First of all, the presidential election in November must not become the focus of any cathartic release of conservative anger and frustration; not only would a new president be unable - by himself - to take a serious axe to the government, but he will not even be able to accomplish much in the way of slowing the growth of government without the aid of strong congressional support for real public spending cuts in addition to monetary reform. That being said, whoever wins the nomination should easily beat President Obama in any debate - if not the election itself (don't trust anyone on the Left who says they will abstain; they won't, they'll be voting for Obama).
On the GOP candidates:
Ron Paul, aside from his obvious frailties, is a disappointment: although he grasps the necessity of substantive monetary and fiscal reform with a vigor conspicuously absent in the other three candidates, the listless tone of his argument for military restraint, together with his obdurate ignorance of foreign affairs, simply enervate him further. The limited government arguments cry out to be made by a much more powerful voice capable of greater range and subtlety and of genuinely intimidating the sneering little fools at the networks and the papers. Gary Johnson apparently wasn't up to this.
Rick Santorum is the only other remotely tenable candidate for the Right; along with Paul, he wins hands down in terms of a "clear contrast" with Barack Obama. Santorum has at least this to be said for him - he's practical without being a Pragmatist* and will not compromise on principles even if it means losing a vote. Aside from his anti-libertarianism however, the big problem with Santorum is that whilst he is committed to spending cuts on a scale comparable to Ron Paul's (U.S.$5 trillion over five years), he is not apparently in favour of monetary reform.
Mitt Romney is an unconscious Pragmatist and is in that sense at least, an honest one - which makes him (not Gingrich) the proverbial "wild card". Romney will at least listen to exposition from the limited government voices, whereas betrayal by Gingrich would be a certainty. The weakness of a Romney presidency would depend on the composition of the congress - but that's assuming he even gets there. If he wins the nomination I suspect Obama and the Left will simply laugh at him.
Newt Gingrich is a fat, bloated tick on the conservative base of the Republican Party and ought to be recognized for what he is; he'd sell them out to the Left just for the chance to ponce about looking "profound". I smiled when Romney finally popped him in the Jacksonville debate.
So... it'll be either Santorum or Romney.
*An under-appreciated distinction: to be practical is to give consideration to the tactical application of principle, whereas to be "pragmatic" is to allow tactical considerations to corrupt the principles themselves.
***
Later... Brett Stephens at the Wall Street Journal has this to say on Santorum and Paul:
"But Messrs. Santorum and Paul are two tedious men, deep in conversation with some country that's not quite America, appealing to a devoted base but not beyond it. Sorry, gentlemen: You're not going anywhere."Why not? Especially when the alternative is - Obama? Get real: this is the worst U.S. President in living memory for anyone not on the hardcore Left; electorally, he has to be weak to very weak on every single issue.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI think Ron Paul stated his points well enough in the debate, I don't see where he "can't complete a sentence" or starts "mumbling off" as you said he does on more than one occasion. I thought he was by far the best, and is the best candidate. I hope he wins. Not to mention he challenged all candidates to a 25 mile bike ride race, which he would win.
On foreign policy, that debate could go on for aeons, Let's start at the beginning, and we can clarify our viewpoints from the start: why was America attacked on 9/11/01?
I also find it surprising, and even strange that someone with your intellect would request a "powerful and intimidating voice" to articulate the libertarian viewpoint, especially when considering you write against coercion on almost every issue there is. When it comes to military issues, you seemingly advocate our current foreign policy, or something similar to it. Under Obama we got Bin Laden, yet you consider him the worst president in U.S. history--and at the same time consider Ron Paul completely ignorant. What do you advocate?
There has to be trade offs. If taxes need to be cut, how can we afford to keep thousands of military bases open all over the world? To put it as simply and briefly is possible: If a country harbors a terrorist organization, won't sending troops there cause more resentment, fear, and hatred towards the U.S. by non-terrorists who reside in the country?
And why do these terrorists hate us in the first place?
Like Dr. Paul said, over-reaction is detrimental, and the idea that we can contain or stop terrorism at its roots is untenable. U.S. citizens are getting very tired of the TSA.
I thought Paul responded in a very intelligent, sometimes witty, and very wise way for the majority of his questions. Santorum was good too.
-Derek-
Also; did you find it strange that on the Israel-Palestine issue, the moderator only asked 2 candidates (Romney and Gingrich) for their opinion?
