Ron Paul Is the New Goldwater

In March 1960, there were very few identified “conservatives” when my father published “The Conscience of a Conservative.” In the days and months that followed, new and unbounded enthusiasm thrived. Like you, I knew people who ate hot dogs for four years so they could work for Goldwater. As Pat Buchanan wrote in his intro to Regnery’s 1988 republication of “Conscience” – I paraphrase – “in 1964 there were no conservative opportunists – because there were no opportunities for conservatives. It was all principle, all the time.” That’s why I think YAF was so brilliantly effective in its early days. About a month ago, when I wanted to put Ron Paul signs on our farm fence here at the intersection of two rural state roads, I called a guy whose email had read “ Warren country coordinator” for Ron Paul. He immediately drove over with two 3’ x 8’ Tyvex “Ron Paul rEVOLution”signs. We put them up. He was about forty, and his license plate read, “WRENCH 1”. He had spray-painted the signs himself, at his own expense, in his garage. He asked if he could use our hayloft next time, because there was more space there for the noxious paint fumes to dissipate, and he had to make a lot more signs. Now they are all over the county. “How long have you been interested in politics,” I asked. “Oh, about two months.” “How did you get interested? “I saw the name ‘Ron Paul’ somewhere and went home and Googled him,” he said. ”I haven’t sat down since.” Please note that this man is not making a cent off of the campaign, off of politics, off of government contracts, or any of the other variety of enterprises that Stan Evans so nicely captured in 1980 in his unforgettable image of the DC “sewer” that so many conservatives have turned into a “hot tub.” He is a hard-working mechanic who has a daughter at our local high school. He’s worried about her future. He has not sat down for three months now. Since it is the season, permit me to mention that this man reminds me of Christ when confronted by the Centurion, a foreigner, who tells Christ, “Lord, you don’t have to come to my house to cure my servant. For I have men under me whom I tell ‘go’ and they go, “come” and they come.” Christ marveled and said, “Such faith I have not found in all of Israel.” Well, Don, I haven’t seen anything like this for 45 years. Such faith I have not found in the very movement that one would expect to be taking the lead in valiantly defending the principles that this blue-collar outrider so tirelessly advocates – now that he’s discovered the unmentionable (to the MSM), execrable (to the Weekly Standard) Ron Paul. While I agree that we should not put our faith in Princes, even potential princes named Paul, he is clearly the one candidate who will not (as Broder wryly predicted last summer) have to change his tune one iota after the primaries and/or the convention are over. In other words, he doesn’t have to lie. Hope is a theological virtue, and I put my hope in the Prince of Peace. But He is also “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” So I like Ron Paul because, like Barry Goldwater, he fairly exudes truth-telling. Well, I’m just a sodbuster out here on the Shenandoah, and a YAF member for all of one year (I wrote the NR piece on the 1973 YAF convention in DC because I think WFB confused me with Dan), so please excuse any ruffled feathers. Our country is in such dire straits that we can’t leave it to the kids. I accept a lot of the blame – I was born three weeks after George Bush and three weeks before Bill Clinton, and my generation has been, frankly, a bipartisan disaster. Brother Dan (I think can cite him here, he was Vice-Chairman of YAF for all those years.) calls it “the oil slick.” He thinks things will get better when the kids grow up. Chris Manion

 Ron Paul belongs to the Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, freedom at home and non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.  He understands that the argument against intervention in foreign policy is the same as the argument against intervention in economic markets.  Every coercive intervention in human affairs produces unintended consequences, and results in outcomes different from, if not opposite to, what was intended.  At Fordham University in the 1960s, the tradition of Taft Republicanism lived on.  It dominated the thinking of the conservatives on campus, among whom were veterans of YAF and ISI.  Ron Paul fits into that tradition. For those conservatives who find Paul's position on foreign policy quaint, you might remind them that in 2000 George W. Bush promised a more humble foreign policy and an end to the U.S. hectoring of other countries.  I've known Ron Paul for 25 years and agree completely with Roger Ream's characterization of him. I worked for 8 years in Washington, D.C. and can attest independently to Roger's remarks on Ron's ability to work well with others. The reactions on this string to his positions reflect the fissures that existed in YAF and still exist in the larger conservative movement. Gerald O'Driscoll

