As the economy continues in its downward spiral and talks in Congress about reducing spending have only amounted to political theater, the subject of how the tax code treats energy has become a topic of controversy. Specifically, should we subsidize, enforce mandates, or give tax credits and deductions to industries like ethanol and natural gas? Having a thriving energy market domestically is a good thing and something the government should not hinder. Not only would decreasing our dependence on foreign oil simplify our foreign policy, but it would greatly enhance our anemic economy at home.
Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy. While many people agree with that statement, there is much confusion over the difference between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions. The difference is night and day, yet so many times they are all lumped together as evil government handouts. A subsidy IS a government handout. It amounts to the government taking money from the people and giving it to a favored interest. It is the worst sort of market manipulation and it is something I can never support. This kind of government mischief is anathema to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and the free market.
By contrast, with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned. Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested. This means I will support tax credits and deductions for energy producers, farmers, homeschoolers, family child care expenditures, expenses of evacuees from disaster areas, and even adoption expenses. I've almost never met a tax cut, deduction, or credit I didn't like. Any measure that keeps money in the private sector to spend, save or invest, rather than allowing the government to waste or misallocate is a win for the economy.
Inequities in the tax code dealing with tax credits should be solved by giving all participants equal treatment. Removing
I oppose ethanol mandates because I do not think anyone should be forced to use or buy ethanol. Ethanol mandates often serve as corporate welfare for big agriculture ethanol producers. The marketplace should decide whether or not to use ethanol, and producers of ethanol have to discover if they can produce it at a price that makes good business sense. No industry should be allowed to use legislation to create a "market" for its products. The real reason ethanol mandates continue to surface in federal legislation is that agribusiness continues to have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.
Furthermore, while I do not support providing federal grants to any industry, I do support the tax credits contained in the NAT Gas Act, HR 1380. These credits reduce taxes for the production or purchase of vehicles that run on American-made natural gas. These credits are not subsidies. Of course, we should repeal federal barriers to energy production and reduce taxes on all forms of energy. Therefore, I have also introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act HR 1102 which would remove governmental barriers to offshore drilling, encourage private investment in new refineries and suspend taxes on gasoline when the price at the pump reaches a certain threshold. Lowering taxes to encourage the domestic production of energy and getting government out of the way of the American energy market is not a government giveaway; it is the way it should be in a free country.
Monday
DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO BE POOR?
Recent economic data show that U.S. job growth in May was negligible, while the official unemployment figure – at least the figure the Labor Department admits to – rose to 9.1%. The real unemployment figure, however, as compiled by economist John Williams, may well be higher than 20%. It is clear the U.S. economy is in terrible shape, and that no amount of government spending or Federal Reserve quantitative easing can reduce unemployment, increase real productivity, or address our debt fiasco. U.S. jobs and productivity are dependent on the accumulation of private capital to finance existing businesses or fund new entrepreneurial activity. Private capital – whether accumulated by profitable U.S. businesses, invested by private equity and venture capital firms, or attracted from abroad – is the key to economic growth and new jobs. But we cannot create jobs if we demonize profits, punish risk-taking capitalists, and stay hostile to foreign investment.
The steps to encouraging capital investment and creating new jobs in America are simple, though not easy:
First and foremost, we must create a sound U.S. currency backed by gold or some other commodity respected by the market. No nation in history with a rapidly depreciating currency has attracted private capital. Unless and until we prohibit the Treasury and Federal Reserve from essentially creating money and credit from thin air, we cannot restore the U.S. economy.
Second, we must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough. When businesses don’t know what’s coming next from the EPA, when Obamacare spikes their healthcare costs, or when the Dodd-Frank bill adds almost unknowable regulatory compliance burdens, businesses simply will not expand and hire. It is time to start shrinking the federal register.
