Richard Brookhiser Bashes Ron Paul

At Nationalist Review, surprise, surprise.

Richard Brookhiser is an extreme nationalist. He has written several books defending the Federalist, and he is on the record as very pro-Union/anti-secession. In other words, he is a Hobbesian statist. Ron Paul represents an extreme threat to his statist world view. Of course Brookhiser sees the problem as libertarians and pascifists (the other), but he should realize that authentic conservatives reject the modern Hobbesian nation state as well.

Most—maybe all—libertarians acknowledge a right to self defense. But in the modern world this cannot be done by militias. It requires a military industrial complex, with all the attendant consequences.

That is a bit of a straw man. The Founders presupposed a standing Navy (I agree) and disagreed over the need for a standing Army. The mainland could easily be defended from invasion by a militia.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Interventionism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul on by .

About Filmer

Filmer is the Conservative Times username for a paleoconservative political activist. For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Sir. Robert Filmer (1588 - 1653) is a largely forgotten English political theorist who deserves more attention from conservative scholars. He was a (the?) main contemporary opponent to Locke and his social contract theory. Possibly as an artifact of Kirk, modern conservatives have largely stopped tracing conservative thought at Burke. This is unfortunate. A potential outcome of this is that you are just as likely to hear "conservatives" spouting Lockean silliness as you are liberals. Hopefully a revival of conservative interest in Filmer will be awakened by the increased interest in paleoconservatism.

4 thoughts on “Richard Brookhiser Bashes Ron Paul

  1. Patroon

    Pencil head, boy anyone who’s looked at Brookheiser lately could say the same thing. Hey Rich, Jeffery Hart thinks you’ve sold out to the neocons.

    At least Brookheiser will engage in the debate and admits the modern state needs the military industrial complex, even if that complex couldn’t stop 9-11 from happening. Maybe I would agree with him if there wasn’t that little documanet call the Constitution which renders the military-industrial complex as illegal.

    You remember the Constitution don’t you Rich you professor of American history? What’s that? The modern states doesn’t require the Constitution anymore? Boy you and the “organic menaing” liberals have more in common that you realize or admit to realize.

  2. Andrew T.

    In the western modern context, the term “liberal” refers to a pseudo-Marxist. “Neoconservatives”, particularly the founders of the ideology, were former Marxists. Connect the dots indeed.

  3. roho

    Brookhiser like all “Straussians” feels that the world should stay in a constant state of revolution. And the Military Industrial Complex should be available like any other product for exportation. Unfortunately, if all of our manufacturing base is offshore, it will be most difficult to gear-up for a legitemate war that may some day be of real significance to America. I can’t see the return to pre Reagan military strength, but “Walking softly and carrying a big stick” is a good old policy. With 5-6 globalists on the GOP ticket, Neocons need to attack Paul in order for Israel to continue to control our middleast policy.

  4. Pingback: The American Conservative » Conservative INC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>