I am not very clear what Ron Paul’s views about national security are. I have been appalled by all the campaigns underway in a non election year and have watched none of it. However, surely it is inappropriate to assume that Paul’s views of what serves our national interest and security now would have served them best during the cold war. This seems to reflect the same tragic mistake of many neocons that the strategies that best served our interests during the cold war are appropriate now. Having worked in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past four to five years advising their central banks I have no doubt that the diversion of our military resources to Iraq and away from Afghanistan, and our amateurish and bungled efforts to establish stable governments there have seriously diminished our security and undermined our national interests. I also worry that the expansion of government into our personal lives in the name of the so called “war on terror” (1984 must be the only book W has read. Unfortunately he misunderstood its message), threatens to destroy the society we are fighting to preserve. It is helpful to recall that the cold war had two very different, though some times overlapping, struggles. One was against communism and the other was against the security threats of the USSR and its allies. Our fight against communism was won by the victory of great liberal thinkers like F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, et all, over the Marxist, collectivist thinkers and the demonstrable superiority of actual market economies over centrally planned ones. The strategy required for this victory was very different from the diplomatic/military strategy needed to check Soviet expansionism. The ideological battle against communism is similar to today’s battle against those forms of religious fundamentalism that wish to impose themselves on the rest of us (whether Muslim or Christian) and it requires similar strategies. However, the strategies need to fight and protect ourselves from stateless, radical jihadists (Al Qaeda) are very different than those needed to defend ourselves from the USSR. Those who are concerned about Israel are wrong to think that they are supporting the best interests of Israel when they support the political views and policies of Jewish hard liners in Israel. They perpetuate struggle and insecurity. Something is wrong with our understanding of the situation there when the sharpest and loudest criticism of such policies come from Jews in Israel. In America they would be called anti-Semites by many who should know better. It is to the credit of the liberal, democratic traditions of the Jewish people that the Israeli supreme court has ruled on many occasions in favor of Israeli Arab demands that their areas of Israel (especially East Jerusalem) be given a fair share of public services (schools, garbage collection, etc.) Giving the Bush/Cheney White House ever more power to suspend our freedoms and rights in the search for our enemies has its limits before America is no longer worth defending. In addition, the American imperialist aspirations of some power hungry neocons, disguised as the virtues of spreading democracy, are creating unnecessary and costly enemies abroad and sapping our economic strength at home (the foundation of our military strength and of our standing in the world). Michael Lind in his insightful book, “The American Way of Strategy” elaborates on his one sentence summary of the historical and proper purpose of our foreign policy: “The purpose of the American Way of Strategy is to defend the American way of life by means that do not endanger the American way of life.” Militarily we have been much better at defense than offense and we are not so all powerful that we don’t need to play to our strengths. In any event, by our nature we are not empire builders, neocon babble not withstanding. With the dramatic expansion of free market capitalism to the global level, the huge increase in cross border trade and movement of labor and capital has brought rapid increases in living standards to hundreds of millions of people. But just as effective property rights (those protected from theft and by the rule of law) required an effective government at the local or national level (properly limited to protect against the temptations of power to abuse), globalization also by its very nature requires an increased role for international “government” (also rigorously limited in scope) to protect property rights and all that entails. The era of economic globalization must also be an era of multilateralism (international cooperation of various forms). Or we can all return to the dark ages of continuous and futile wars and live in poverty and slavery. The end of the cold war and its bipolar balance of power has resulted in unipolar American dominance. This privileged position can only be maintained if the rest of the world believes that we promote fairness globally and care about their issues as well as our own. In short, we can only stay at the top of the heap by surrendering some of our sovereignty to international bodies and agreements through which we cooperate with the rest of the world. Our interests and every one else’s will be served by helping to fashion such institutions and agreements that promote freedom AND security. Warren Coats

I was active even before YAF in the Students for Taft and Youth for Taft. I was Vice-Director of Students for America, founded by Henry Salvatori, and arranged for FEE to Send their articles to SFA mailing list. I recommended the idea to Frank Chodorov who was worried about starting ISI without anything to distribute. I attended Mises NYU seminar with Stan Evans. I recall YAF rallies to support the independence of Katanga and Moise Tshumbe. Ron Paul has been and is the obvious successor to Bob Taft, Evertt McKinley Dirksen, Howard Buffett. Best, Leonard Liggio

