MELEE
AT MALL OF AMERICA...

Hundreds
of Teens Run Wild After Rumors That Rapper Ron Paul Is There...

VIDEO:
Mayhem, Screams...

Why the establishment really fears Ron Paul

 

As Ron Paul has risen in the polls, so has the frequency of attacks against him. “Any stick will do to beat a dog” goes the old saying, and the whacks against Paul range from reasonable to ridiculous. Expect the attacks to continue. Expect them to get more ridiculous.

And expect the worst attacks to come from Republicans.

Let’s cut the crap. The GOP establishment’s main beef with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. This ideological chasm is the subtext to most attacks on Paul from the right. To their credit, some of Paul’s critics are man (or woman) enough to confront the congressman on this subject directly. Paul welcomes these challenges and wants his fellow Republicans to debate what a true conservative foreign policy should look like. But the members of the Republican establishment do not want any such discussion. In fact, they fear it.

Most of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders subscribe primarily to a neoconservative foreign policy — the reflexively pro-war, world-police dogma that has been the dominant view in the Republican Party for at least a decade. When Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” in October, “Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?” Cain replied: “I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative … I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement.” Cain was being honest — he simply knew how most Republicans viewed foreign policy and generally agreed with them. What was this “neoconservatism” Gregory spoke of? Said Cain: “I’m a conservative, yes. Neoconservative — labels sometimes put you in a box.”

“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …” Of President Bush’s “hard Wilsonianism,” columnist George Will and National Review founder William F. Buckley said the following during an exchange in 2005:

WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative …

National Rifle Association President David Keene made a distinction between what he saw as Ronald Reagan’s more traditionally conservative foreign policy and the neoconservatives’ comparative extremism:

Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. … After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets.

Keene then asked: “Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”

 

The fact that a significant part of Ron Paul’s campaign has been to constantly point out distinctions between how past conservative Republicans have approached foreign policy and the current neoconservative approach that dominates the GOP irritates those who’ve spent their careers trying to blur these distinctions. Wrote the neoconservatives’ intellectual godfather Irving Kristol in 2003:

One can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills …

That Herman Cain had never heard of neoconservatism until his interview with Gregory is a testament to the neoconservatives’ success. That Paul might now be “converting” the GOP back toward a more sober or traditionally conservative foreign policy threatens that success.

The enduring influence of neoconservative foreign policy can be seen in this election. Many and perhaps most conservatives continue to find much to like about Ron Paul on limited government and fiscal issues, but will frequently add that they like Paul “except on foreign policy.” Paul has even been called “unelectable” by many due in no small part to his foreign policy views.

But no one ever says that they like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — except on individual healthcare mandates, cap and trade, TARP, amnesty or any of the countless anti-conservative positions both candidates hold. The laundry list of Mitt’s and Newt’s offenses against conservatism is a mile long — but both candidates remain ultimately acceptable, or are deemed “electable,” so long as both generally hold neoconservative foreign policy views. And they do.

Paul is to the right of Romney and Gingrich on every issue conservatives find unsettling about both candidates. But Paul does dissent from contemporary Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. It is without question foreign policy that makes Paul “unelectable” in the eyes of the Republican establishment but Romney and Gingrich ultimately acceptable despite their countless big-government offenses.

Hell, even the slightest hint that a Republican candidate could be wandering off the neocon reservation causes immediate alarm. During a Republican debate in June, Romney dared to say: “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can … our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.”

Of Romney’s uncharacteristic comments, Politico’s Ben Smith reported: “Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said her inbox was flooded Tuesday morning with emails calling Romney’s comments a ‘disaster.’”

“I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican — supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” she said. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul.”

For a brief moment, Romney dared to utter what many traditional conservatives have long said about the limits of American foreign policy. For neoconservatives, this minor transgression amounted to a “disaster.”

For every one of Paul’s foreign policy positions the Republican establishment calls “nuts,” you can find revered conservative figures, past and present, who have expressed similar positions: The Iraq War was a “mistake” (Bill Buckley, Robert Novak, Jack Kemp); America shouldn’t be the “world’s policeman” (Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist, Dick Armey); America’s constant intervention overseas causes “blowback” (Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Pat Buchanan).

