Posted under Election 2012 & Interventionism & NeoCons & Neoliberals & Ron Paul
Over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord (see Dan Phillips’ post below) is whooping it up because Ron Paul didn’t win the Iowa caucus. In Lord’s view, Iowa Republicans stood up for conservatism – which to him, means perpetual war:
The Ron Paul Non-Cons have tonight been effectively marginalized.
Whatever else comes out of this Iowa Caucus night, one thing is clear: conservatives — Reagan conservatives — triumphed.
The combined vote of Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and even the moderate Mitt Romney swamped Ron Paul’s controversial and decidedly non-conservative foreign policy.
As this is written, either Santorum or Romney are first, the other second. Between them that’s about 50% of the vote to Ron Paul’s 25% or so.
Which clearly means that no matter how Congressman Paul — a good and decent man with a wildly left-wing foreign policy — spins the results, his ideas have taken a thorough beating. His candidacy and his controversial foreign policy views have effectively been sent packing.
As well they should. There is nothing remotely historically conservative about Paul’s views.
Congressman Paul is partly to blame for this perception. He effectively endorsed this view at the Sioux City debate on December 15. The moderator accused Paul of “running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran” because he, unlike Santorum and Bachmann, had ruled out a pre-emptive war. This was Paul’s great chance to make mincemeant of the notion that conservatism equals war, and leftism, peace, but he let it slip away.
It was the Neocons who redefined conservatism as the aggressive use of force to promote “democracy.” George W. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq as part of the “global democratic revolution.” The so-called “Neoconservatives” evolved (mutated?) from leftists who smuggled their revolutionary ideology inside conservative language. Thus, it became possible to appeal to such conservative values as patriotism and honor to promote leftist goals.
No wonder so many liberals were dazzled by this new rhetoric. In addition to leftists such as Christopher Hitchens, Dianne Feinstein, and Alan Dershowitz, the liberal media fell into line to back Bush’s Iraqi war. In 2002, when “shock and awe” was still a glimmer in Donald Rumsfeld’s eye, NPR featured this report entitled, “Bush’s National Security Strategy”, with TALK OF THE NATION host Neal Conan and NPR correspondent Mike Schuster:
SHUSTER: So they’re tying notions of liberty that come from the way the United States emerged into the world and the values that have operated in the United States for more than 200 years. And they’re saying that the expansion of those ideas is in the national security of the United States.
CONAN: It’s a pretty idealistic thought in a way.
SHUSTER: Yes.
Yes, isn’t that idealistic? And what a seductive dialectic of liberalism and conservatism. Or, more accurately, tough-talking patriotism at the service of liberalism.
In fact, the use of force to usher in liberty is a completely leftist notion. It’s the world view of anarchists and communists, not conservatives, who know that liberty is a natural outgrowth of culture. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, knew that rights came from “longstanding custom and practice” rather than theory or from outside imposition.
In fact, conservatives realize that war is more likely to lead to tyranny and chaos, not liberty. Senator Robert Taft expressed the traditional conservative position on war when he said, “No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted to the protection of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.” Many well-known conservatives opposed Bush’s wars for just that reason, including Patrick Buchanan, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese [a League of the South member], Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos. They were condemned as “unpatriotic conservatives” by the war party’s mouthpieces.
Instead of promoting liberty, DC’s wars have given us The PATRIOT Act, which authorized warrantless wiretaps, and the National Defense Authorization Act, which claims the government can arrest Americans and hold them INDEFINITELY without bringing charges against them. Perpetual war has constructed an all-powerful government with an unbreakable grip on our lives and property.
So who’s advocating the REAL conservative position, Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum?
Sempronius on 05 Jan 2012 at 7:33 pm #
“So who’s advocating the REAL conservative position, Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum?”
Neither. Opposition to current wars is insufficient. Because it is insufficient it can’t succeed. And because it can’t succeed it is just as culpable as it’s opposite.
Sempronius docet…
Kirt Higdon on 05 Jan 2012 at 7:44 pm #
It just isn’t feasible to walk the public through the intellectual history of various ideas and terms in the course of a political campaign or debate. Plus leftist, rightist, liberal, conservative, etc. are no longer useful terms, simply names to be called. What’s needed is to persuade people that starting wars is wrong, even if done by Americans. But this moral education must come well before the election campaign.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 05 Jan 2012 at 9:05 pm #
Sempronius,
Point taken, and seconded. But the main point is that conservatism sure as hell ain’t, “War! War! War!”
Before we can start working toward a real liberty agenda, we have to stop the crazies from making things even worse.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 05 Jan 2012 at 9:09 pm #
Kirt Higdon,
“leftist, rightist, liberal, conservative, etc. are no longer useful terms, simply names to be called.”
It certainly isn’t a meaningful distinction these days, not when the real threat is an overgrown, destructive central government with no real opposition. Frankly, I sometimes wonder how we can pursue “moral education” in a society dominated by amoral, atomized zombies.
C Bowen on 06 Jan 2012 at 1:29 am #
Semp. does has a nifty way out of moral responsibility.
