Posted under Culture War & Election 2012 & Republican Party & Ron Paul
I said at the time that Ron Paul’s vote on repealing DADT is going to hurt him if he decided to run for President again. It has already started.
The problem with his vote to repeal DADT is that it contributes to two impression that Ron Paul is going to have to overcome to do well in Republican primaries and caucuses - that he endorses moral relativism (as libertarians, rightly or wrongly, are perceived by many to do) and that he is weak on the military.
First of all, an authentic conservative should be “weak” on the military because the military needs to be radically downsized to a size appropriate to defend the country instead of run an empire, but voters in Republican primaries aren’t there yet. Also, there is a difference between making a principled case for downsizing the military and forcing on them a PC policy they didn’t want. This gives military hawks who don’t like Paul’s non-interventionism a weapon to attack him. This is clearly what uber-hawk Donnelly is doing in the linked article.
Second, Paul’s libertarianism and strict constitutionalism sometimes runs him afoul of some “values voters” who want the federal government to “do something” about this or that moral issue, but Paul has always been good about finessing those issues on principle without coming off like a libertarian moral relativist.
But, IMO, the DADT issue can’t be finessed in such a way. The military is a decidedly unlibertarian institution by its very nature. It prohibits and requires all sorts of things. There is no reason it can’t prohibit homosexual behavior in its ranks if it believes such to be contrary to good order and discipline. You can’t impose libertarianism on the military. If so, why not repeal all the regulations regarding hair length or uniform wear?
Don’t get me wrong, I still support Ron Paul for President. This isn’t a deal breaker for me, but while I can argue against federal drug laws or a federal definition of marriage on principled constitutionalist grounds, I can’t defend his vote on DADT.
Chris Hewlett on 29 Apr 2011 at 6:46 pm #
Ron Paul and immigration??? I believe Numbers USA has given him a C- (I might be wrong). He’s too libertarian to be on the right side of the immigration debate.
RedPhillips on 29 Apr 2011 at 7:07 pm #
Chris, I think the Numbers USA grade can be misleading. I think of it in terms of the likelihood that the candidate will do something bad or good if elected.
For example, might Newt cave on amnesty? Absolutely. Would Paul? No way. Might Paul move on birthright citizenship? Yes. Would Newt? Not a chance.
And Paul was one of the first people to support getting rid of birthright citizenship, and in 2008 he was the only candidate on the record about that other than Tancredo as far as I recall. (Maybe Duncan Hunter?)
I think the bigger concern is that Paul’s success could lead to a wider embrace of philosophical libertarianism. Libertarianism is a simplistic reductionistic philosophy and therefore appeals to a lot of people who are seeking simple answers to complex problems. A lot of philosophical libertarians are open borders ideologues.
Chris Hewlett on 29 Apr 2011 at 7:22 pm #
I look at it rather simplistically as well. The first thing that needs to happen is legislation must be passed. This requires Big Government. After legislation is passed it must be enforced. For the illegal part of the problem this enforcement means boots on the ground – Big Government boots. Heads will be cracked (even though we think lovely thoughts). Will Paul spearhead this? Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably vote for him in a primary and certainly in a general election.
Chris Hewlett on 29 Apr 2011 at 8:01 pm #
An article about Paul’s immigration views is on the Vdare website.
http://www.vdare.com/indexb.asp
Bede on 29 Apr 2011 at 8:39 pm #
Paul is much better than he used to be on immigration. Still, he’s not great; I was disappointed he didn’t use his vast email lists to bolster opposition to Obama’s recent Dream Act (although Paul himself voted against it). Paul seems unaware of the problems of legal immigration but is sound on birthright citizenship and border enforcement. He’s definitely not a Gary Johnson. I only wish Paul would make opposition to immigration a higher priority.
Update:
This just published on Paul on immigration is quite disappointing:
http://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/110428_immigration.htm
Is Paul moving closer to Gary Johnson?
Pml on 15 Oct 2011 at 2:53 am #
By all means lets penalize him; you know you can’t be conservative unless you are crazy Christian and against civil rights!! Grow up conservatives! I consider myself an educated conservative but I don’t think it is my right to infringe on someone else’s rights to pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!
No Cain Do « That's-a-Fact: Telling it like it is. on 21 Oct 2011 at 8:05 pm #
[...] terribly frightens me and lacks serious vision to be our commander in chief. His vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not once but twice is also appalling since he is a medical doctor by trade and his F grade on [...]