Thomas Fleming on the Pauls and the Civil Rights Act

Dr. Fleming is not a man to pull punches. His main point (I think), that any criticism of the Civil Rights Act should include a critique of the egalitarian assumptions that underlie it and the questionable motives that drove it, is sound.

However, I am not sure I agree with his critique of the Pauls, Ron more so than Rand. He seems to argue that politics and politicians are only useful to the degree they actually accomplish something, which requires compromise and pragmatism, but at the same time criticizes Rand for not falling on his sword and questioning egalitarianism. What I think he wants is a righteous truth teller and a political system full of truth tellers, but I am not sure how he expects to get there without tolerating some trimming (compromise and pragmatism) along the way?

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Race, 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.

2 thoughts on “Thomas Fleming on the Pauls and the Civil Rights Act

  1. Chris Hewlett

    Also a straw man was constructed consisting of either Paul surrounded by sycophants. Ron Paul’s record of voting no on almost all measures in the house was declared useless because nothing has come from the effort. I cannot understand the expectations here. What would one expect of one man among 435? I have my distrusts of the Pauls as I am sure all do. Where all the sycophants are I am not sure.

  2. Weaver

    I repeat myself too often, but Sen Robert Taft was praised by Kirk.

    That might be near Fleming’s ideal too.

    Though there’s something to be said for taking a principled stance too. I don’t have an opinion on whether Taft’s or Paul’s approach is more effective – it’d vary I imagine.

    Personally, I’d like to have a more conservative idealist – like the 2 Pauls but not libertarian, just to make conservative views appear good. The 2 Pauls make libertarians appear wonderful.

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>