Sorry Ron Paul

I've liked Ron Paul forever... or at least since 2007 when I first mentioned him on my blog. He's the only libertarian conservative running for the Republican nomination for President this year, the only constitutional literalist running for the Republican nomination for President this year. He may have some crazy thoughts regarding fiscal policy, but he played all the right social issue chords and role-of-government melodies with me.

I wouldn't vote for him anymore (though I would have before), because his fiscal policy is too severe a bludgeon in a time that requires more tact and gentle approaches to a shaky economy, but at least he is consistent. He is an old-school fiscal and governmental conservative with liberal views on society and government's need to stay out of it... just like me.

Unfortunately, he was at one point in time, a virulent, unabashed, dyed-in-the-wool racist, anti-Semite, homophobe, and conspiracy theorist of the highest tin-foil-hat-wearing order, and published all of those facts repeatedly in a regular personal newsletter. I knew it was sort of bad 4 years ago, and I figured: The guy's a bit of a kooky old man, allow him a few peccadilloes that he can deny and we can ignore if anyone ever asks. (If I had been more seriously examining him as a candidate, instead of just "pondering", I may have been a little serious about looking into the content of those "newsletters", but I wasn't, so I waffled on the racism stuff.)

But of course, now the newsletters are front and center... and they are bad. And now Ron Paul's denials are front and center... and they are weak.

Sorry Ron Paul. I gave you a whole heaping plateful of spaghetti-a-la-benefit-de-la-doubt and it was not nearly enough.

You no longer appear to me as a rough-edged old coot with a heart cast from American Gold Eagles, the hand-me-down spirit of John Jay, Adam Smith's blood, and Oakshott's tongue. Now I see a sad old politician trying to dodge reasonable questions, avoid responsibility, deny culpability... while at the same time (as we all deep down knew would happen), more newsletters with your signature on them are being discovered filled with ever-nastier white-supremacist content.

I'm sorry we can't find a better person to put your ideas in, because those ideas of yours... and those ideas alone... are worth something to this country. And the country will be all the poorer as nobody will appreciate those ideas because they are coming from the person who is Ron Paul.

Republicans Suddenly Realize Paulites Are Cool

After this last political campaign, you probably can't blame proponents of Ron Paul (myself being of the quasi-exuberant variety) for experiencing a little acrimonious red-headed stepchild syndrome vis-a-vis their unemployed and alcoholic Republican parents.

But, even Republicans are finding it hard to deny that the only Republican... er, intelligent, qualified, non-Alaskan Republican... that generated any Obamaesque enthusiasm this last election was that off-the-wall constitutional literalist from Texas.

Now, surprise! Barely a few short months after ranking the Ron Paul supporters just slightly above NAMBLA members, the Republicans are talking about bringing those selfsame Paulites on board the All-New GOP Express Train To Success. In fact, at the recent Meet The Candidates forum for guys running to be the leader of the Republican National Committee, all they could talk about was how Paulites are just teh awsum.

See? That's all Republicans have to do: Get all the people they just recently stultified and demonized to support them.

Good look with that. I'm sure this is only the beginning of a new public relations campaign to win back all of the people they insulted or scapegoated or declared un-American/un-Christian over the past decade.

I sure can't wait to see the campaign to convince the 42 million erstwhile illegal-immigrant job-stealing wall-requiring Che-loving terrorists... otherwise known as America's Hispanic population... that the Republican Party is the best place for their Catholic Conservative voices to be heard.

---

UPDATE:

By the way, as an afterthought: Each candidate who spoke at the RNC Candidate's forum said essentially the same thing. "I disagree with everything Ron Paul believes and says, but his supporters sure are great!"

Note to these guys: Nobody supported Ron Paul because he was a good campaigner, charismatic, or even viable. They supported him because he was as close to the modern embodiment of Burkean conservative thought as could be found. Republicans aren't going to get a single Paulite/constitutionalist to join their ranks when they speak fraternal platitudes to them out of one side of their mouths, and supercilious dismissal of their classical conservative philosophy out of the other.

I personally think that nothing has actually changed: These Republican leaders just took the opportunity to toss out some smarmy niceties to disaffected portions of their party with the goal of appearing inclusive. Other than as an abstraction, they don't believe what they say.

