George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein Joins the Ron Paul Smear Bund

The blog post is about all the GOP candidates. The offending paragraphs are here.

Ron Paul is a tempting protest vote, and I did support him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian, but he strikes me as running less of a “libertarian” campaign than a pacifist, populist campaign that does have some appeal to young and idealistic libertarians, but has too much appeal to the old, paranoid, and racist pseudo-conservatives. There seems to be a right-wing version of the Popular Front mentality among many Paul supporters: just like it was okay for Social Democrats to ally with Stalinists for “Progressive” ends in the old days, it’s okay to ally with 9/11 and various other conspiracy theorists, southern secessionists, Nazis and fascists, anti-Semites and racists, against the common enemy of the modern “welfare-warfare” state. Count me out!…

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, I’ve heard from some Paul supporters urging me to reconsider. Also not surprisingly, none of them have provided any indication that my description of the Paul coalition is inaccurate, or that Paul has gone out of his way to discourage support from the conspiracy-mongers and “white nationalists.”

Note that southern secessionists are lumped in with the rest of the laundry list. So support of a political tactic of disunion and decentralization has also become a thought crime?

As we have explained at length, it is obvious why people of many persuasions who oppose the current Regime are supporting Ron Paul even though they don’t agree with him on some things. Ron Paul is the only candidate who threatens the current Regime. Hence, the hysterical reaction from the shills for the “mainstream.”

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil
This entry was posted in Election 2008, Political Correctness, 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.

14 thoughts on “George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein Joins the Ron Paul Smear Bund

  1. Patroon

    Berstein should first ask himself if anything RP said back in 1988 has changed over the years.

    Then he should ask himself if he’s changed rather than use a bogus strawman as the reason for not supporting RP.

  2. ERIC

    Notice that if you respect God’s laws and you love your family and extended family (race) and you love what use to be your country (if you are white) and love the confederate south, you are called the following:
    1 “old, paranoid, and racist pseudo-conservatives”
    2 “right-wing version of the Popular Front”
    3 “southern secessionists”
    4 “Nazis and fascists”
    5 “anti-Semites and racists”
    6 “conspiracy-mongers”
    7 “white nationalists”

    Well #7 is true of me, altho Bible Believing White Nationalist is a better description of me.

    The more I see articles like this one the more it makes me want to support Ron Paul.
    I don’t see Ron Paul as a Bible Believing White Nationalist, but if the enemies of us continue to portray him in that direction, it only fires me up more and more in the direction of Ron Paul.

  3. Ernest

    I question that Mr Berstien even ever supported Ron Paul in the first place. Funny how he doesn’t address any issues or stated positions only smears him. Very typical. Once again even if RP attracts certain voters and supporters are we going to look at every supporter of ALL candidates to determine thier past, thier criminal background, thier heroes, thier racial outlook etc.?

  4. Filmer Post author

    Patroon, I have seen some video of Paul’s 1988 run and some other stuff from around that time. Paul is amazingly consistent. Paul has always represented what Murray Rothbard called the right-wing populist faction of libertarianism. The only thing I think he has changed substantially on is immigration, and a lot of paleolibertarians came around on that issue after Hoppe’s libertarian defense of immigration restrictions gave them intellectual/ideological cover to do so.

    The New York/DC axis of brie and cheese libertarians and the sex and drug crowd of libertines have never liked Ron Paul. He is too upright and right living. The big city boys think he is a yokel. That is why there was some dissent in Libertarian Party ranks when he was the nominee in 1988.

    Funny how populism has changed. Populism used to be based on calls for more federal programs and money for the populace. But there does not seem to be a widespread movement of that sort anymore. And those that do are generally identifiably leftists (national healthcare, environmental regulations). The people calling for more money are special interests out to protect their piece of the pie. Of course there is broad support for multiple unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc., but now defense of those programs is the mainstream position.

    Now that the government is perceived as out of control, the populist elements that Paul is appealing to want to see the government reigned in, not heaping largess. An amazing change of dynamic.

    I hear very few appeals among Ron Paul’s populist fans to blatant class and wealth envy? I have heard none go after the folks they view as the Elite based on wealth alone. It is based on the perception of their misuse of power and influence. They want to strip them of their power and influence, not redistribute their wealth.

    Also, it is extremely ironic that the “populist” candidate is for the Gold standard.

    I think that one of the reasons John Edwards appeal to the populist left isn’t going anywhere is because that is at present a very small segment of the population and of the left. The left believes the public is to be feared because we are all a bunch of uneducated bigots.

    What may be disturbing Bernstein is the fact that these elements seem larger.

  5. Andrew T.

    In my opinion, Ron Paul changed or refined on immigration just like everyone else did, at least somewhat; in terms of illegal immigration from Mexico, what was once a virtual non-issue that many politicans never felt a need to give a thought to is now the trillion-dollar question.

  6. Danby

    The net content of those paragraphs is:

    “He has many supporters who are Not Of My Tribe. Perhaps he is Not Of My Tribe! He will not drive these people away, therefore he must be driven away himself! Anathema!”

    It used to be a good thing when a politician could build a broad coalition of support. Now it’s a good thing only if that broad coalition of support comes from within the two branches of the War Party.

  7. Pingback: The Volokh Conspiracy

  8. HarrisonBergeron

    Don’t look now, fellas, but we’ve been linked on Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/libertarians–1.html

    “The guilt-by-association thing seems unfair to me. Matt Barganier agrees. Ditto the Rockwell brigade. But this post might prove Bernstein’s point:

    Note that southern secessionists are lumped in with the rest of the laundry list. So support of a political tactic of disunion and decentralization has also become a thought crime?”

    First, David Horowitz screeches about our anti-imperialism stance, now we’ve got Andrew Sullivan reading us. Gee — are we ready for prime time?

  9. r4d20

    Southern Secessionists are soulless subhuman animals. Lincoln should have every white male south of the mason dixon shot. Then we wouldn’t have to deal with pro-southern animalistic scum waving their stars and bars .

  10. Filmer Post author

    “Southern Secessionists are soulless subhuman animals. Lincoln should have every white male south of the mason dixon shot. Then we wouldn’t have to deal with pro-southern animalistic scum waving their stars and bars.”

    Wow! That was an ignorant and hateful rant. r4d20 you may want to try something the rest of us like to call intellectual argument.

  11. HarrisonBergeron

    Now, Filmer, don’t be too hard on the poor thing. Dang fool thinks Lincoln’s still in office. How else could the Great Emancipator have us all shot?

  12. Filmer Post author

    I don’t quite get the Sullivan reference. I made the point that secession is a political tactic and didn’t belong in the laundry list of Nazis and fascists, anti-Semites and racists, blah, blah, blah. How does that prove Berstein’s point? Unless defense of the idea of secession is proof positive of guilt of some sort of thought crime. Maybe that was just the closet thing to “incriminating” Andrew could find in his quick jaunt around the web.

    Actually secession is more than a tactic. Support of secession arises from a belief about government that goes against the modern conception of the nation state, but I seriously doubt that Bernstein was giving it that much thought. He was using Southern secessionists as a slur equivalent to Nazi, racist and anti-Semite. I guess the Vermont secessionists are all those things also.

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>