Third, we must stop spending trillions of dollars overseas on foreign wars. There is no point in debating a foreign policy we cannot afford. It no longer matters what neoconservatives want. Our interventionist foreign policy is financed on credit, and our credit limit has been reached. Our economy would be infinitely better off if those trillions of dollars had never been removed from the private economy or added to our debt.
Finally, we must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income. U.S. corporations are sitting on more than a trillion dollars in foreign earnings that cannot be repatriated to the U.S. because of taxes. We need to stop taxing unpatriated funds to bring those earnings home. Better yet, we need to abolish the income tax altogether.
The U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Congress needs to act immediately to restore the rule of law and create an environment that rewards, rather than punishes, the critical components of any healthy economy: capital accumulation and investment.
In this struggling economy it is essential for politicians to take a step back and think about what government has been doing to business in this country. In less than 200 years, the free market, property rights, and respect for the rule of law took this nation from a rough frontier to a global economic superpower. Today, however, our nation and our economy clearly are headed in the wrong direction.
Of course, America has never enjoyed absolute free-market capitalism: creeping government intrusion and special interest political patronage have existed and increased since our founding. But America historically has permitted free markets to operate with less government interference than other nations, while showing greater respect for property rights and the rule of law. Less government, respect for private property, and a relatively stable legal environment allowed America to become the wealthiest nation on earth.
By contrast, the poorest nations almost always demonstrate hostility for free markets, private property, and the rule of law. Capital formation, entrepreneurship, credit, and wealth accumulation are uniformly discouraged in poor countries. Private contracts are not reliably enforced, and private property is not secure in the hands of owners. The predictable result is widespread poverty and misery.
The steps to encouraging capital investment and creating new jobs in America are simple, though not easy:
First and foremost, we must create a sound U.S. currency backed by gold or some other commodity respected by the market. No nation in history with a rapidly depreciating currency has attracted private capital. Unless and until we prohibit the Treasury and Federal Reserve from essentially creating money and credit from thin air, we cannot restore the U.S. economy.
Second, we must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough. When businesses don’t know what’s coming next from the EPA, when Obamacare spikes their healthcare costs, or when the Dodd-Frank bill adds almost unknowable regulatory compliance burdens, businesses simply will not expand and hire. It is time to start shrinking the federal register.
Third, we must stop spending trillions of dollars overseas on foreign wars. There is no point in debating a foreign policy we cannot afford. It no longer matters what neoconservatives want. Our interventionist foreign policy is financed on credit, and our credit limit has been reached. Our economy would be infinitely better off if those trillions of dollars had never been removed from the private economy or added to our debt.
Finally, we must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income. U.S. corporations are sitting on more than a trillion dollars in foreign earnings that cannot be repatriated to the U.S. because of taxes. We need to stop taxing unpatriated funds to bring those earnings home. Better yet, we need to abolish the income tax altogether.
The U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Congress needs to act immediately to restore the rule of law and create an environment that rewards, rather than punishes, the critical components of any healthy economy: capital accumulation and investment.
In this struggling economy it is essential for politicians to take a step back and think about what government has been doing to business in this country. In less than 200 years, the free market, property rights, and respect for the rule of law took this nation from a rough frontier to a global economic superpower. Today, however, our nation and our economy clearly are headed in the wrong direction.
Of course, America has never enjoyed absolute free-market capitalism: creeping government intrusion and special interest political patronage have existed and increased since our founding. But America historically has permitted free markets to operate with less government interference than other nations, while showing greater respect for property rights and the rule of law. Less government, respect for private property, and a relatively stable legal environment allowed America to become the wealthiest nation on earth.
By contrast, the poorest nations almost always demonstrate hostility for free markets, private property, and the rule of law. Capital formation, entrepreneurship, credit, and wealth accumulation are uniformly discouraged in poor countries. Private contracts are not reliably enforced, and private property is not secure in the hands of owners. The predictable result is widespread poverty and misery.
Saturday
LIMIT THE USE OF FUNDS
Statement on HR 2278, a bill to limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president's war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to HR 2278, the US military cannot be involved in NATO's actions in Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.