A Long Essay On How The Republican Party Lost Me

Ryan Sager in Reason Online writes an article about what the Republican party did to my political leanings:

Back in 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush's political savior, Karl Rove, was performing nothing short of an electoral resurrection, running around South Carolina calling Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) an unpatriotic, illegitimate-black-baby-fathering Manchurian Candidate.

I favored John McCain back in that election. It was my third presidential election since becoming politically savvy in 1992. I had followed the Republican campaign to impeach Clinton, and found it a rather tasteless and mean-spirited effort, but I didn't let it change my Republican leanings. But watching Carl Rove's slimy tricks against McCain in the primary was a real turn-off for me. Watching Republicans ignorantly fall for those tricks was the deal breaker. It was the first election I didn't vote Republican, and voted Libertarian instead: It was the first time I witnessed (with the help of the internet) the angry, strongly-Christian-yet-dishonest underbelly of the Republican party, and the portion of the party they represented. Of course that had always been there, but I never really paid attention.

Who could have guessed that eight years later, the senator from Arizona would be dedicating the remainder of his political life to finishing Karl Rove's good works on Earth?

I know. In this 2008 election, I favored Ron Paul as the Republican candidate (and I might even have voted for him over Obama), and put him ahead of John McCain because Paul's strict constitutionalism and stark conservatism is music to my ears. I never disliked John McCain until he actually won this nomination and let his moderate conservativism be overshadowed by campaign tactics that were originally used against him by Carl Rove. Bob Dole never did that, even when he knew he was sure to lose if he didn't.

And yet, as McCain runs around the country this fall, calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) an unpatriotic, socialistic terrorist-paller-around-with, it seems he's taken it upon himself to complete what should be called the Rove Realignment.

No, not the once-envisioned "rolling realignment," under which the Republican Party would add to its base of white Evangelical Protestants, bringing in Hispanics, culturally conservative African Americans, and economically vulnerable whites—those who supported Medicare Part D and opposed gay marriage in equal measure—to create a "permanent" Republican majority that would last at least a generation.

That "rolling realignment" could have happened at one point. Most people are conservative about the majority of things that get discussed in politics. Liberal domestic policies and government programs have never gained much traction with Americans. In my early years, when it came to politics, I was budget-focused. (I still am.) I always sided with the Republicans in fiscal matters. When it came to the Religious Right's occasional pushing of their pet issues and pulling of the Republican party strings, my favorite thing to say was, "You can't legislate morality." What I was saying was: The religious right will never get the Republican party to give up its conservative foundations. I'm sure that's what most people thought. Then the new milenium, and the new Republican party showed up.

Click here for the rest of the article.

McCain's working on the other realignment: The one where eight years of fiscal recklessness and cultural warfare alienates swing voters and withers the Republican Party until the very base of the conservative movement cracks in half—splitting a coalition that has endured since the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964.

Yeah. I'll skip how the "conservative" party ran up the national debt into the trillions. Cultural warfare really was what it was all about for me originally: The religious right from 1996 to 2006 steered the Republicans right over a cliff with their dogma (for me, Terri Schiavo is the apotheosis of that time) but I jumped ship just before all that. The libertarian-style Republicans (holding on by a thread when the Contract With America brought them roaring back in 1994) lost control to the Religious Right probably because of Clinton's reelection. First, they went after Clinton (reasonable but tacky in a down-to-their-level kind of way). Then, they smeared the Pro-Choice McCain straight out of his election bid, and got George Bush into the White House. Then, after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, they learned to use fear as their primary political tool and use tests of faith and patriotism to smear their opponents instead of engaging them on the issues.

Who were the Republicans ever going to win over with those tactics? Not me... but it sure did "play well to the base" (those scum who perpetuated the "McCain's black baby" lie, and the retards who believed it). In the end, after all the Religious Right had done to the Republican party, McCain's nomination of Palin almost didn't seem surprising in a way. McCain could have nominated James Dobson and I wouldn't have been surprised.

That coalition between social conservatives and economic libertarians (who tend to be socially moderate to liberal), served the GOP well from 1964 to 2006. It gave the party eight years of Ronald Reagan and 12 years of a Republican Congress. But the Bush years have proven to be one long pulling apart. And, in a matter of days, we may just see the final snap.