There has long been an ongoing discussion on the right about foreign policy, but Paul’s popularity has pushed this discussion in a more non-interventionist direction. For Republican insiders, this is heresy and it is the real reason they attack Paul — whether they admit it or not.

For neoconservatives and a Republican establishment married to that ideology, there will continue to be much to fear from Ron Paul pushing forward with this foreign policy conversation. There is even more to fear from him having the last word.

Jack Hunter writes at the “Paulitical Ticker,” where he is the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign blogger

 

The answer to this question, as used in political connotation, requires an understanding of the respective terms. This process involves the semantics of their use in discourse.

It stands to reason that a mutual understanding of the words and terms when utilized in discussions is required for any communication between the parties involved to convey true meaning to the discourse. This is especially true when the words and terms are expressed in ideological and political platforms and through the media to the public at large. Unfortunately the dictionary usually only deals in defining words and is insufficient in providing the required semantical definition necessary for one to clearly obtain true meaning in their actual application.

To further confuse the issue, we find in conversation the interchange of the words "liberal" with being "to the left" and "conservative" as being "to the right". This apparently arose from the use of the terms in the parliaments of foreign countries; the parts of the parliamentary chambers located to the right and left of the presiding officers accordingly representing conservative and liberal elements respectively. Adding additional complication we find, at times, connotations used tying "to the far right" as tending towards "fascism" and "to the far left" towards "socialism" or even "communism"

Unfortunately, these terms are flagrantly interchanged by activists, politicians and those in the media. This results in the public receiving distorted and frequently misrepresentation of the facts. Our interest here is to the mis-information being conveyed to the American people that accordingly distorts their ability to clearly understand the meaning of the rhetoric to which they are exposed.

Looking to the past, it is no wonder that confusion exists regarding the understanding of what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. It is only in the last century that the term "liberal" has become associated with socialism. This collectivist ideology involves the redistribution of income and wealth with an accordingly greater control by the central government over the interactions of economic enterprise. Prior to this evolutionary change, being "liberal" had the reverse meaning of being in strong support of individual freedom with an attendant limited role of government in one’s life.

The term "liberalism" was coined in Europe somewhere in the late 17th or early 18th century to represent a political philosophy that emphasized limited government with individual freedom and civil liberties. It promoted representative government and property rights along with freedom of religion In economic matters it favored non-interference from government since the forces of the marketplace would provide the best results for the nation’s people. Thus, at its prime liberalism represented limited government with a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and economic free enterprise. Sounds like present day conservatism doesn’t it?

The term "conservatism" was coined to represent beliefs that arose to counter "liberalism" . Essentially, it supported the existing distribution of power, wealth and attendant social status. These beliefs included emphasizing faith and tradition ahead of freedom of thought and speech, as well as, supporting the total interest of society over those of it’s individual members. Sounds to a degree like present day liberalism doesn’t it?

Unlike Europe, America in the process of enacting a Constitution had developed political beliefs that included economic individualism and the limitation of government power. This was incorporated into the Constitution. This did not follow the beliefs underlying European conservatism but was in fact closer to European liberalism. The American beliefs accepted the concepts of a free market and the personal acquisition of property by individuals. Individual freedoms and property rights were representative of attendant moral, religious, political, and civil rights. As the provisions of the Constitution decreed, the federal government was limited to acting in those areas wherein the states themselves did not have that ability, in inter-state matters and in foreign relations. Great importance was placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power. This then became the foundation of American "conservatism".

Entering into the 20th century Americans generally accepted these principles that were to carry the conservative label. However, there was a political movement evolving that could now be endowed with the new label of "liberalism", American style, that had beliefs that government should be more involved in social issues and in controlling the free market. . Since the economy had become more complex as it expanded these liberal elements began to support the idea that the government could best promote the interests of its citizens by regulating the economy and having government provide for the welfare of its citizenry. In addition they wanted government to correct economic deficiencies they believed to be caused by unregulated capitalism. They supported progressive taxation, antitrust laws, a minimum wage, social security, public education, safety and health regulations, consumer protection and environmental preservation laws. Some of them became socialists, although not necessarily openly supporting Marxism and Communism.

These elements eventually found a way, albeit gradually, to change the course of government. The federal government, supported by three quarters of the state legislatures, aided and abetted these elements in enacting the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 taxing the income of wage earners. Although at first it placed only a nominal tax on those with extraordinarily high incomes, with time it evolved into a broad based tax on virtually all income.