That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the president a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the president is doing in Libya would remain illegal.
Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow US force against Libya any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president's war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to HR 2278, the US military cannot be involved in NATO's actions in Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.
That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the president a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the president is doing in Libya would remain illegal.
Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow US force against Libya any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority.
Friday
WHAT I THINK.......MIKE SHANER
The 2012 Presidential election has the potential to be one of historic proportions. It could be the event that gives liberty back to our Republic. It has the makings of being the most significant election since Lincoln’s reign of terror began in 1860.
Abraham Lincoln set the precedent of aggressive war and transformed our republican form of government into a nationalistic democracy, by conquering the states and giving birth to the frankenstein-like federal monster we know today.
The sins of Lincoln are becoming more well known by the day but for those who still believe in the myth of Honest Abe; this link is a good place to begin educating yourself.
The purpose of this article is not to bash Lincoln nor to rehash history. The indisputable fact is we are in a mess. The question is what can we do about it? Most people reading this know the answer. We know that the best way to enact true change is by making Ron Paul the President of the United States. This begs the follow up question: Do we have the guts?
I did something today that I have been dreading, something that made me absolutely sick: I went to my local dmv and registered Republican. I am asking you to do the same. I am asking you to ask your friends to do the same and for them to ask their friends. You can do this with the solace of knowing it is for the sake of liberty.
Ron Paul can defeat Obama in 2012 with relative ease. He is the only Republican that will appeal to the President’s youthful antiwar base. The young Obama voters of 2008 are still hungry for change and can become the young Paul voter’s of 2012. In order for this to happen, he must first win the Republican nomination which he simply can’t do without the help of his supporters.
This will take a concerted effort from Libertarians, Voluntarist, Anarchist, Independents, and even Democrats who care about peace and prosperity. The fact is if you don’t switch party affiliation and vote for Ron Paul, you just may never get to vote for him at all. One can always switch back immediately after the primary, I will!
We have a chance to make 2012 the most important presidential election in over 150 years. It is within our power to fire a shot that can be heard around the world. We can tell the world that the the time has come for peaceful prosperity, individualism, and liberty to reign supreme. We can do this, or we can sit back, do nothing, and get more of the same.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination it will be the single most important election in modern history. If he does not win it will be as unimportant as any other. We have one choice and one chance; I hope we take it.
Abraham Lincoln set the precedent of aggressive war and transformed our republican form of government into a nationalistic democracy, by conquering the states and giving birth to the frankenstein-like federal monster we know today.
The sins of Lincoln are becoming more well known by the day but for those who still believe in the myth of Honest Abe; this link is a good place to begin educating yourself.
The purpose of this article is not to bash Lincoln nor to rehash history. The indisputable fact is we are in a mess. The question is what can we do about it? Most people reading this know the answer. We know that the best way to enact true change is by making Ron Paul the President of the United States. This begs the follow up question: Do we have the guts?
I did something today that I have been dreading, something that made me absolutely sick: I went to my local dmv and registered Republican. I am asking you to do the same. I am asking you to ask your friends to do the same and for them to ask their friends. You can do this with the solace of knowing it is for the sake of liberty.
Ron Paul can defeat Obama in 2012 with relative ease. He is the only Republican that will appeal to the President’s youthful antiwar base. The young Obama voters of 2008 are still hungry for change and can become the young Paul voter’s of 2012. In order for this to happen, he must first win the Republican nomination which he simply can’t do without the help of his supporters.
This will take a concerted effort from Libertarians, Voluntarist, Anarchist, Independents, and even Democrats who care about peace and prosperity. The fact is if you don’t switch party affiliation and vote for Ron Paul, you just may never get to vote for him at all. One can always switch back immediately after the primary, I will!