As a teenager I would have been attracted by his solid libertarian message and I would be been appalled at his hypocrisy in sponsoring so many earmarks. J

Christopher Manion's response is eloquent and on point. If we are to have a chance at restoring liberty in these United States we have to get back to the kind of principle that we had with Sen. Barry Goldwater when the battle cry was: "In your heart you know he's right." Ron Paul deserves our support. We should stop the kind of compromising that Barry compared to "ladies of the night" politics. Our foreign policy has often taken over the military needs of the British and French empires. The US has been "Tom Sawyer'ed" into "painting the fence" for others national interests. Sometimes, such policies have taken us beyond what is in American interest; particularly in the Middle East. Ron Paul is the only candidate who frames the key issue of the need to stop the "endless war for endless peace" cycle. Lincoln, photogenic gifts, and candidate talent are side points that are not as important as a principled candidate who is getting previously disengaged citizens involved. The comparison to Goldwater is that of principle in the face of great odds. Goldwater carried 5-states ( Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, & South Carolina) besides his home state. Some tried the racist brush against Barry then just like some political pros are falsely hinting now about Ron Paul. Ron Paul, win or lose, stakes out a principled solution. We can look for the next Reagan in the meantime. However, it is not Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, or Thompson. Candidates trying to be like W or W-lite do not deserve our support; and, they are "Same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again." John "jj" Sainsbury

I confess to bias upfront-I worked for Ron from 1982-1984. He is, as Neal Freeman nailed it, a courtly gentleman. I was especially impressed that despite his unwillingness to deal in stolen goods, he maintained very good personal relationships with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is down-to-earth and does not have an ego problem of any kind. But he is passionate about constitutional principles and not, again per Neal, the most persuasive articulator of these ideas to the unconverted. Roger Ream

Having been born in 1958, I was in diapers when many of you were out campaigning for Goldwater, but since the conversation has shifted a little toward speculating on 2008 and beyond, I’ll join in. I fell in with the Libertarian Party in 1980 largely BECAUSE its candidates were unelectable but “pure.” I suspect many young people like Ron Paul for the same reason. Seems to me his unelectability is a good thing for the conservative movement--it makes conservative idealism seem more authentic to a (rightly) cynical generation. He’s bringing into politics for the first time a lot of people who will watch (for the first time) how whoever is elected in ’08 mess things up, but he won’t make it through the primaries. Perfect! Paul could help set the stage for a genuine realignment of politics in 2012. I predicted in 2005 that the Dems will split in 2008 with the creation of a viable Progressive or Green Party ensuring the election of a Republican. In 2012 the Repubs similarly split with the creation of a viable Libertarian or Constitution (or Conservative?) Party. In 2016, amid the melt-down of Social Security and Medicare, we could have the first real four-way race for President … at which time (but only at that time) my money is on the Libertarian/Conservative candidate. Joseph Bast

I joined YAF in 1967 (although I was in Youth for Goldwater in '64). I probably would have supported the Iraq War and thought that Ron Paul's position endangered our national security. I would have agreed with most of his domestic policies, with the exception of what I would have regarded as unreasonable limits on civil government's intelligence-gathering powers. After several decades observing what happens when we ignore J. Q. Adams' maxim (America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy") and how civil government uses any excuse, no matter how transparent, to consolidate power and extinguish liberty, I see things differently. Both my wife (the former Alison Borland of ACU, Schuchman Foundation, Howard Phillips' OEO, etc.) and I gave Ron Paul the maximum legal contribution almost a year ago. As far as supporting someone who 'can't win,' that's a Republican argument, not a conservative one. Remember when you had to decide whether you were primarily a YAFer or a College Republican? Funny how this current discussion reminds me of that first litmus test. Would there have been a Goldwater without a Taft? A Reagan without a Goldwater? We or our children may someday say, "would there have been a------ without a Ron Paul?" If Bill Clinton had started the Iraq War, Ron Paul would be a Republican hero. Bill Mencarow

