul is that he's too conservative — he actually believes and works toward the ideas that they just pantomime.
I disagree with the popular term "neo-con" to describe those who claim to be Republicans but whose actions, compared to true conservatism, don't match up. "Neo" just means new, but there's no such thing as "new conservatism." You're either conservative, or you're not. And if you're not, and you claim to be, you're not a "new" conservative, you're a fake conservative. The word for that is pseudo-con, not neo-con.
It should be obvious to impartial observers that the anti-conservative views espoused by so many "Republicans" today show that the party is largely tainted by the presence of statist pseudo-cons. It makes me wonder why they supposedly oppose President Obama so much, other than on race and religion grounds. His statist policies are no more egregious than theirs.
An illustrative example is Republican support for Herman Cain. Here's a person who can barely maintain even a vaguely-Republican-sounding story. He can't seem to make up his mind on what he believes or what he would do — but he's convinced he's the right person to become our next President. Arrogance alone doesn't cut it, no matter what precedent has been set by recent administrations. He talks about not having political experience and relying on advisors, which basically means he will be a puppet to those with more political savvy. And now he is treating the controversy over allegations of sexual harassment with the very same short-sighted "I'm not going to answer that" and "that's been answered already" unfulfilling comments that President Obama consistently used in answer to questions about his place of birth and, by extension, the Constitutional validity of his eligibility for the office he now holds.
(As an aside, anybody who thinks it is inappropriate to ensure that the person holding the highest office in the land and controlling a vast nuclear arsenal is at least in the position legally deserves whatever Hell their willful ignorance creates. I'm glad that some people have the backbone to ask difficult questions in the face of brainless "political correctness.")
This is not to say that Ron Paul is the only conservative Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential election. However, the media-anointed "front-runners" are pseudo-cons that the other pseudo-cons infecting the Republican party find palatable, while those who have shown consistently over the years that they are true conservatives (and for that, I can think of no better example than Ron Paul) are dismissed as being "not able to be elected" (despite polls showing that Ron Paul would seriously challenge Obama, unlike others who have the pseudo-cons' blessing).
Apparently the Libertarian Party has welcomed Ron Paul to run on their ticket, so that audience already understands that Ron Paul is the one to support. Dr. Paul needs to find a way to expose the pseudo-cons for what they are and reclaim the Republican party for what it should be: Conservative!
0 comments:
Post a Comment