Ron Paul often hints that he’s in the Presidential race to get certain ideas back into the debate (since he occasionally hints that he knows he won’t be re-elected). Commentators often mention concerns with the Fed and foreign policy as ideas that Paul wants to discuss. More interestingly though, Paul’s candidacy is demonstrating that America really has only one political party.
All the pillars of mainstream Republicanism are moving quickly to denounce Paul. When doing so, they always use liberal language.
When denouncing Paul, why do these "non-liberal" groups shift immediately into the language of college sociology professors?
For example, Rich Lowry, head of National Review (and a wonderful personification of the rapid decline of the Conservative movement), apparently scoured the archives of The Nation for a hit piece on a Republican and changed the target’s name to Ron Paul to create this gem. A more moderate Democratic publication like The New Republic would have made it past the second sentence before calling Paul racist. Lowry, of course, is relatively subtly steering his paper to Mitt Romney, who is different from Obama in some important ways, I’m sure.
(There are lots of other examples. Michael Barone starts a WSJ column: "I don’t have anything against Iowa’s Republican caucusgoers." Here’s Jonah Goldberg vehemently agreeing with the NYT, that Ron Paul is probably racist and anti-Semitic and a neo-nazi).
Steve Sailer often notes that America’s guiding principles these days seem to be: invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world. Paul fails at least two (if not three) of these tests. He is therefore considered too extreme. Acceptable candidates to all mainstream publications, including National Review, must support all three of these positions.
The alt-right-o-sphere has been filled with lots of commentary on Paul, but I believe most (possibly excepting, Steve Sailer, Chuck and Elusive Wapiti) have missed the above story, which is the most interesting (the two political parties in the US nominally oppose each other, but they do so on very limited grounds). Sailer – in the link above – notes the similarities in articles appearing the NYT, Weekly Standard, and New Republic (an interesting list of friends if there ever was one).
Anyway, if you’re interested in other thoughts on this subject, here’s a round-up of the discussion from the last week. And I’d add the same disclaimer that Kalim Kassam added: "None of my Ron Paul tweets should be interpreted as an endorsement of democracy or voting in any sense."
- The use of liberal language to condemn Ron Paul is (very unfortunately) not limited to the Conservative right (though it should be noted that Half Sigma may be on the payroll of the Romney campaign – it’s getting hard to tell – either that or HS has some sort of weird man-crush on Romney (not that there’s anything wrong with that)).
- My own thoughts on Paul are probably closest to Mangan’s, though I don’t see a need for anyone in the alt-right to support anyone or to vote. I basically agree with everything Richard Spencer says here, as well.
- Chuck also notes that a lot of conservatives have come out against Paul because of his "blame America first" attitude. Paul has made some silly statements on foreign policy, but the conservatives making these claims are generally retarded. The vast majority of them supported Bush’s foreign policy which is – thus far – indistinguishable from Obama’s. More again from Chuck here.
- Larison has a good post on Paul’s policy toward Iran, which notes that the blame America idea may be justified, "Not every political confrontation with other regimes has been the fault of the U.S., but policy towards Iran has been unusually short-sighted and confrontational, and the only candidate currently opposed to that policy is Ron Paul." Indeed. Some of Paul’s statements may have been stupid, but if they’re stupid, then the fact that the other candidates are seriously considering entering a third land war in Asia should mean that they’re all wearing helmets.
- Simon Grey and OneSTDV got into a bit about Paul, here.