We have a chance to make 2012 the most important presidential election in over 150 years. It is within our power to fire a shot that can be heard around the world. We can tell the world that the the time has come for peaceful prosperity, individualism, and liberty to reign supreme. We can do this, or we can sit back, do nothing, and get more of the same.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination it will be the single most important election in modern history. If he does not win it will be as unimportant as any other. We have one choice and one chance; I hope we take it.
Monday
STRANGE DEFINITIONS OF WAR AND PEACE
Last week I joined six Republican and three Democrat colleagues to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
In a remarkable act of chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal law in the United States! I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of US and NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.
We must recall the origins of these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future. One need not defend Gaddafi's regime -- and I most certainly do not -- to object to this flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another country. Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the United States as a preventative humanitarian measure over US enforcement of its immigration laws, for example!
Now in Libya we see the possible use of depleted uranium shells, we see infrastructure destroyed, we see universities bombed, we see all the "collateral damage." Yet, this is a "humanitarian intervention”?
In our lawsuit against the administration, among other critical issues we are demanding that the courts provide relief and protection to the country from the administration's policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations and NATO without authorization from Congress, and that previously appropriated funds by Congress may be used for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries. These are fundamental Constitutional issues and I expect the judicial branch to treat our challenge with the same level of gravity as we do in the legislative branch.
Remember, we were told that this attack would last "days, not weeks" and we are already three months and likely nearly a billion dollars into it. As the bombings obviously target Gaddafi's houses, even killing some of his family members, we can see that the real goal is regime change rather than protection of civilians. Do we know much about the rebels whose side we have taken in what is, in fact, a civil war?
Although it is a bit late, I am pleased to see that congressional leadership has started to listen to our constituents, who are solidly against this war on Libya. I commend Speaker Boehner's expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration over this war and I sincerely hope he will use the full constitutional authority granted to the legislative branch to bring into check an administration clearly out of control.
Polls show that the American people increasingly favor a truly conservative foreign policy: one that rejects the leftist, utopian doctrines of nation building and preemptive war, and one that is NOT funded by debt. Forcing the Obama administration to obey the clear letter of the law is one step towards restoring a traditional, patriotic foreign policy that serves American interests.
In a remarkable act of chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal law in the United States! I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of US and NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.
We must recall the origins of these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future. One need not defend Gaddafi's regime -- and I most certainly do not -- to object to this flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another country. Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the United States as a preventative humanitarian measure over US enforcement of its immigration laws, for example!
Now in Libya we see the possible use of depleted uranium shells, we see infrastructure destroyed, we see universities bombed, we see all the "collateral damage." Yet, this is a "humanitarian intervention”?
In our lawsuit against the administration, among other critical issues we are demanding that the courts provide relief and protection to the country from the administration's policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations and NATO without authorization from Congress, and that previously appropriated funds by Congress may be used for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries. These are fundamental Constitutional issues and I expect the judicial branch to treat our challenge with the same level of gravity as we do in the legislative branch.
Remember, we were told that this attack would last "days, not weeks" and we are already three months and likely nearly a billion dollars into it. As the bombings obviously target Gaddafi's houses, even killing some of his family members, we can see that the real goal is regime change rather than protection of civilians. Do we know much about the rebels whose side we have taken in what is, in fact, a civil war?
Although it is a bit late, I am pleased to see that congressional leadership has started to listen to our constituents, who are solidly against this war on Libya. I commend Speaker Boehner's expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration over this war and I sincerely hope he will use the full constitutional authority granted to the legislative branch to bring into check an administration clearly out of control.
Polls show that the American people increasingly favor a truly conservative foreign policy: one that rejects the leftist, utopian doctrines of nation building and preemptive war, and one that is NOT funded by debt. Forcing the Obama administration to obey the clear letter of the law is one step towards restoring a traditional, patriotic foreign policy that serves American interests.