Paul Makes Freedom Undermine Security

I believe Ron Paul’s naiveté on foreign affairs is appalling. I am far from a neo-con and I know the CIA’s and DoD’s shortcomings, but Paul’s views are dangerous and they will not enhance our security. Is the world freer because of our foreign and military policy in our lifetime? You bet. It isn’t even a close call. According to Paul “Reagan was a failure”. More could have been done, but RR was a principled, political genius. No libertarian comes close to advancing freedom with the effectiveness of Ronald Reagan. Would I have been for the Ron Paul of my age when I was in college? No, I was for Ronald Reagan and I rejected the late Roy Childs (who lived in Buffalo for awhile and came to some of my YAF meetings) and the far out liberaltarians then too. Ron Robinson

Even as a youngster, never attracted was I to the "leaders" who were crazy and unpleasant. We had lots of them, especially on the east coast: Ron Paul's exotic accent notwithstanding, he would certainly be standing tall among them: Sell the lighthouses! Disband the police! Unlock the barn doors! Beware of foreigners! Details are for wimps! I didn't care for Liberty Lobby or George Wallace- types then, but hearing Ron Paul today makes one nostalgic for the days when provincialism and resentment seemed so new. The President - any President - has inherent U.S. Constitutional authority to initiate military hostilities abroad (including granting or lending military or economic aid) because of Article ll's Commander & Chief enumeration as well as every U.S. Supreme Court case on this particular question before or since. It was not even questioned later in 1974's War Power Act, granting a President 60 days to do anything, seeking Congress's consent after the fact and/or prolongation of any appropriations. This is why there has been no serious effort to file suit against GWB on Iraq, notwithstanding Congressman Paul's unfortunate choice of words attacking Israel and/or maligning President Bush's inherent Constitutional authority here. The threat of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling to al-Qaeda will confront the next President, be it Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or one of your other favorites. At least some of us calling ourselves conservatives recognize the danger of a Jimmy Carter-like response. Ron Docksai

I think Ron Paul is wrong on the war against the Islamo-fascists and therefore I have not looked at him much further. I would vote for him for Congress, but not for anything higher. Bill Dennis

I have always been a conservative and not a libertarian so I honestly don’t know how I might have reacted to Ron Paul if he had been on the scene when I was in high school. I think most idealistic young people would judge him by the consistency of his own standards. He says he looks at every issue through the eyes of enduring principles and the Constitution. Yet he seems to pick and choose which principles are most important to him as we all do. He takes a populist position in opposing taxes on tips for example. Yet he offers no broadly applicable principle that backs up that stand, only that he wants to help service workers and says the IRS estimation formula for tip income is too high. Let’s be honest, it is probably too low. If you tax on income at all, tips are part of income and there is no principle that says all income from tips should be excluded. Ron Paul says we should “secure our borders” before other immigration reforms and there should be no “amnesty” for millions of people who once crossed the border illegally to get here. He does not define either term. Does he propose the deportation of all illegal immigrants living here? He does not say. He does say to end “birthright citizenship” so that the children of illegal immigrants will not benefit from illegally crossing the border. Sorry, that looks like a mask for racism to me. Now literally the sins of fathers would be visited upon innocent children who did nothing illegal but to be born in the U.S. Notice he does not say he is proposing a constitutional amendment so that he can neatly duck the fact that the Constitution itself grants the right of citizenship to all children born in the U.S. Regarding Warren Coats’ comments, of all the mistakes that a nation can make, even a super power, acting unilaterally is not the worst one. Sometimes acting unilaterally can be the necessary and right thing to do even if there are short-term interruptions of normally good relations with allies. Now I am sure we can all agree that it is almost always preferable to closely consult with and act in concert with allies whenever possible. But that too can limit action to make it less effective and less timely. One reason we had to fight a second time in Iraq in 2003 could be that President George H.W. Bush took too narrow a view of what war aims were legal or justified in the first Gulf War. He literally thought that under the terms of the UN resolution the ejection of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991 was the only military mission the coalition was empowered to do. He made no effort to broaden the war aims after the oil fields were torched and Kuwait was looted. In reality, he feared that pictures of the highway of death would revolt world opinion. Gen. Norman Scwartzkopf, whose leadership in the combat phase was exemplary, nevertheless foolishly allowed the Iraqi generals to use their helicopters which of course helped keep them in power and suppress rebellions in the south. That action cost America the trust of many Iraqis for a long time. Too late, we created two no-fly zones which incidentally were not authorized by the 1990 UN resolution either. While multi-lateral action is preferable it is not an end in itself. Unilateral action might be necessary to effectively handle threats that only the US can handle. It seems that the US is just as often taken to task for not intervening in a hot spot as it is for acting in its own interest. Of course we will pay a price but it might be necessary. No one can crawl inside the mind of any president to examine motives. If President George W. Bush believes that fast unilateral action is the action most effective in a particular crisis, then accusing him of hubris on that score alone seems to be tantamount to a declaration that only multi-lateral action can be valid. That too is a dangerous, and arrogant, notion if the safety of our country is at stake. Mark Rhoads