Actually, it didn't serve the GOP well from 2000 to 2006. That was the problem: Libertarian-leaning Republicans generally didn't figure shit out in the 2000 elections (though some of us did). If they had, the Republican party wouldn't have had 8 years to paint itself into the ideological corner it finds itself in now. In the 2002 elections, people got suckered into making the "fear" vote... the save-us-from-the-terrorists vote.

By 2004, a large portion of the libertarian-leaning Republicans had gotten a clue... but nobody wanted to vote for Kerry. I'm surprised that enough people were able to hold their nose and re-elect Bush, but there it was. Republicans gained congressional seats in 2004 only in the deep South... the heart of Religious Right territory, but lost elsewhere. That was the beginning.

In 2006 though, voter dissatisfaction with the Religious Right's control of the Republican party really showed up with a vengeance. Unfortunately, the Republican party's attitude was only half-hearted to making change... and the Religious Right's leash was not coming off.

In 2008, the Republicans (those who were still around after 8 years anyway) finally figured stuff out, and nominated McCain over at least two other candidates that the Religious Right would have preferred. Unfortunately, McCain ran up against a perfect storm with his campaign: Being a Republican following the most unpopular Republican President in American history, some of the worst economic conditions since The Great Depression, and the other team's game-changing barrier-breaking candidate. What did candidate McCain do? Something very stupid: He turned to the Religious Right and asked, "What do I do?" Hence, McCain's campaign to date.

The Cato Institute has done excellent work over the last few years tracking the shift in the libertarian vote—the roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of the American public that can be categorized as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Based on an analysis of the American National Election Studies, Cato found that between 2000 and 2004, there was a substantial flight of libertarians away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats. While libertarians preferred Bush by a margin of 52 points over Al Gore in 2000, that margin shrank to 21 points in 2004, when many libertarians—disaffected by the Iraq war, massive GOP spending increases, and the campaign against gay marriage—switched to John Kerry.

Like I said, I'm just surprised it took Libertarians so long to jump ship.

I'm equally surprised that the Republicans didn't figure out that with their bloated budget and mean-spirited and often wacky religious/moral legislative efforts (remember Terri Schiavo?) that the only reason they were still able to call themselves "conservative" was because nobody else was interested in laying claim to the title.

Polling on libertarian voters is somewhat sparse during elections, but there are a couple of data points and some broad trends that can give us an idea of where things stand now. An early October Zogby Interactive poll found that self-identified libertarians (about 6 percent of the poll's sample) give McCain only 36 percent of their vote, lower than the 45 percent and 42 percent Zogby found them giving Bush in the last two elections. The libertarian voters claim to be defecting mainly to Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr and other third-party candidates, not to Obama. A Gallup poll conducted in September, which identified libertarian-minded voters with a series of ideological questions about the role of government in the economy and society (pegging them at around 23 percent of the electorate), found that only 43 percent of these voters plan pull the lever for McCain, slightly fewer than did for Bush in 2004. The Gallup poll also finds a significant uptick in libertarians planning to vote third-party, with 3.5 percent supporting Barr.

The reason that I'm supporting Obama (unlike other Libertarians who are voting third party) is the same reason I've given from the very beginning: Living overseas, I'm concerned a lot about people's opinion of America, and how it effects not just me, but the American economy and American security. I believe that no other Presidential candidate comes remotely close to what I believe is Obama's ability to make America the most admired and respected country on the planet by people around the world.

At the broader level, McCain's problems with the libertarian side of the conservative base are evident in how he's faring regionally. While the GOP can win the South without libertarian voters, as McCain is doing handily, it can't win the "leave-me-alone" Interior West without a healthy portion of them. And even before the economic crisis took over the national headlines in mid-September, the three up-for-grabs Mountain states—which by themselves, when added to the 2004 Kerry states, hold enough electoral votes to swing the election to Obama—looked grim for McCain. New Mexico (Bush by 1) has looked solid for Obama all year; Colorado (Bush by 5), likewise, has hardly deviated from an Obama lead in the RealClearPolitics average this election season. Only Nevada (Bush by 3) has seen the advantage teeter back and forth (it's now leaning Obama).

