Posted under Constitution Party & Election 2012 & Ron Paul & Virgil Goode
Antle has a post up at American Spectator asking if Paul supporters will be willing to support Virgil Goode. It is referencing Antle’s Goode article at The American Conservative that is linked to in a post below.
So who would the Ron Paul supporters angry at Rand Paul for his Mitt Romney endorsement rather vote for? For the more conservative among them, a candidate is Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode…
But his foreign policy record is closer to Romney’s than Paul’s…
Goode’s problem is that he developed his conservatism in a mainstream “conservative” milieu. Now he finds himself in a “far right” milieu, and he doesn’t know the ropes. But I think he is figuring out that his milieu has changed and that the old answers don’t suffice any more. The far-right is not just the mainstream right on steroids. The far-right has fully embraced non-interventionism. Hawkish interventionist “conservatives” are still very happy in the GOP (Why shouldn’t they be?) and are not going to vote third party. The kinds of conservatives who are willing to entertain voting third party are disproportionately non-interventionists.
Crossposted at IPR minus the editorial content.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:35 pm #
Minor quibble, if I personally find important, “The far-right has agreed to coalesce around the political term non-interventionism.”
If the wars are for Israel, there are implications.
If the wars are for the UN, implications.
If the wars are for oil, implications.
If the wars are for the Banksters and the MIC, still more implications.
For the meantime, we are attempting to rally people around a noble sounding term, non-interventionism, but we should recognize there are at least four paths to the position, and Goode makes clear, he is not familiar with any of them, and not from them.
Who Lied? will always hang in the background.
Sean Scallon on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:17 pm #
“The kinds of conservatives who are willing to entertain voting third party are disproportionately non-interventionists.”
You’re absolutely right Red and all of this must be a disconcerting experience for Goode who probably has never been exposed to these arguments before.
Actually, Goode is test case for non-interventionism as a part of conservative thinking. If someone from his background and place, (southwest Virginia) which in all reality is really the center of conservative sentiment these days, can work his way to a non-interventionist platform, than others can too outside of reach military-industrial complex i.e. living near military bases or factories of veteran retiree centers.
Feltan on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:43 am #
If any political party in the US makes common cause with Islam, I think it is fair to say their days are over — and until those days are over I imagine they will be a focal point of ridicule.
Imagine making some loose pact with Islam, and a month later another Islamic motivated terrorist strike happens on US soil.
Come on. I think the CP needs allies, but I would choose differently.
Regards,
Feltan
Feltan on 15 Jun 2012 at 11:19 am #
Organized terrorism is a tactic used by many organizations, radical Islam being one of them — perhaps currently the prime utlizer.
What I object to is “declaring war on terrorism.” This concept is silly because it isn’t a real declaration of war in any constitutional sense, and declaring war on a tactic is stupid — we didn’t declare war on “bliztkrieg,” we declared war on Germany.
All wars/confilcts come to an end. What is going to make our current misadventrue in Iraq/Afghanistan/Yemmen, etc. difficult to resolve is that we have never characterized and named our enemy. Our political leaders are so weak, that naming the enemy is verging on political incorrectness. And how, exactly, do you come to terms with an enemy the Government doesn’t have the political will to name and declare war against — a real declaration of war by Congress?
Yes, radical Islam and Islamic NGO organizations do practice organized terrorism. But, realy, they are little different from the Barbary Pirates of yesteryear. Somehow, a long time ago, we were able to deal with the Barbary Pirates without trashing our Constitution in the process.
Regards,
Feltan
Feltan on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:45 pm #
No, and I don’t know what “FR” is.
Regards,
Feltan
RedPhillips on 16 Jun 2012 at 8:22 pm #
FR = Free Republic
aware on 17 Jun 2012 at 4:54 pm #
Red, I follow your comments at the American Spectator and always find them good. Though I am an anarcho-capitalist, I find much affinity with paleos.
I see interventionism as a state of mind that permeates all aspects of the one who holds it. “Foreign” interventionists are just as apt to do so domestically. Goode may be good on some things but he, like all pretenders, lacks the critical key to a coherent political philosophy: understanding the nature and pathology of the State, and the psychology of those drawn to it. Washington called it a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
I suspect that Goode can easily see the State as a force for “good” and once that is accepted there is no turning back. Then layer by later, the machine is built. Objections are swept aside, power is accumulated. Soon you are where we are now, where no aspect or endeavor of society is considered beyond the control of the State.
What comes next is the engineer who knows how to operate the machine so laboriously built.