Let's recognize the elephant in the room. Ron Paul is not really a Republican. He is a Libertarian. He is the current leader of that third party. Here is an excerpt from a Des Moines Register editorial:
".....Is the Republican Party the final refuge of libertarians tired of third-party runs and desirous of achieving political power? Or is Ron Paul’s popularity part and parcel of the Tea Party movement or a cross-section of it at work? And if not the GOP – where do Paulians belong?
Of course, the Tea Party movement is not a monolith. It is composed of social conservatives, free market conservatives, independents, libertarians, conservative Democrats, and Republicans. But social conservatives have taken the reigns of many Republican and Tea Party organizations and have come to view Paul and his supporters with disdain, suspicion, even hatred. They see him as a grand threat to the GOP's opportunity to prevent President Obama from another four disastrous years.
“I have come to the conclusion that arguing with ‘Paulbots’ is a waste of energy so I have stopped trying,” says Bill Hart, a conservative Tea Party supporter. “They are a real threat to our country’s well being.”
“Ron Paul is just nutty and egotistical enough to ensure that Obama has four more years,” says Bob Holland, a concerned GOP primary voter.
“I just feel disdain for the poor ignorant souls who use the term ‘Paulbots.’ These people are ignorant to our Founding and the Constitution. I have more disdain for them than people like Obama, Rahm, and Hillary,” says Cathy Peschke, aNew Hampshirevoter and Ron Paul supporter.
“They [Ron Paul supporters] hijacked the Republican Party, we're just taking it back,” arguesTexasvoter Chad Lang.
Whether conservative Republican primary voters can overcome the Paul surge will be determined on January 3; but the sizeable political rift that exists between traditional Republicans and Ron Paul supporters may be the real threat to GOP victory in 2012 in Iowa and beyond."
Ron Paul: A True Republican
There is a faction within the GOP that points to Ron Paul’s libertarian views as a basis for the erroneous claim that Paul is neither a Republican nor a conservative. This is absolute nonsense. There has always been a strong relationship between libertarianism and conservatism.
In an interview with Reason Magazine in July 1975, prior to his second candidacy for the GOP nomination, Ronald Reagan, the icon of conservatism, stated, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”.
He further asserted, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is”.
Reagan confidently added, “I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Reagan clearly understood and acknowledged the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism.
The following passage is an excerpt from Senator Robert Taft’s book, A Foreign Policy for Americans. The book was written in 1951, during the height of the Korean war. Taft, who earned the nickname, “Mr. Republican” was the chief ideologue and acknowledged leader of the conservatism of the Republican party from 1939 to 1953. He led the Conservative Coalition against Roosevelt’s New Deal, believed in a strong national defense, opposed the draft and alcohol prohibition.
Like Robert Taft, Ron Paul is the only candidate that advocates a true Republican foreign policy. Here is an excerpt from Taft’s book along with a link to the full text:
“War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not interfere according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country.”
There are a few old-school Republicans, like Cal Thomas, a Fox News commentator, conservative columnist, and syndicated author, that can actually recognize a true Republican when they see one. During the 2008 GOP primary, Cal Thomas correctly noted that:
“The only one behaving like a real Republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won’t get the nomination because too many Republicans are into handouts and redistribution, just like Democrats.”
so that means perry, gingrich or romney are not true republicans they are noe-Conservatives.
Neocons and Neoliberals: Two Masks, One Face
Obama might very well be classified as a “neoliberal”. He appears to be appointing leading neoliberals to key positions in his administration.
If you’re a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we’ll now have neoliberals. You may assume that “neoliberals” are new, smarter liberals — with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don’t know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism – not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi writes:
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said:
Until now the liberal West’s strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism.”
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal.
But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other. Neocons are alot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberalss are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which “branch” of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there’s a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and — inevitably as with any country which extends too far — collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither “new” or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
Definition of CONSERVATISM
hmmm
Open Letter to 'The Republican Establishment' – What the Military and Mainstream Knows About Ron Paul that You Should Learn
Ron Paul’s surge to the top of the polls in Iowa, and increasing likelihood that he will win is causing angst among many of you "Establishment Republicans". You are quick to try and dismiss a potential win as some sort of fluke, or owing to Independents registering to vote for him. Your typical argument against him is that "Ron Paul is too far out of the mainstream", and that his rise in the polls could be bad for Iowa’s standing as the first caucus and bad for the Republican party. Let’s address the idea that Ron Paul is out of the mainstream, and by implication, unelectable.
Divide Ron Paul’s positions into domestic and foreign policy. Domestically, Ron Paul is Mr. Republican. As the ideological founder of the Tea Party movement, he has put forward a plan to cut $1 Trillion dollars from the Federal Budget year one, and he has the voting record to make it credible. He has never voted for a tax increase. He has never voted for a program not authorized in the Constitution. He names 5 agencies that he proposes be eliminated: Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education as well as the TSA. This sounds radical, but consider that in 1980 Ronald Reagan promised to eliminate the Department of Education if elected. As his plan points out, these cuts would return spending to 2006 levels. So his domestic policies, low and no tax plan, and budget plan should seem like a dream come true for you. Foreign Policy must be where Ron Paul is "out of the mainstream".
Ron Paul’s domestic policies quickly tie into his foreign policy. He proposes to bring home US troops from all around the world. This he claims, rightly, would be his prerogative as Commander in Chief. Note that this is not a reduction in overall military force, although defense budgets would be cut too, but the immediate savings from eliminating the cost of stationing troops abroad, with all the attendant logistics issues, foreign rents, and base maintenance costs. This is where you "Establishment Republicans" disagree with him. The boogeyman of Iran is constantly floated in the debates, acting as a foreign policy litmus test .
It is here, dear Establishment Republican, that Ron Paul’s position is in step with the rest of America as well as the rank and file in the military, while you are out of step. Consider that George W Bush won in 2000 largely due to the mainstream being tired of Clinton’s police the world strategy. "A humble foreign policy" was a nice alternative to the Democratic nation building most perceived would continue under an Al Gore presidency. In 2008, 7 years post 9-11 with the Iraq war lies coming to light, the mainstream again voted for the peace candidate, Barack Obama, and against John "bomb Iran" McCain. For you Establishment Republicans reading this, I’ll say it again.
The main reason McCain lost was because he represented Bush III – a continuation of the neo-con hijacking of American foreign policy. McCain was out of the mainstream on his foreign policy, so he lost. Fast forward to today and consider. In the debates you have Republican Establishment candidates Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum arguing to see who is more hawkish. The lone voice on the stage urging caution and diplomacy, the long voice advising that this sounds a lot like the Iraqi war propaganda, the lone voice warning that we can’t afford another 8-year "cakewalk" like Iraq of Afghanistan – Ron Paul.
You Establishment Republicans argue that Iran really, really is a threat, no we mean it this time. The mainstream American, however, and most importantly, the rank and file in the military disagree. Few are in a better position to assess the risk posed by foreign powers than those actually deployed overseas. The active duty contributions to Ron Paul spell it out in dollars and cents who they want as their Commander in Chief and President. They want US Air Force Flight Surgeon and defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul. They know he won’t risk their blood over non-existent or hypothetical threats from Iran. So unless you Establishment Republicans are ready to call active duty military personnel uninformed or cowardly, you would do well to pay attention to this fact, and consider that it is you who are out of the mainstream. Ignore the caucus results at your peril, because Mitt "Obama-lite" Romney and Newt "Freddie-Mac" Gingrich are unelectable against Obama.
December 21, 2011