ReplyDelete"I don't see where he "can't complete a sentence" or starts "mumbling off" as you said he does on more than one occasion."
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to trail through the entire Jacksonville debate now to look for examples for you, but there have been plenty both in this one and in previous debates. He stammers and sputters constantly, and this only reaffirms the impression that the mainstream media have of him as a crank "reading things on the internet". He's nowhere near as fluent and articulate as a presidential candidate should be (perhaps partly due to his age) - in this respect, Romney is probably the best of them.
"Not to mention he challenged all candidates to a 25 mile bike ride race, which he would win."
Get real. Nobody would dare be so rude as to take him up on it - the man is 76 years old for crying out loud! That said I think he might beat Gingrich just because Gingrich is so fat.
"...why was America attacked on 9/11/01?"
The vanity of evil. It knows what it is and takes delight in this.
Of course Ron Paul's claim is that the Islamic fascists were acting in retaliation for the U.S. maintaining a military prescence in and around the Middle East and for interfering with "their" affairs. But it's not "their" affairs! Excuse me, but it's just not: these affairs include the rights of other people - not to be murdered for religious apostasy, not to be tortured in public for the crime of having been raped, not to be forcibly oppressed with regard to the expression of opinion, not to be forbidden from associating with people one chooses to, not to be forbidden from buying from or selling to other people deemed politically unacceptable. These affairs do not in any sense belong to the Islamic fascists - as implied by the phrase "their affairs".
"I also find it surprising, and even strange that someone with your intellect would request a "powerful and intimidating voice" to articulate the libertarian viewpoint, especially when considering you write against coercion on almost every issue there is."
You have to seperate Paul's disgusting moral relativism (which panders to the Left, and which he routinely engages in because he knows it'll garner interest from the young) from the argument for non-intervention and/or military restraint which actually should be made with far greater knowledge and subtlety: I could make Paul's arguments on his behalf with far greater lucidity and persuasiveness than him. And I could have done this ten years ago! Why? Because I'm not committed to the intellectually lazy moral relativism that he is and because I'm interested in the ideological and cultural differences between peoples in the Middle East and elsewhere.
...
...
ReplyDelete"When it comes to military issues, you seemingly advocate our current foreign policy, or something similar to it."
Astounding. If you look through the archives and comments elsewhere you'll see I've scorned Obama's foreign policy many times. Aside from the OBL hit, foreign affairs is an extremely weak area for President Obama.
"Under Obama we got Bin Laden, yet you consider him the worst president in U.S. history--and at the same time consider Ron Paul completely ignorant."
And I have plenty of facts to support both contentions - though I didn't say Paul was "completely" ignorant, I said he is "obdurately" ignorant (there is an important difference).
"What do you advocate?"
That's a huge subject, but a small thing for a start: procurement reform. Under Bush W, the taxpayers got absolutely fleeced by contractors for far too little in the way of delivered products. I have much bigger ideas than that, but this is not the place to expand on them (I have a piece on air theatre defense in the works).
"If taxes need to be cut, how can we afford to keep thousands of military bases open all over the world?"
First off, cutting taxes doesn't necessarily reduce revenue (check your Tom Sowell book). But second - hey, I'm not entirely against Ron Paul on this; I agree with him that having U.S. troops in places like Germany for instance is indefensible - the Europeans should be paying for their own defense. On the other hand, the U.S. Pacific Command does need to have some place to hang out whilst keeping an eye on the PRC. If the U.S. taxpayer isn't going to pay for this, then somebody has to pay for it. Be serious.
"If a country harbors a terrorist organization, won't sending troops there cause more resentment, fear, and hatred towards the U.S. by non-terrorists who reside in the country?"
Not by itself no. In Afghanistan for example, the resentment is caused by the military getting involved with trying to prevent the opium trade: these people grow poppies as a cash crop. Stopping them means unemployment.
"...the idea that we can contain or stop terrorism at its roots is untenable."
I disagree: I think bringing down shitty governments and opening up countries to trade and exposure to the products of western culture is the most powerful weapon we have. These people are human cockroaches - they rely on perpetual ignorance and fear to keep "their" people subjugated. Fuck 'em: ransack their hiding holes and throw the light on them.
"U.S. citizens are getting very tired of the TSA."