The fact is, it is getting to the point where Republicans who are both socially and fiscally conservative (instead of culturally liberal and fiscally conservative) are having an argument with themselves as to where they want to take their vote. The Republicans have not been fiscally conservative for years now, and what's worse is that Republicans have accomplished nothing socially conservative on the national level either... unless you count "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and several all-but-meaningless abortion laws.

Why would libertarians abandon McCain? After all, they believe in low taxes—and McCain is the one promising those. And if they're concerned about social issues, well, McCain's never shown much of a stomach for cultural warfare.

Well, there is also the war in Iraq. A lot of us don't like McCain's back-out-so-slowly-maybe-no-one-will-notice approach.

That is, of course, until now.

The real McCain, whoever that is or was, may still believe that major swathes of the Religious Right represent "agents of intolerance" in our politics. But he has decided to stake both his election and the Republican Party's future upon them—from the barely coded racial refrain of "Who is Barack Obama?," to the rallies with shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him," to the corrosive choice of pipeline-prayer Sarah Palin as his running mate and heir apparent.

Well, I wouldn't read racist stuff into that "Who is Barack Obama?" refrain... but I would read the same old "Is he faithful? Is he patriotic? Does he know any French or eat organically grown food or wear imported underwear?" fear-of-the-foreign line that the Religious Right has been using since 2002 into it.

Tax cuts or no tax cuts, a party that can be roused in time of deep crisis only by fear and tribalism—a party that a supposed moderate is now deeding to its most extreme elements—can scarcely serve as a safe home to liberty or the voters who cherish it.

Two years ago, I wrote a book imploring the Republican Party not to follow its worst elements off a cliff—not to evolve, in short, into an insular party with little-to-no appeal outside of the rural, the southern, the Evangelical. As the McCain campaign flames out in a ball of Rovian disgrace, scorching the center in an attempt to fire up the base, it's difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the battle for the soul of the Republican Party has been lost.

I also cannot see the Religious Right giving control of the Republican party back to moderates. They have mixed their religious goals so thoroughly with their political goals (stopping abortion, stopping gay marriage, stopping Islam and saving Israel) that ceding any ground on those issues... compromising their politics... is tantamount to compromising their religious beliefs. People from the Religious Right tolerating the Republican party changing those planks in their platform to attract new Republicans is the same as people from the Religious Right tolerating their church changing the fundamentals of Christianity in order to attract new Christians.

Hint Hint GOP

I'm quite sure that Republican bigwigs tune into this blog on a regular basis, so I'd like to offer a little advice: You know how you Republicans are shitting yourselves because your entire platform, each and every plank, appears that it might be a losing argument to the average American voter in the upcoming election? You know how you are having high-level meetings in Washington to brainstorm a "new conservative approach" to America's problems that might regain the Republican brand a little credibility?

Might I suggest that instead you look at the one conservative Republican candidate who generated any level of excitement this year as a reference point for your new politics? The one guy who had ideas that people really went crazy over? You know: The guy who talked about getting the Republican party back to its conservative roots?

Yeah him.

If you folks want to know what the Republicans should be doing to win back the confidence and trust of American voters... ask Ron Paul. He may not be perfect, but his ideas are where the Republicans should be.

The Republican Problem of Presidential Candidates

Look at this graph from Nate Silver:
This is an illustration of the problem that the Republican party faces in the next presidential election: When you ask America, "Obama... or anybody else?" more people pick "anybody else" (i.e. "generic") than Obama. However, when you ask people about specific candidates that the Republicans have to offer, none of them win the preference.

Nate sums it up:

[I]t is a problem for Republicans that no actual Republican can approach the performance of the generic candidate, probably because the generic candidate is Rorschach blot that allows each respondent to create what amounts to their fantasy candidate.

That's absolutely accurate... and I honestly don't think that the currents are going to shift towards the Republicans on this either: The negative feelings generated for Obama by the healthcare debate are wearing off and won't hold the public's interest much longer. Also, Obama is ginning up the rebound now, pulling little bits of candy out of his bag to toss to people (the START negotiations, Atlantic coastal oil drilling), and more are obviously going to come.

