Ron Paul Can At Least Say He Gave Them a Way Out

One would think that after two terms of the indisputably worst presidency in our history -- the inexorable outcome of the 1970s' New Right, the Conservative "Movement," supply-side ideology and militaristic neoconservatism -- Republican voters would reject the plodding continuation of Tweedle-Deeism, back an insurgency such as Ron Paul's, and thereby begin the arduous process of redefining what organized conservatism means.

Last night's debate in Florida, however, demonstrated with painful clarity that the only real conservatism remaining in the Republican Party is the hidebound urge to stick with the same old, same old, and that the Old Guard believes that that is precisely what the shrinking base demands.

As an outsider looking in -- as a nonpartisan, that is, indifferent to the internal workings of the GOP but nevertheless intrigued by the history of political suicides -- that seems a shame. The party is missing a historic opportunity to, in effect, start from scratch; to start with something truly revolutionary, much as the Democratic Party attempted half-heartedly in 1968 and continued in 1972.

Then, just as for Republicans today, the Dems knew they had balled things up but good, and since they would almost certainly go down in electoral flames anyway, they might as well rethink a few things and see where they came out.

Paul offered Republicans that choice, as he still does, and as he did last night.

He was the only candidate to stand on the stage and express not only what vast swaths of the general electorate now realize, but what vast swaths of even hardcore conservatives know full well but stubbornly refuse to concede merely out of blind and raging partisanship: that the Iraq war was "a very bad idea and it wasn't worth it" -- with emphasis on the modifiers.

Nothing has been clearer in the history of U.S. adventurism -- and that history has seen some spectacular clusterfucks indeed -- yet there the other candidates stood, mumbling about the intervention's congenital goodness that was merely mismanaged.

Mike Huckabee, doppelgänger demagogue that he is, even went so far as to rewrite its thoroughly discredited history: "Now, everybody can look back and say, 'Oh, well, we didn’t find the weapons.' It doesn’t mean they weren’t there. Just because you didn’t find every Easter egg didn’t mean that it wasn’t planted." None of the others condemned the revisionism, thus allowing a profound state of denial to stand like accepted wisdom.

Had he the time, Paul surely would have pointed out that even had the weapons existed, without provocation one doesn't go to war. That's not merely a bedrock principle of smart foreign policy. It was, once, a bedrock principle of conservatism.

But let's be clear. The Iraq war has come to define far more than what a foolish war looks like.

For it now defines conservatism itself -- literally the neo-conservatism that Chalmers Johnson has posited (if I may take some liberty with his words) as a "military Keynesianism," by which he "mean[s] the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy." Says Johnson with devastating historical evidence at hand, "The opposite is actually true."

Paul would disagree with Johnson on the government's redirection of those "huge expenditures" on our "social infrastructure," advocating a radical libertarian approach instead. But whatever one thinks of that philosophical tack, at least Paul's would provide the second leg of a desperately needed and genuine brand of conservatism that could stand with some ideological freshness and face "ready-for-change" voters at large, up or down.

Instead, the Republican base is opting for the same old, same old. That was unmistakably expressed in last night's ideological lovefest, minus one. And it is indeed a shame. The Grand Old Party is just pooped; it hasn't the balls to rethink anything.

The real irony, however, is that it's the opposition party that's even better suited to emphatically advocate a frantic reversal of this nation's doomed course of "military Keynesianism." Yet it's coming up nearly as short as the Republicans. Which means both parties, someday, will go down together, even though the writing was writ large on the wall.

****

to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary -- because your support is needed, and thank you!

Comments

[Realist]

Congrats, PM! Your post today shows you see why Ron Paul should not have been dismissed out of hand, as he was by his co-cabalists and the media. What he has to say in defining the problems facing this nation doesn't mean that he's wrong about them. His path strays from reality when he presents his "cures" for these problems, but at least the candidates would be on the correct topics if they debated them and not attempt to rescue W's legacy from his folly.

[Hotrod54235]

PM,
Just take a step back and see who we REALLY are left to vote for: A female corporate stooge, a black corporate stooge, any number of white male corporate stooges, and now Edwards, who is barely hanging on, and Ron Paul who has no chance of winning anything but derision from the Neocons. The more things change, the more they stay the same, true as ever.

[PG Bowden]

Is it my imagination, or did Rudy Guiliani--loser to Ron Paul in every primary but one--get 3x the number of questions and 10x the time to answer them as Ron Paul? I knew it would happen yet I foind myself screaming at the two GE stooges--Tim and Brian--as I somehow thought they could hear me through the TV. Every time the corporate media screws an insurgent candidate a new conspiracy theory gets its wings.

[Paul Revere]

The airwaves are suppose to be licensed by the Government and belong to the public, so I ask you: what gives the MSM the right to favor one candidate over another? All debaters should be given equal time and the public should demand this.

[Scoppertop]

Duh. Either way, they're scared little losers with a war tradition.
conservative |kənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv|
adjective
• holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

noun
• a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.