Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul
So, Andrew Sullivan has gone and done it. Sullivan’s endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. I suppose its more a result of the quality of candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations, but I find it kind of amazing that the same person can endorse Obama AND Paul knowing what they know. It seems a bit schizophrenic, no? Sullivan endorses Paul, not just because of his anti-war stance, but for his representation of traditional Republican values:
“But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites’ enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.”
Yeah, okay, except Ron Paul is not a cuddly conservative. Yes, compared to the current administration, his isolationism sounds quaint, he implied that Huckabee’s Christmas ad was fascist, and the way he constantly tries to remind his fellow Republican candidates about the existence of The Constitution is slightly adorable. However, if Ron Paul is anything, he is anti-government and that’s not the same thing as saying that he wants to make government more efficient. If he could, Ron Paul would abolish Medicare, Social Security, federal income tax and the IRS, and most presidential cabinet positions. His mantra is familiar to both members of the John Birch Society and the Ayn Rand Institute, representing an eerie mix of the two extremist ideologies. Like Rand (and Bush as a matter of fact), Ron Paul believes that Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only “moral” socio-economic system that exists. Uh huh, maybe in theory, but in practice, its always been another story. Its like we need to relive the Great Depression again to rediscover that some safety nets are actually good for the nation. And what good policy sense Paul’s positions make as we head toward what many are predicting is a recession.
Similar Posts:
- Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul
- But Does Bunce Actually Have Ron Paul’s Endorsement?
- Did Ron Paul Have Any Real Impact?
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Hi Discontents,
Paul presents, so far as I can see, the only viable solutions to actually funding Medicare and Social Security. He has repeated many times that he’s not trying to put people who are dependent on welfare in street. I think the majority of the electorate would support some safety nets, but we’ve got change our present course…
Try investigating fractional reserve banking and fiat currency
Ron Paul’s plans may seem okay in theory, but most people live in the world of real results, not in the theoretical world. The only people likely to benefit from the implementation of Mr. Paul’s ideas are those who have enough resources to live mainly in the theoretical world and avoid the world of real results. Social Security is already adequately funded, unless the government is planning to default on the Treasury notes it has provided in exchange for the loans it has taken from the Social Security system over the years. The Great Depression is one example of the type of world that Ron Paul’s transcendency might lead to, the stories of Charles Dickens provide another.
John Edwards is my guy!
I think it’s more of a protest than anything else. Sullivan is smart man, and I think he’s come to the realization that there’s no way in the world that a Republican candidate will win the White House next year. His endorsement of Paul is IMHO geared more towards steering the Conservative movement away from the big-spending pseudo-fascist Christianist neoconservatives, and back on to the traditional principles of classical conservatism, with an eye towards the future and the election cycles of 2012 and 2016. To use a sports metaphor, the GOP is a old team that needs to jettison its highly-paid stars and rebuild with new talent.
And we all know that politics runs in cycles, and now the GOP has run its course. Let’s hope that the Democrats can fix the mess the Tyrant has left in its wake.
You said “his isolationism sounds quaint” except he is a Noninterventionist. Might want to read up like Mccain on that Difference.
I hate how everyone always makes it sound like the day he gets into office he pulls the plug on all these programs (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) He has said that he will attempt to transition to new systems, not just defund and hope.
I, personally, don’t think Social Security will ever be available to me. It’s like flushing 10% of my paycheck down the toilet. The major problem is that Congress spends the money from Social Security on ALL KINDS OF UNRELATED PROGRAMS, which is something Paul has NEVER VOTED FOR. So really, even if you like Social Security, Paul is better than the other Republicans who would perpetuate the congressional spending from the SS account. Since it isn’t being used for what it is supposed to be, it is SIMPLY AN EXTRA INCOME TAX.
Well, considering that I just un-endorsed Ron Paul, I think I can be fair about this.
First, I have to repeat - Paul (and I, and Jefferson) are non-interventionists, not Isolationists. It means friendly and even-handed relations with all with no “foreign entanglements.” In other words, a repudiation of “realpolitk”.
Anyway, Paul and I disagree on many things, but up until I came across a non-negotiable, my thought was, “well, he’s running for President, not King.”
So, his most important role would be something he’s quite used to: saying NO.
I happen to believe in the necessity for a robust social safety net and some form of universal health care. I don’t think it all that unreasonable that it be Constitutional, without requiring vast donations of liberty and privacy.
Of all the republicans, he is the one who frightens me least, and as a Centrist Lib, I’m no little alarmed at many of the Democrats - mostly due to them looking a little too damn eager to redecorate the white house and not all that picky about how they unlock the front door.
The idea that Hilliary might end up with a majority Democratic congress doesn’t fill me with any more glee than George with a majority Republican congress. Strikes me that she’s a lot smarter and if you think dumb people can do amazingly stupid things, wait until you see the sort of stupid really INTELLIGENT folks can manage.