Of course to the extent his angle has a populist political expression, it can be found in Northern European Black Metal, early-mid ’90s–guessing he is about my age, where indeed, War, War, War is considered human virtue.
Until that catches fire (inside joke–wait, didn’t it already in neoconservatism?), not sure what to take from his dismissive.
Nate Weinstein on 06 Jan 2012 at 4:38 am #
Yes, Ron Paul is a leftist. In fact he is to the left of Obama and is the most liberal person to ever run for president. Ron Paul is a dangerous man.
Aaron on 06 Jan 2012 at 9:46 am #
I agree with Kirt, these names are mostly just curse words to throw at your opponents. If “it was the Neocons who redefined conservatism as the aggressive use of force to promote `democracy’,” then William Buckley and the 1950s National Review conservatives and pretty much the whole conservative movement since the 1950s were all Neocons. And in fact, the National Review people were called the New Conservatives in the 1950s. But I don’t think “Neocon” is usually meant to refer to Whitaker Chambers or James Burnham.
I do disagree with Kirt about
propagandaeducation. The presidential campaign is the best time to educate people. Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination. What he’s out there for is to spread his ideology.By the way, the “Unpatriotic Conservatives” article made it absolutely clear that it was not calling anyone unpatriotic because of opposition to the Iraq War. I’m not defending that article at all, but this distortion of its contents is one of the Big Lies of the paleo (or whatever it’s called now) right.
Kirt Higdon on 06 Jan 2012 at 11:50 am #
Aaron, I referred specifically to moral education. Certainly you can do some education on specific policy issues during a campaign simply because more people are paying attention, although this also provides greater occasion for the spread of misinformation. But if someone considers wars of aggression or abortion or sodomy to be very moral choices (and a huge chunk of the electorate does), they are not going to change their mind about this because of what a politician says in a campaign. It is possible that they could be deceived or deceive themselves about what a politician actually believes or does or has done, but they won’t change their basic moral orientation.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 06 Jan 2012 at 2:33 pm #
Nate Weinstein,
Did you bother to read my post before commenting? Do you have any reasons for saying what you did, or do you think simply stomping your foot and saying, “Is too!” a logical argument?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 06 Jan 2012 at 2:42 pm #
Aaron,
Here’s how Frum summed up his hit piece:
“They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.
War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.”
Translation: If you don’t click your heels and salute whenever the CIC dispatches the armed forces, you’re turning against your country. It doesn’t matter if the president’s act is legal or not, or what harm it will do; good Americans are supposed to fall in line.
Are you happy with the actual results of these wars? I’d say that anyone who accepts the surrender of our Bill of Rights is the anti-American.
DanPhillips on 06 Jan 2012 at 6:08 pm #
Aaron may be technically right that Frum didn’t call anyone unpatriotic for opposing the war alone although one has to read the quote above with a lot of nuance to get that. But Aaron is practically wrong. Frum’s problem is that he does not (can not?) distinguish between the country and the Regime. A person could hate the Regime without hating the country. Frum doesn’t (can’t?) see that. For Frum the Regime is an inseparable part of the country, so if you hate the Regime you hate the Country.
Kyle Kopelovich on 07 Jan 2012 at 8:02 am #
The only thing I disagree with Jeffry Lord about is when he says Ron Paul is a “good and decent man.” What kind of good and decent man would ever support his enemies over his own country? And where was Ron Paul on 9/11/2000 during the Clinton administration when these dastardly acts of terror? Probably aborting babies in texas. Ron Paul makes me sick.
Kyle Kopelovich on 07 Jan 2012 at 8:04 am #
Kirt – I am proud family values voter who supports the war on terror and loves Israel and America. What is more moral, If I may ask – Sodomy or letting America be struck by terror?
Aaron on 07 Jan 2012 at 10:17 am #
The idea is to read the whole article, not skip to the last lines. It looks pretty clear to me: “The antiwar conservatives aren’t satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable.” In other words, he’s not criticizing people for saying that waging war against Iraq is stupid.
You guys have been nursing your resentment over this article, which I agree was a cheap shot, for a decade. Resentment seems to be the fuel that powered the paleo movement, which largely explains why the paleo movement didn’t last very long.
If you can’t move on after a decade, then at least tell the truth. If you don’t owe the truth to David Frum, at least you owe it to your readers.
C Bowen on 07 Jan 2012 at 1:37 pm #
Aaron;
We don’t intend to ever let ‘them’ forget they lied their own country into a war with a propaganda campaign that involved linking Saddam to 9/11.
They are criminals, not just ideological adversaries.
May we constantly remind them.
Kirt Higdon on 07 Jan 2012 at 1:44 pm #
I for one have never read the celebrated article and if I hold any resentment against Frum, it’s for his invention of the axis of evil fantasy and his explicit support of the related fantasy that the proper object of US foreign policy should be the removal of evil from the world. So Frum graciously gives us permission to consider it stupid to wage wars of aggression and conquest. But apparently we’re not permitted to consider any of the actions or personnel of the US or Israeli regimes to be evil. Evil applies only to the enemies of the aforementioned regimes. Yeah, right.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 07 Jan 2012 at 2:46 pm #
Kyle Kopelovich,
My friend, you need to change your YouTube password, because OBVIOUSLY some hacker has taken over your YouTube page and posted a video making the most unintentionally comical statements I have ever seen on the Internet, and I’ve seen a lot.