Whether you think it is a good or a bad thing, it can't be denied that Obama is the most tactical and conniving politician ever to sit in the White House... possibly of all politicians in American history. (No, not Clinton... if he was any good, he would never have had a scandal.) I could say that the man doesn't sneeze without first figuring out the political ramifications... but it would be more accurate to say that now, in the beginning of April, Obama is currently planning when and where to sneeze for June and July... and the actual, important shit is certainly already planned out in full for 2012.

Anyway, none of the Republicans on the list above are going to poll any higher than they currently do. (I can't believe that Ron Paul polls lower than Sarah Palin though... sheesh.)

The worst news for Republicans is not that this is what the poll for the 2012 Presidential election looks like. It is that when you look at the Hillary Clinton version of this chart for 2016 and 2020, all the candidates on the right side stay the same... and the chart looks pretty much the same as well.

Bob Basso Channels Thomas Paine

The latest internet phenomonon (limited, I suppose, to conservative political junkies) is one Bob Basso, whom I haven't bothered to read about, but I have watched his videos. While I like his schtick and agree with (much of) his point of view, his argument that our government is not representing America is quite weak: Fact is, it is not representing about 48% of America. That's Democracy, not tyranny.

He seems to be quite a fan of hyperbole and sophistry, but the actual issues he discusses are valid. My Ron Paul Republicanism (these days called Libertarianism) mindset agrees that the subjects he covers are important, but the way he makes them out to be Republic-shattering, liberty-killing, freedom-drowning events is a bit overdone — this guy really hates illegal immigrants... Wow.

Anyway, it seems that President O has heard, seen, or been made aware of these videos that Bob Basso has put out and has invited him to The White House. The third-hand quote purportedly made by The White House as the reason for the visit is "to discuss the disturbing nature of these videos." I'm guessing that quote more a canard to gin up publicity for this guy than it is an actual quote: White House comments usually reserve vituperative words like that for Mugabe and Kim Jong Il... not some guy in a powdered wig and lace stock fulminating on YouTube.

Anyway, here is the first of Bob Basso's videos. He does his act well and makes some good (if frantic) points about The Union.

---

UPDATE:

The only source of this invitation to sit down with The President is from Bob Basso himself, reported soley via an often-wrong website. I suppose it should be taken with a 30-pound grain of salt.

---

UPDATE II:

I suppose I should bulletize my opinions lest it be thought that I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Basso, which I do not:

• I think that English should be learned by anyone who wants to be a long-term resident of America. I don't care one way or the other if English becomes the official language of America more than in a de facto sense.
• Mr. Basso says he is against "diversity", but I actually think he means he is anti-ethnicity. Big difference. I think that some people do "American hyphenate" themselves too quickly and too easily... but having/keeping/celebrating an ethnic heritage does not threaten America like Mr. Basso believes.
• I also don't think that the government should be the primary administrator of our healthcare system, but I do think that government should guarantee a minimum level of preventative and maintenance healthcare to all its citizens.
• As far as I'm concerned, ranting about activist judges who "ignore history" (for history's sake alone) is the same as ranting against scientists who ignore the Bible. Times change, opinions change, values change, laws change.
• As far as illegal immigrants go, I have no idea how to deal with fixing the problem: They do lots of jobs that need to be done at a salary that keeps certain goods and services affordable in America... yet they are breaking the law. But I'm not going to have a thrombo over it like this guy.
• The rest of it, I pretty much fully agree with.
• So the Second American Revolution this guy is asking for? Yawn. Lots of salient points, some even highly important that should be debated more fully in the American community. But somehow expecting that overthrowing one set of elected officials for another would result in the desired changes is silly. As I said above: This is the exact government that 52% of Americans want.

Yup, I'm Still A Fan

So who's best positioned to lead the protesters into the next presidential election? Whispers asked a dozen GOP and conservative leaders to come up with a top 10 list. First, Rep. Ron Paul, popular among the town hallers.

If you can get yourself past the nuts and marshmallows of this Rocky Road Texan, he's the best conservative (in the Constitutional Literalist sense... not the Jesus + Torture = Freedom sense) in America.

After Obama finishes prinking up America's living room with vases of healthcare daffodils, business-bailout doilies, and taxing-the-rich antimacassars, I'll gladly welcome this governmental disciplinarian in to spray the Lemon Pledge of States' Rights and run the Hoover of budgetary constraint.