Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The "Libertarian Moment" Is Actually Being Engineered By The Christian Right


I have consistently maintained that the Christofascists and the Tea Party are largely one and the same.  The Tea Part label simply allows the Christofascists to hide their identity given how much they are despised by sane, decent citizens.  Less obvious, however, is the way in which the Christofascists are engineering the "libertarian moment" that Rand Paul seeks to capitalize upon.    A piece in Talk Points Memo looks behind the scenes of the libertarian movement to reveal the evil machinations of the Christofascists.  Here are some excerpts:
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention. 

There is no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames.

What a lot of those who instinctively think of conservative Christians as hostile to libertarian ideas of strict government persistently miss is that divinizing untrammeled capitalism has been a growing habit on the Christian Right for decades. Perhaps more importantly, the idea of the “secular-socialist government” being an oppressor of religious liberty, whether it’s by maintaining public schools that teach “relativism” and evolution, or by enforcing the “Holocaust” of legalized abortion, or by insisting on anti-discrimination rules that discomfit “Christian businesses,” has made Christian conservatives highly prone to, and actually a major participant in, the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party. Beyond that, the essential tea party view of America as “exceptional” in eschewing the bad political habits of the rest of the world is highly congruent with, and actually owes a lot to, the old Protestant notion of the United States as a global Redeemer Nation and a “shining city on a hill.”

So perhaps the question we should be asking is not whether the Christian Right and other “traditional” conservatives can accept a Rand Paul-led “libertarian” takeover of the conservative movement and the GOP, but whether “libertarians” are an independent factor in conservative politics to begin with. After all, most of the Republican politicians we think of as “libertarian”--whether it’s Rand Paul or Justin Amash or Mike Lee--are also paid-up culture-war opponents of legalized abortion, Common Core, and other heathenish practices. As Heather Digby Parton noted tartly earlier this week:
[T]he line between theocrats and libertarian Republicans is very, very faint. Why do you think they've bastardized the concept of "Religious Liberty" to mean the right to inflict your religion on others? It appeals to people who fashion themselves as libertarians but really only care about their taxes, guns and weed. Those are the non-negotiable items. Everything else is on offer.
And then there’s the well-known but under-reported long-term relationship of Ron and Rand Paul with the openly theocratic U.S. Constitution Party, a Con-Con inspirational font that no Republican politician is likely to embrace these days.

The more you examine the evidence, the more it seems plain that the “libertarian moment” in the GOP, even it’s real, and even if it’s advanced by Rand Paul as a presidential candidate, isn’t necessarily of a nature that’s going to be wildly popular among secular-trending millennials — or among Draper’s hipsters. To the extent it has a mass base, it’s likely as much or more among conservative Christian soldiers who despise government so long as they don’t control it as among dope-smoking free-loving free-thinking anti-interventionist Reason readers. So the latter might want to think twice before climbing onto the Rand Paul for President bus, or consigning their fate to Republican politics.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Ron Paul: I’m An "Undecided" Voter

Despite the GOP's carefully orchestrated effort to present Mitt Romney yesterday as something less than a money loving, tax avoiding robot, things haven't sailed as smoothly in La La Land as hoped by the PR packaging team.  One of the big headaches?  Ron Paul and some of his delegates at the GOP convention.  Among the symptoms that not all is as well as some would pretend is Paul's own statement that (1) he won't endorse Romney/Ryan and (2) he's an undecided voter who just might not personally vote for the GOP ticket.  Then, there's the fight that broke out on the convention floor involving some of Paul's delegates.  First, here are highlights from Politico on Paul's statements:

Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday he’s not planning to endorse the GOP ticket at the Republican National Convention and that right now, he’s an “undecided” voter.

The Texas Republican told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto that he expects to leave the convention without endorsing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but that he “will probably vote” this November. Cavuto asked Paul if he leans more toward supporting Romney and the former presidential candidate said that “on certain issues,” he does.

Paul, who held a rally over the weekend for his supporters, told Cavuto he thinks the Republican ticket is “anxious; I think they’re really anxious to have our votes.” And although both Ryan and Romney have said recently they expect Paul supporters to come around to the Republican ticket, the Texas congressman said “they might be jumping the gun a bit.

“I don’t own my delegates,” he said.  His supporters “are going to do what they want to do” and “when they ask me what to do, I say, ‘Do what you want to do.’”

And yes, his delegates are indeed showing their independence and unwillingness to nominate Mr. Etch A Sketch. .  Here are excerpts from a Washington Post column:

As the new rules disenfranchising the Paul delegates came to a vote, shouts of “no!” and a cascade of boos poured from Paul supporters across the hall. Maine delegates at one end of the arena and Texas delegates at the other began chanting, “Point of order!” Demonstrators shouted down the next speaker, a Republican National Committee member from Puerto Rico, and party chairman Reince Priebus hammered his gavel, pleading for quiet. A Nevada delegate raised his middle finger at Priebus and called him an “[expletive] tyrant.”

Convention officials evicted some of the loudest demonstrators, who filled the hallways with shouts of “fraud!” and “farce!” and “sheep!” Paul supporters inside the hall resumed their booing and cries of “no!” — this time directed at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had taken the gavel.

The outcome of the dispute, in Romney’s favor, was never in doubt. But the episode illustrated a recurrent tension for the Republican nominee: the orderliness of his world colliding with chaotic reality. Romney is by many accounts a control freak, a stickler for rules and order. His campaign, following his instincts, runs the same way — and it has struggled mightily to stick to its script this week even as Hurricane Isaac zeroed in on New Orleans. 
In that sense, the convention may be a valuable lesson in Romney’s leadership style. The presidency is one storm after another, some natural and others man-made. Can Romney adapt when a crisis causes a script change? So far, the indication is he expects the crisis to adapt to him.


Romney is an arrogant, out of touch from reality individual and it's frightening to think of him dealing with foreign leaders if he attains the White House.  His disastrous trip to the U.K. for the Olympics may well have been a glimpse of a Romney presidency.  People and other nations are not his corporate flunkies who can be forced to follow his dictates.