The video shows clips of Paul with the following lunatic accusations against him:
- Liberal
- Non-Kosher Anti-Semitic Cookbook [what?]
- Raises money from drug dealers
- Wife-swapper [Paul has been married 50 years to his high school sweetheart]
- His supporters include “the Cu Clux Klan.”
- Creationist Atheist and homophobe queer
- Ron Paul is Iranian [Paul was born in Pennsylvania of Irish and German parents]
- Pro-Maoist
- Abortionist [despite the fact that Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion."]
- Too old and white and weak and unathletic to be president
- Rides a bike without a helmet setting a bad example for children
- Doesn’t look both ways before crossing the street
- Drunk driver
- Votes against every tax increase that fund our troops because Ron Paul hates troops and Israel
Of course, most people will take one look at that video and, like me, will only laugh their butts off, because such loony accusations are either Onion-style satire or composed by someone who’s been sniffing glue.
But there are morons out there who will take these statements as actual assertions, and would believe them to be libelous, such as the accusation that Ron Paul is a drunk driver. So my advice to you is to delete your YouTube account, get a better password, and start over.
Quickly, before anyone else sees them.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 07 Jan 2012 at 4:39 pm #
Aaron,
Nonsense. Here’s what Frum said:
“They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation’s enemies.”
As “proof,” Frum cited warnings that Afghanistan had successfully resisted occupiers in the past, and would do the same to the US. And what has happened?
That’s not defeatism; that’s reality. Since when did warning about an unwise action constitute siding with the enemy?
DanPhillips on 07 Jan 2012 at 6:03 pm #
Aaron, people like Frum can’t separate criticism of the policies of the Regime from an emotional feeling toward the country. This is more of a visceral emotional problem than an intellectual one. If you say that America’s foreign policy contributed to 9/11, to them it is like talking bad about their mother. This is why people get hysterical when anyone suggests blowback even though no rational semi-intelligent person can deny the phenomenon of blowback.
The public face of the neoconservative project rests on an entirely fanciful narrative that has America as forever and always an “exceptional” country whose designs have always been benevolent. While they may grudgingly admit some digressions such as slavery or male only suffrage all those things were speed bumps that we had to overcome on our way to perfecting our ideal. So a liberal who brings up slavery or points out some less than benevolent financial motive or whatever is said to “hate America.” (Some do I’m sure, but not because they are telling the truth.) Likewise, a conservative who says our meddling contributed to the resentment that fueled 9/11 is not making a rational argument but is “blaming America.” “No, they actually hate us because of our wonderfulness.”
Because this is largely an emotional and not an intellectual thing, I do think that it is important to be careful with our rhetoric. And I do think that sometimes our side says things and in ways that are unhelpful. And if the inability to separate Regime from country works in one direction, then it likely works in the other direction as well. Meaning I do think some anti-Regimists sometimes cross the line to becoming anti-country. The problem with Frum’s article is that he didn’t try to make rational intellectual distinctions and provoke an honest discourse. He intentionally played on emotions to affect his desired outcome, the purge of anti-war conservatives. This is demagoguery.
Also, I agree that there is something to be said about not publicly harping on the deficiencies of family, friends, country, etc. This is a matter of prudence and decorum. The son who publicly blabs about his mother’s alcohol problem may well be extracting emotional revenge. So there is something to be said about not always harping on the deficiencies of one’s country. But there can’t be a prohibition on criticizing one’s government either and expect it to not get out of line based on its own wonderfulness.
Bruce on 08 Jan 2012 at 10:11 am #
Aaron,
I read the article only once and it was several years ago. But did it occur to you that maybe Frum was talking out of both sides of his mouth? Trying to have it both ways? Saying what the paleocons believe he was saying while maintaining deniability by adding that line that you quote to the end of the article?
Bruce on 08 Jan 2012 at 10:12 am #
Oops, the line you quote wasn’t at the end. Same question for you, though.
Aaron on 08 Jan 2012 at 4:38 pm #
Hey, guys, I agree with a lot of your complaints about that NR article. You’re pushing against an open door, OK?
Bruce, I think Frum was consistent about not calling anyone unpatriotic just for opposing the Iraq War. That’s just from memory; I’m not going to go through the article again and check.
Larry on 12 Jan 2012 at 4:20 am #
Going down the list of arguments I find it amazing even on both sides of the arguments because most of what you guys are talking about is over my head, well at least for now.
But did I get this correct, conservatives did not use to be for war but now it is considered unpatriotic if not for it… so now people who call themselves conservatives who support the wars are really expressing views from the left?
If so, then wow!!! This would change the game for me over all this talk talk talk about Iran getting a nuke and Iraq, Afghanistan wars.
Blows me away because they talk like they are the best conservatives for propping up the wars and starting the propaganda for an Iranian war and I did not think this was right and never understood, but if I have this correct then I now I know why it did not seem correct.
Also if this is correct shouldn’t someone say, Hey dummy this is not conservative, who trying to kid?