In the same year, this federal power was also aided and abetted by the passage of the Federal Reserve Act that placed control of the nation's money supply and entire nation's banking system in the hands of the central government. The federal government was now able to usurp "states rights" enumerated under the Constitution. Thus, redirecting income taxes collected from residents of one state to the benefit of residents of other states and to federal programs that in the past may have been entrusted to the actions of individual states. Created deficit spending was now able to be financed by the artificial creation of money by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The American "liberal" received another big boost with passage of a package of social programs entitled "New Deal". President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal in 1933 in an attempt to reverse the economic downturn and provide for those in society having been adversely affected economically by the great depression that followed the stock market crash in 1929. This New Deal legislation placed restraints on free market activities, allowed government to intervene in the economy, heavily increased taxes and increased the size of government. However, it took the sale of materials to our future allies and then later for our own use in WWII, and the tightening of the belts by those Americans supporting our troops, to bring the economy back to relatively normal.

During this period American conservatism developed adherents that did not approve of the New Deal and promoted the resurgence of a free-market economy. They continued on this pursuit and in the presidential election of 1964 conservative Republicans supported Barry Goldwater whose book "The Conscience of a Conservative" espoused the principles of conservatism. Although he lost the election conservative beliefs continued to be espoused and in 1980, Ronald Reagan a strong supporter of Goldwater, took over the conservative mantel, ran and won the Presidency. His call for patriotism, religious and moral values, as well as, strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending was the motivation for his support by the majority of Americans.

With this background perhaps we have the foundation to simplify the meaning of the terms, as they apply to an individual American, with which we are dealing in the light of today’s world. Let’s try for definitions that can be easily understood after delineating and reviewing what has been stated heretofore.

Conservatism - from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:

• A free market and the personal acquisition of property by individuals
• Individual freedoms and property rights are representative of attendant moral, religious, political, and civil rights.
• In accordance with the Constitution, the federal government is limited to acting in those areas wherein the states themselves do not have that ability, in inter-state matters and in foreign relations.
• There is great importance placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power.

Simplified Definition: An ideal "conservative" believes in the importance of the individual person and the family structure; that it is the responsibility for the individuals within each family to do as much as they can for themselves before asking for assistance. When assistance is needed the route taken is community, city, county, state and federal, in that order, with the federal government the avenue of last resort. A conservative believes in the least government possible.

Liberalism – from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:

• Government should correct economic deficiencies caused by an unregulated free market economy
• Government should provide social welfare
• It is right for government to impose progressive income taxation
• Government should impose a minimum wage
• The social security system should remain a system where those working support those who are receiving social security payments
• Government should only support public education. forcibly paid for by taxpayers even though some object to certain subject matter and the manner in which it is taught .
• Stringent government imposed safety and health regulations.
• Consumer protection and environmental preservation laws.

Simplified definition: An ideal liberal takes the completely opposite position to an ideal conservative vying for a socialistic form of government working from the top down wherein the freedom of the individual is compromised for the supposed good of the collective group.

Please note that these definitions do not include side issues such as abortion, gun control, immigration, campaign reform etc. Conservatives and liberals may have identical positions without compromising their basic principles with the following caveat. Conservatives generally believe these issues should be determined by the residents of each individual State whereas Liberals believe that they be addressed at the federal level.

In summation, the fundamental difference between a "liberal" and "conservative" lies in personal responsibility.

A conservative believes that when government assumes responsibility it takes away the freedoms and incentives that make an individual productive. Whereas, a liberal believes an individual’s interests should be subservient to the collective interest of the members of society and thus minimizes reliance on personal responsibility.

One must either be one or the other because once the collective interests take precedence, the individual’s freedom is compromised and then it just becomes a matter of degree as to the extent. A "liberal" who compromises his principles may consider himself a moderate but it is impossible for a "conservative" to do so because any compromise makes him a moderate liberal.

Now, are you liberal or conservative?

 

 

As you can see, I put a lot of time, effort, and brainpower into that last post.  I would certainly appreciate some feedback.  One or two syllable words would be appreciated.

"Why the Establishment really fears Ron Paul" - because he is a nut job and we all know that nut jobs are unpredictable.