I'm getting tired of reading about the TSA; I think it should be abolished along with the Department of Homeland Security - but that is not the same issue as foreign affairs more generally.
"Also; did you find it strange that on the Israel-Palestine issue, the moderator only asked 2 candidates (Romney and Gingrich) for their opinion?"
Not really: par for the course with the Left's goons in the media. Blitzer wasted a lot of time in that debate and was probably trying to play catch up.
I should add to that last bit. Ron Paul supporters often talk about the bias in the media, per Paul not getting enough questions but they forget something. In the early debates it wasn't just Paul who got less time - Huntsman and Santorum also got less time too (and then there's Gary Johnson who couldn't even get invited to moe than one debate to begin with - and he's a better small government guy than Ron Paul is). What seems to have been happening is that the debate moderaters were giving proportionately more time to those candidates with higher poll ratings, and as their poll ratings improved the candidates were moved closer to the centre of the stage.
ReplyDelete"He's nowhere near as fluent and articulate as a presidential candidate should be (perhaps partly due to his age) - in this respect, Romney is probably the best of them."
ReplyDeleteI'm less interested in how the speaker spoke, and more interested in what he actually said. In this case, Ron Paul was the best. He was a physician, not a businessman like Romney--therefore he probably never had the need to develop the 'gift of gab', so to speak.
Give me an example of Paul's usage of Moral Relativism.
Gingrich will say anything to get elected, and Romney isn't that much better.
ReplyDeleteOn your final comments: "I disagree: I think bringing down shitty governments and opening up countries to trade and exposure to the products of western culture is the most powerful weapon we have."
Check out that documentary on Ghana that I sent you--Episode 5 of Pandora's Box.
Or what about William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden"?
"I'm less interested in how the speaker spoke, and more interested in what he actually said."
ReplyDeleteIt's the other way around for me. Perhaps this is because Ron Paul's arguments are nothing new to me as they seemingly are for so many people - as I said, I could make his arguments much more lucidly and forcefully than he makes them himself and I know of plenty of other people who could also do this. So not only am I not surprised or especially interested in Ron Paul's arguments (I know them inside-out), but I'm more sensitive to the poor, rambling-old-crank manner in which they are expressed. This is massively important for an election and is the main reason why I doubt Paul could win against Obama, especially with his dodgy "associations" and all of the mainstream media against him.
"Give me an example of Paul's usage of Moral Relativism."
His oft-used thought experiment in which Chinese PLA forces were stationed in the Gulf of Mexico. He entirely neglects the fact that U.S. forces are stationed in the Pacific not to extract tribute from the Chinese, but in order to prevent the PLN from establishing control over regional shipping lanes. Likewise Paul neglects the fact that U.S. Naval forces in the Middle East are also there to ensure the Straits of Hormuz remain open to commercial traffic - not just for the U.S. but for other nations also. To compare the aims of U.S. Navy deployments to those of the PRC or of the theocratic fascist regime in Iran is just despicable.
It's not that the arguments are new, but when was the last time you had a candidate who came down to the final stretch that was as close to the 'libertarian nirvana' as Ron Paul? (domestically speaking)
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it America's job to overthrow these repressive government?
ReplyDelete"Or what about William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden"?"
ReplyDeleteDismissed: increasing trade with people in other countries is good for us, as well as being good for them. If they have a dictatorship standing in the way, I have no objection to knocking it down. It costs a lot of money to do this - true - which is why people should be free to choose whether they want to contribute to this effort or not.
"...but when was the last time you had a candidate who came down to the final stretch that was as close to the 'libertarian nirvana' as Ron Paul?"
ReplyDeleteWell one criticism of Santorum is that he doesn't mention often enough the fact that he is committed to spending cuts on a scale (which I believe is) equal to Ron Paul's: U.S.$5 trillion over five years. Of course Paul would like to cut more than that, but he knows he won't be able to (he won't be able to get sufficient cooperation even from a republican-controlled congress). I don't agree with this Ned Flanders guy on everything, but I'd fancy him to beat Obama not only in a debate but in the election itself: unlike the others, Santorum doesn't seem to have any skeletons in the closet (Gingrich) or dodgy associations like Paul, or a chequered political record (Romney) which means the Left will have to deal with his conservativsm head-on: which means they'll lose.
"And why is it America's job to overthrow these repressive government?"
It isn't. As I said, people should be free to choose.