WHAT I THINK......TIM STANLEY
Ron Paul reaffirmed his status as a serious contender for his party’s nomination on Saturday by winning the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. He may not be a serious candidate in the sense that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. But he is superbly well organised and funded, and he dominates the affections of the libertarian wing of his party. Some dismiss Ron Paul as a “perennial candidate”. Yet the reason why he keeps on running – this is his third shot at the presidency – is because his constituency is just as perennial as he is.
There were boos in the hall when the results were read out. Paul took 612 votes, Jon Huntsman 382, Michele Bachmann 191 and Herman Cain 104. Mitt Romney, the leader in national polls, took a pathetic 72 and Tim Pawlenty – a politician so bland that he makes Walter Mondale look charismatic – took 18. Neither Romney nor Pawlenty spoke at the event, and questions will be raised about how representative the voters really were. But Paul won the Conservative Political Action Committee straw poll back in February too, which suggests he’s on some kind of a roll. Straw polls don’t count towards the nomination, but they do inspire people to get their check books out. In the first quarter of 2011, Paul raised more money than any other declared contender. His last online “money bomb” appeal netted $1.1 million in one night.
We’ve seen all this before. In 2008, Paul drew large amounts of cash in the months before the primaries, but then vanished when voting started. His band of loyal libertarians is stretched too thinly across the country. There aren’t enough economics professors, Hell’s Angels, college slackers, dynamo-businessmen, pacifists and Aqua-Buddhas in any one state to swing it his way. His hardcore ideology is too socially libertine for religious conservatives and too economically callous for crossover Democrats. His politics fall into a niche parodied by The Onion with this barfly motto: “Fiscally I’m a rightwing nutjob, but on social issues I’m f**king insanely liberal”. Paul complicates this by also being a bit pro-life.
So why won’t Paul go away? His followers will tell you that Ron Paul keeps on winning because he is right on the issues. And he has certainly been vindicated on the subjects upon which he has built his reputation – fiscal policy and war. He was right to predict that the 2008 bailout would distribute public money to irresponsible private institutions and prolong the recession. At the time he was a lone voice. But his “throw ‘em to the wall” philosophy is now Tea Party orthodoxy, and the Republican leadership likes to pretend that it said that all along too. The GOP is even coming around to his way of thinking on war. In the New Hampshire Republican debate, several contenders distanced themselves from the decision to intervene in Libya. Mitt Romney, in the real surprise of the night, pledged to withdraw troops as soon as possible from Afghanistan.
Intellectually, Ron Paul is relevant because he represents a quiet renaissance of American traditionalist thought that predates the Tea Party. After 9/11, a number of Right-wingers evaluated George W Bush and found him wanting. Under his watch, welfare provision and militarism ballooned. While some welcomed this variety of big government conservatism as a necessary adaptation to economic and military crises, others regretted the betrayal of core Republican values that it represented. It is often forgotten that neoconservativism is the recent innovation within the Republican ranks – not Ron Paul. On the contrary, Paul’s anti-statism harks back to a pre-Cold War GOP that was isolationist and laissez-faire in its outlook. Paul’s people can argue, with some validity, that his candidacy is an effort to return to root principles. The historical fundamentalism of the Tea Party – all those men in tricorn hats pretending to be Paul Revere – bodes well for such an enterprise. In 2011, the GOP is trying to forget the futurist hubris of the neoconservatives. Its future may lie in its distant past.
For all its immediate relevance, Ron Paul’s candidacy remains quirky and idiosyncratic. The blame for that rests with the man himself. What elevates Dr Paul above the other candidates deflates him in the polls. At the podium he speaks without notes on whatever subject seems to come into his head. To see him in person is to experience the apocalyptic magic of wild prophecy. His rambling discourse on the moral and economic bankruptcy of America smacks of something missing in modern politics – the truth told honestly and intelligently by a mad old white guy with nothing to lose. He is so real, he’s unreal. His constituency laps it up. But that constituency – while holding a valid claim to Republican orthodoxy – is too small a base from which to launch a triumph of reason. And an ideologue like Paul could never compromise enough to reach beyond it. For the moment, the man and the movement are locked into a passionate conversation to the exclusion of others.
