« Beauchamp: Game Over | Main | Spying on Bangor's Rental Habits »
August 07, 2007
Derbyshire: Let's Lose for Conservatism!
John Derbyshire - embrace defeatism!
In this post, he agrees with an email that says we're going to lose the election anyway, so we might as well nominate a True Conservative™.
"There have been at least two times in the history of our Republic when the losing candidate for president has had a greater effect on subsequent history of his party and country than the winner. Such was the case in 1928 when the Democratic party had the guts to nominate Al Smith; and again in 1964 when the Republican party nominated Barry Goldwater. Both changed the face of American politics for generations after.Paul's "real interests" of course, being mild Trooferism and $400 million in earmarks. Don't begrudge him the money, though. I'm sure earmarks are in the Constitution somewhere. Or maybe the Federalist papers, or the Magna Carta. Look, don't question Ron Paul, okay! Just because he talks about decreasing spending doesn't mean he actually has to do anything. After all, his very presence will cause people to change.
"In regard to Ron Paul, I suggest that his candidacy, like the hopeless candidacies of Smith and Goldwater, would do more to focus the debate about the importance of our founding principles—about who we as a people are, and what our real interests are—than any other Republican or Democrat running.
"If Ron Paul were president, congressmen and senators would be less worried about what special interest is going to fund their next campaign, than whether they appear to be bought and sold. We just might get some honest legislation for the good of the country. Billions of dollars that now flow into lobbies to influence government might begin flowing into the non-profit sector instead, where they can not only actually help people, but earn their donors some respect.This isn't political support. This is hero worship. How, exactly, is Paul going to push our Congress toward "honest legislation?" No explanation needed, I guess. He just will, because he's Ron Paul and he can do no wrong. In fact, after he makes Congress agree with one another, he's going to make oil $.03 a barrel, put $100,000 in everyone's 401K and cure cancer.
"All of the current crop of power-seekers spurning the Ron Paul campaign in hopes of power, jobs, and largesse in a Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, or Obama administration, will have to start looking for honest work. Instead, we will get a new generation of idealists eager to start cleaning up the mess.Forgive me if I'm not exactly comforted by the thought of a group of spam-happy, keyboard-pounding fanboys controlling the levers of government. Also, having volunteered for a campaign or two myself, I'm a bit irritated that this Paulbot automatically assumes anyone who is not working for The Only Man Who Can Save America™ is automatically a power-grubbing worm looking for a cushy government job.
This whole idea that we need to lose to keep our political purity intact is simply nonsense. Politics is pragmatic, not ideological. Ron Paul's supporters, in their quest for conservative purity, sound very much like voters motivated by near-religious fervor. Like far too many evangelical voters, these "True Conservatives" believe that if they have a list of ten demands, any candidate they nominate should agree with those ten and those ten alone. Any candidate who agrees with five or seven is unacceptable.
It’s a classic conflict between faith (given the support Paul receives, this word seems appropriate) - which is uncompromising, and politics, which is built on compromise. These "true conservative" voters see any attempt to compromise as a betrayal of core principles rather than a way to prevent legislation that is even more contrary to their values. In other words, yes...sometimes it is a choice between bad and worse. As the philosopher Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want.
Given Derbyshire's writings, I'm not surprised to see his recent crush on Paul take flower. What is surprising is that NRO keeps him around. Derbyshire's political philosophy is incoherent and contradictory because the man is, at heart, simply a contrarian. He's not a conservative, nor is he a libertarian. At heart, I think Derbyshire is just a guy who gets his kicks from saying unpopular or disagreeable things, then seeing the resulting anger or criticism as validation of his 'independence.'
Just like a certain presidential candidate...
(H/t: Hot Air)
Cross posted at Ace of Spades HQ
Posted by slublog at August 7, 2007 08:38 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3286
Comments
Lets do a real simple elementary math problem.
$400 million divided by $2.5 trillion.....
0.016%.
Also, last time I checked the federal government was still stealing private property from Paul's constituents. And there is a clause in the 5th amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". In other words Paul is responsible to return funding back to his district.
I found it interesting that one of those earmarks Paul requested was $10 million to repair a bridge.
Of course Paul won't get everything through. One thing he will be able to do without having to go through the Congress is bring our troops home from policing the world. We are too far in debt to allow Canada and the rest of the world to continue free riding off of our MIC.
Also I would suspect it would be extremely hard for Congress to get their budget through him. He'll probably veto everything that doesn't have at minimum a 10% cut across the board. And as long as we keep a fairly balanced congress it will be hard to override the veto.
Posted by: Nate at August 7, 2007 09:45 AM
Ah, so Paul's pure motives make his hypocrisy a-ok.
Good to know.
Posted by: Slublog at August 7, 2007 09:49 AM
Ah, I see His Defenders™ have arrived to slay the dragon of doubt!
Posted by: Beth at August 7, 2007 10:56 AM
He's easy to defend, Beth.
Frankly, if the GOP establishment's plan is to portray Ron Paul as an unprincipled hypocrite on government spending, then Ron Paul's got the nomination in the bag.
Which he does...
Posted by: Buckwheat at August 7, 2007 11:43 AM
Ooohhh...I've been promoted to part of the "GOP establishment."
Guess I'd better actually join the party, huh?
Posted by: Slublog at August 7, 2007 12:24 PM
If politics is pragmatic, not ideological, then why do you have a problem with Ron Paul's earmarks? I suppose that if someone is supporting Paul on the grounds that he is absolutely stainless, then the earmarks might dismay them; but some of us support him not because we agree with him on everything, or because we think he's perfect, but because no one else on the Republican side seems to offer anything except more war, more government surveillance, and more deficit spending.
Posted by: bbartlog at August 7, 2007 12:36 PM
If politics is pragmatic, not ideological, then why do you have a problem with Ron Paul's earmarks?
Because hypocrisy is distasteful. If you're going to set yourself up as an ideologically pure candidate, at least have the decency not to engage in the same sordid tactics you criticize.
Posted by: Slublog at August 7, 2007 12:38 PM
Yay! I'm officially the GOP establishment too!
Did you get your sooper-seekrit card with the handshake and seekrit code word yet? I did, and now I'm officially a member of CFR and the TRILATERAL COMMISSION too! (Oh noes!!!)
Long Live the New World Order™!
/watches Paultard heads explode
Posted by: Beth at August 7, 2007 07:30 PM