Don't really want to get involved in the debate but I personally feel all the Republican candidates are quite lackluster and Santorum is pretty much anti-everything; if he had his way the US would be a Christian theocracy.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, I wanted to point out what I felt a delicious irony in Michael's use of his so-called "royal we" in this phrase: "I think bringing down shitty governments and opening up countries to trade and exposure to the products of western culture is the most powerful weapon we have." - Considering how often you've chastised others for lumping you in with their use of the word, I would expect you to be more careful with it yourself :)
"Considering how often you've chastised others for lumping you in with their use of the word, I would expect you to be more careful with it yourself :)"
ReplyDeleteThat's almost a fair point, except that I do - and did - say people should be free to choose whether they contribute to the overthrow of fascist governments or not. This could be achieved outside of libertarian nirvana by a reform of the tax code such that tax payers themsleves are given some choice over where their money is spent instead of the politicians. Think of it as a novel take on "direct democracy".
"Santorum is pretty much anti-everything; if he had his way the US would be a Christian theocracy."
Right, like the last Bush did? Come on - can you name a single instance in which, through policy, he would force his religious views onto other people? The gay thing doesn't count, because his point is to prevent the State from bestowing something (gay marriage) rather than imposing something.
He's religious yes, but he's a also a conservative, which in the U.S. is someone who would attempt to "conserve" what is essentially a secular, Liberal form of government. I don't like the religious tenets of his ethics and his politics (I'm an atheist), but your claims that he is "anti-everything" or would turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy are just hyperbole.
I don't worry about Santorum because I have no expectation of him being a "change-agent" as its sometimes put. I expect he'd make an intelligent and practical effort to begin tackling the debt and deficit problem and I expect he'd be unlikely to back down when the PRC complain about arms sales to Taiwan, but he's certainly not going to be able to stop the trend toward greater and greater government.
You're right, it was hyperbole on my part, he's not anti-everything. He's on the record though as anti-privacy (cf. Griswold v. Connecticut), anti-homosexual (he compared gay marriage rights to bestiality), anti-contraception (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/) and by extension, anti-women's rights.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I didn't say that if he were in power he WOULD change the US into a theocracy, I merely said that he'd like to. I don't expect him to be able to change things the way he might like. His well-documented opposition to birth control, for example (an issue on which he recently flip-flopped), is one that is unlikely to gain any ground given how much money there is in the contraception industry.
Back to the first paragraph, I would love to see a tax reform that allows the taxpayers to determine where some of their money is spent. I was under the impression it had been done before in the US, though come to think of it that may have been an element in a science-fiction novel I read many years ago.
On Santorum's anti-privacy views: this is just his particular manifestation of the embrace of the State - which all U.S. politicians share (even Paul). It's very troubling in that it prevents him from fighting against the over-reach of the State in terms of the long-term growth of surveillance. So yes, this is a major problem with him, and I don't care what the various Supreme Court judges say.
ReplyDeleteOn the gay thing - the comparison with beastiality was an ill-advised rhetorical ploy to make the point that the definition of marriage ought to be preserved, but again, it's not a priority: he's not out to infringe on the negative liberty of homosexual people, but rather he wants to deny them the legal recognition of marriage bestowed by the State. I think the State shouldn't be involved in this period, but there are much worse things than this.
On his stance against contraception: what's wrong with defunding a government program? Contraception in various forms is available on the market already and it's not like it's extraordinarily expensive. Besides this is not the same thing as proposing to ban contraception, which is a fight he could never win (and shouldn't).
"...I merely said that he'd like to."
No, even this is hyperbole. He's in favour of religious freedom and tolerance, which is not the same thing as government support for abortion and contraception. The big problem with Santorum - for me anyway - isn't so much his religion per se, but the fact that it prevents him from genuinely opposing the long-term growth of the State. I'm somewhat sanguine about that though, because no President is going to be able to stop this anyway. The best "we" can hope for from any politician is real spending cuts, some legislative repeal and someone who will push the guys in the CCP rather than allow himself to be pushed around by them.
The other BIG negative about Santorum is of course his support for the "war on drugs", which is very, very dangerous because of the expansion of domestic "law enforcement" powers particularly at the State level.
ReplyDeleteHad Obama moved to end the war on drugs when he enjoyed Democratic support in both Houses, I'd have been impressed. Didn't do it though did he?