There were boos in the hall when the results were read out. Paul took 612 votes, Jon Huntsman 382, Michele Bachmann 191 and Herman Cain 104. Mitt Romney, the leader in national polls, took a pathetic 72 and Tim Pawlenty – a politician so bland that he makes Walter Mondale look charismatic – took 18. Neither Romney nor Pawlenty spoke at the event, and questions will be raised about how representative the voters really were. But Paul won the Conservative Political Action Committee straw poll back in February too, which suggests he’s on some kind of a roll. Straw polls don’t count towards the nomination, but they do inspire people to get their check books out. In the first quarter of 2011, Paul raised more money than any other declared contender. His last online “money bomb” appeal netted $1.1 million in one night.
We’ve seen all this before. In 2008, Paul drew large amounts of cash in the months before the primaries, but then vanished when voting started. His band of loyal libertarians is stretched too thinly across the country. There aren’t enough economics professors, Hell’s Angels, college slackers, dynamo-businessmen, pacifists and Aqua-Buddhas in any one state to swing it his way. His hardcore ideology is too socially libertine for religious conservatives and too economically callous for crossover Democrats. His politics fall into a niche parodied by The Onion with this barfly motto: “Fiscally I’m a rightwing nutjob, but on social issues I’m f**king insanely liberal”. Paul complicates this by also being a bit pro-life.
So why won’t Paul go away? His followers will tell you that Ron Paul keeps on winning because he is right on the issues. And he has certainly been vindicated on the subjects upon which he has built his reputation – fiscal policy and war. He was right to predict that the 2008 bailout would distribute public money to irresponsible private institutions and prolong the recession. At the time he was a lone voice. But his “throw ‘em to the wall” philosophy is now Tea Party orthodoxy, and the Republican leadership likes to pretend that it said that all along too. The GOP is even coming around to his way of thinking on war. In the New Hampshire Republican debate, several contenders distanced themselves from the decision to intervene in Libya. Mitt Romney, in the real surprise of the night, pledged to withdraw troops as soon as possible from Afghanistan.
Intellectually, Ron Paul is relevant because he represents a quiet renaissance of American traditionalist thought that predates the Tea Party. After 9/11, a number of Right-wingers evaluated George W Bush and found him wanting. Under his watch, welfare provision and militarism ballooned. While some welcomed this variety of big government conservatism as a necessary adaptation to economic and military crises, others regretted the betrayal of core Republican values that it represented. It is often forgotten that neoconservativism is the recent innovation within the Republican ranks – not Ron Paul. On the contrary, Paul’s anti-statism harks back to a pre-Cold War GOP that was isolationist and laissez-faire in its outlook. Paul’s people can argue, with some validity, that his candidacy is an effort to return to root principles. The historical fundamentalism of the Tea Party – all those men in tricorn hats pretending to be Paul Revere – bodes well for such an enterprise. In 2011, the GOP is trying to forget the futurist hubris of the neoconservatives. Its future may lie in its distant past.
For all its immediate relevance, Ron Paul’s candidacy remains quirky and idiosyncratic. The blame for that rests with the man himself. What elevates Dr Paul above the other candidates deflates him in the polls. At the podium he speaks without notes on whatever subject seems to come into his head. To see him in person is to experience the apocalyptic magic of wild prophecy. His rambling discourse on the moral and economic bankruptcy of America smacks of something missing in modern politics – the truth told honestly and intelligently by a mad old white guy with nothing to lose. He is so real, he’s unreal. His constituency laps it up. But that constituency – while holding a valid claim to Republican orthodoxy – is too small a base from which to launch a triumph of reason. And an ideologue like Paul could never compromise enough to reach beyond it. For the moment, the man and the movement are locked into a passionate conversation to the exclusion of others.
Sunday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
