his views on national security are asinine --- leaving the jews and muzzies to fight their own war is hardly asinine
choose sides carefully On Dec 31 2011, 2:57 pm, GhostOfAdams <[email protected]> wrote: > No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his > views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what > a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly > unrealistic. > Again, No thanks. > > On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 30 December 2011 11:33 > > Dennis Behreandt > > As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for the > > Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing > > popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing. > > Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign policy, > > Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the Texas > > congressman, they say, will mean weakening America’s position in the world, > > leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to go > > nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul’s conservative critics say, > > he would be bad, and possiblydangerous, for the country as president. > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul > > presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily > > more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause. > > To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that supports > > him into contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at large. Much > > continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather than a conservative. > > But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and his supporters > > as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to consider Paul > > an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy. > > There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox political > > movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense, those of > > a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions because they > > view those institutions as having demonstrated some utilitarian value to > > culture and society simply by the virtue of their existence. This was a > > theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the Catholic University of > > America in the introduction to his bookConservatism: An Anthology of Social > > and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. > > According to Muller, “The conservative defends existing institutions > > because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served > > some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful, > > unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to > > institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for > > new purposes.” > > Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism > > likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have > > sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries. > > Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example. > > An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to > > paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important > > institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American > > conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a > > Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved. > > In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to > > conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly > > created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being. > > Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation > > of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for > > example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial > > tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order, > > which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role > > of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some > > conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful,unitary > > executiveas they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as > > of central importance. > > Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the > > cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among > > these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense > > of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these > > things are valued primarily for theirutility. Because they exist, they must > > therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk. > > In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook says > > that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a > > transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: “...the orthodox defense of > > institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate > > truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and > > practices because they are metaphysicallytrue: the truth proclaimed may be > > based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to > > all rational men....” > > It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the phenomenon > > of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his bookLiberty Defined, Paul places > > himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by acknowledging that > > he believes in natural rights that precede the foundations of government. > > He writes: “The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was > > accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding > > derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his > > understanding from John Locke (1632-1704).” Put succinctly by Jefferson, > > this is the idea “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by > > their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, > > Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These are, to put it as Muller did, > > “natural and accessible by all rational men.” > > There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of view > > represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement. The > > orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including to > > live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one’s mind, to associate > > with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments lack any > > legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the > > conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as > > the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of > > its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American > > can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover, > > the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding > > era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these > > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in > > agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view > > it is morally right that they existedin their proper formin the first place. > > Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox outlook > > and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity between > > the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least since > > the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another, the > > opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the same > > goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:Foreign Affairs: > > Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in the > > world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares > > nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox > > Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United > > Statesmustbe the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox > > position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to > > Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate five > > cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will > > need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving > > vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free > > enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners. > > Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because > > all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive > > governments that disrupt their economies.Military Strength: > > Counterintuitively, Ron Paul’sdesireto bring troops home would improve the > > U.S. military’s capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad, > > both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved > > with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires. > > Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under > > fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field > > grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability. > > It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships > > are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face > > similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all > > featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a > > remnant of the 1950s. Ending deployments abroad, or at least being much > > smarter about them, would free up money in the budget for badly needed > > equipment upgrades and replacements. The result would be a stronger and > > more effective U.S. military that is not stretched so thin by being > > deployed all over the world.Israel: Where does a much less interventionist > > foreign policy leave Israel? Concern for the Jewish state is particularly > > prevalent among conservatives who view it as a bastion of Judeo-Christian > > civilization surrounded and threatened by aggressive theocratic and > > dictatorial neighbors. A Ron Paul presidency would mean the abandonment of > > Israel, according to some conservatives. And > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
