Our political elites

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.

10 Responses to Our political elites

  1. Keethrax says:

    Ron Paul is terrifying to Jews. His policies are, either by chance or design, against Jewish interests at home and abroad. More than that, he represents a much older vision of America, one that is white, small-town, and Christian. Jews (obviously with exceptions) hate and despise this part of America. Throw in a dash of paranoia and you get the elite/MSM response to a Ron Paul candidacy. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but it’s not hard to see where HS is coming from.

  2. Simon Grey says:

    First, thanks for the linkage. I didn’t overlook the “Ron Paul is raciss…” story, I just thought Chuck and Tom DiLorenzo covered it very well, and I didn’t have anything to add. Also, I’m not particularly interested in race as a subject (I believe there are differences between people that correlate with race. I don’t care about causality, and I feel that it’s a waste of time to argue these points with egalitarians).

    I like Ron Paul more as a figurehead than a politician. I think he deserves serious praise for the changes he’s brought to the federal-level political debate. I’m not entirely sure I’d want him as president, but mostly because I fear that it’s too late for libertarian policy to fix the country, and so the inevitable collapse would be blamed on the crazy libertarian from Texas, even though the collapse was around one hundred years in the making. He does seem fringe-ish, but then and again, centrism and mainstream views aren’t doing much for me these days.

    As for his blame America first tendency, I can’t say that I’m troubled with it (in part because I refuse to acknowledge American nationality, but that’s for another day). The truth is, you’ll be right more often then you’ll be wrong if you blame America first because American foreign policy has obnoxiously wrong-headed on far too many occasions over the last couple of decades. And, of course, there are consequences to that. Also, national pride is no virtue when one pigheadedly supports a nation’s obvious, counterproductive wrongs.

    • Foseti says:

      It’s not just the “raciss” angle that I’m interested in here though. It’s no surprise to see the New York Times calling him racist. What’s surprising is to see the National Review and the Weekly Standard adopting the typical language of the NYT (or more-leftist outfits) in condemning Paul.

      Are there no conservative arguments against Paul?

      • Simon Grey says:

        There are, they just aren’t philosophically consistent. The only reasonable philosophical critique is on foreign policy, for the constitution permits imperialistic wars as long as they are declared by congress. However, the arguments for imperialistic wars fail on practical grounds, since the imperialistic tendencies of the federal government in recent years has proven costly, ineffective, and counterproductive.

  3. Steve Johnson says:

    It’s funny; the more I come to learn about the reactionary world-view the more I come to agree with the statement “American foreign policy is the primary source of evil in the world” … only not in the way the progressives mean it.

    The United States is almost certainly responsible for militant Islam – in exactly the same way that it is responsible for the Black Panthers and the Weatherman Underground. Militant Islam is the race hustle of the middle east. The United States clearly and obviously supports anyone who is “anti-American” in the same way that someone like Al Sharpton is officially supported.

  4. Gabe Ruth says:

    First, let me say that about 6 months ago I decided Ron Paul was the only candidate I would vote for, regardless of the primary outcome.

    But does anyone else get a vague sense that he is trying to look ridiculous and sound fringy? I try to keep away from the tin foil hat, but for the last few years it seems like that has become an exercise in ignoring my lying eyes.

  5. Handle says:

    For the record, I’m almost entirely in agreement with HalfSigma’s reasoning on Romney, though it’s the very opposite of a “man-crush” situation with me, more of a “hold your nose and vote”. I don’t even vote actually, of course, and neither do I endorse it, but I can theorize about what I’d do if I did.

    If we’re even going to talk about the merits and demerits of the participants in our insane quadrennial horse race – as regards to trying to distinguish between the expected tiny differences in their effects on the country – then Romney is probably the best of a bunch of awful choices.

    Anyway, the only important question is “Obama vs X?” and if X can’t beat Obama, the question is moot. I think Romney is the only X that has any chance of winning, and the “Obama vs. Romney” question comes out, however marginally, in favor of Romney.

    I think the “I’m doing this to keep these issues in the debate / represent the marginalized-by-the-elites segment of society” argument is a flimsy cover for an ego-boost campaign. Even if it’s sincere, I doubt it has any real, salient impact.

    • Foseti says:

      I don’t understand why it matters if Romney or Obama is President. Invade, invite and in hoc marches on either way.

      • Handle says:

        I suppose you’re right, but I like to think on the margin, so even a 10% decrease in messianic savior invasions, crush-our-descendants debts, and underclass-expanding immigration seems a slight improvement to me.

        Take immigration for example. I think even Romney doesn’t have a suicide wish when it comes to maintaining the current Democrat-friendly non-enforcement policies (or suing Arizona and Alabama for immigration enforcement, or South Carolina for anti-fraud Voter-ID laws) which will make his winning a second term impossible.

        Demographics-shaping to achieve population replacement and permanent electoral majority is the Democrat’s grand strategy. Maybe it’s inevitable anyway, but I somehow think Romney won’t be trying to do everything in his power to accelerate the arrival of that day and immanentize the eschaton.

        I suppose the analogous question is whether there is any difference / preferentiability between Mitt Romney’s and Deval Patrick’s Massachusetts. I think the answer is “yes, not much maybe, but some”.

  6. Elusive Wapiti says:

    Thanks for the linkage, Foseti. I’ve been struck with just how strident the putatively ‘conservative’ commentariat has been in their criticism of Paul…and how blithely they all seem to be with the prospect of going to war with Iran.

    I like Paul’s policies, but will admit to having a difficult time imagining him as president. And Simon has a good point in that at this point I’m not sure if I want the one candidate who represents freedom and liberty at the helm as the ship USS America starts to sink. It’s not bad enough yet to shake the bulk of Americans out of their paradigm that *this is the most importantest election ever, therefore I must vote against Obama*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: