Posted under Conservatism & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy & Race & Ron Paul
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?
Chris Hewlett on 26 May 2010 at 7:59 pm #
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.
Weaver on 28 May 2010 at 2:57 am #
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.