I am not very happy with Ron Paul’s Rothbardian, anti U.S. foreign policy and have disgust towards his Charles Beardanti Lincoln revisionism. Shawn Steel

A great question, Don. Back then, I might have been tempted; yet, even when I was young and very libertarian, my anti-communism was so much a part of my thinking that I would never have accepted Paul. I think I would feel what I now feel - -that if Ron Paul instead of Ron Reagan were President, the Soviets would still be in power, indeed stronger. I think, even then, I would have seen Paul as a bit kooky. As much as some of Karl Hess appealed to me, I found him -- back then -- a bit off. But I can see how some are attracted to Ron Paul. I don't think for a moment that Ron Paul's supporters have even heard of von Mises or Hayek, much less read them. They include lots of reactionaries and nativists and conspiracy theorists. There are things I like and dislike about the various candidates, and I'm not nearly down on John McCain as some. But I could not support Ron Paul. Nor could I support Pat Buchanan. And I find that neither really gets it -- in terms of American conservative thought, and I include libertarians with in, although I don't think Murray Rothbard fairly represents reasoned libertarianism. Of all the objections to the Iraq War, I believe the least persuasive and relevant is the Israel angle. To argue or imply that the U.S. went into the Iraq war to satisfy a defense obligation to or even defense interest relating to, Israel misses the mark. Further, Israel -- given a choice of concern between Iraq and Iran, was probably more concerned about Iran. I don't suggest for a moment that Israel acts remotely perfectly, or that there are Palestinians who suffer tragically. But, at the risk of oversimplification, I reiterate that the Arab world, including the wealthy oil interests, have opted for making Palestinians multi-generational refugees rather than resettle them, anywhere. They are pawns, because -- as I have come to realize after naively entertaining a contrary view for a number of years ...when I had bought into the "land for peace" facade...the end game for some significant Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian leaders and players is not, say, "pre-67" borders or "sharing of Jerusalem" but destruction of Israel, although I acknowledge there is some new thinking on that side now, more an acceptance of reality than change in morality. Are some of us so desperate -- given the inability of many Republican leaders to stand for limited, constitutional government, that we would give credence to a Ron Paul? Or, for that matter, at the risk of inciting more debate, prop-up a Pat Buchanan -- who is an urbane, witty, well-read and well-spoken...rabble rouser? I will say this -- I never confused the Sharon Statement's discussion of self-interest in foreign policy with isolationism. Ron Paul doesn't get it. Arnold Steinberg

I’m enjoying the continuing discourse among YAF and Reagan veterans – many who I’ve known over the years, some known only by their distinguished reputation and service to the conservative movement, and some still close and dear friends and colleagues. Professor Donald Devine set this all in motion a couple of days ago with his question as to how, in our teen years or early twenties we would assess Congressman Paul’s candidacy? I joined YAF in December, 1963 – the same month I turned 16 AND got my first driver’s license! Doubtless I would have found Dr. Paul’s libertarianism appealing. But over 44 years, I’ve gotten just a little bit smarter. In 2007, it’s abundantly clear what Ron Paul is against; where I find opacity is of what he’s in favor. The outcome of the War of Northern Aggression was decided in the stillness at the Appomattox Courthouse. After 147 years, most have accepted it. But Dr. Paul has now disintegrated into historical meaninglessness. Lincoln could have avoided the Civil War by having the federal government “purchase” and then free slaves in the South? Four million of them? Where would he have found constitutional province to do that? What if many southern slave owners refused to “sell” their human capital? Invoke eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment? Perhaps Boston merchants and Virginia planters could have bribed King George III into selling us the Colonies—or at least granting a long-term ground lease. To buy off Hitler, bankers from London’s Square Mile or New York’s Wall Street might have negotiated financial terms for the Nazi’s release of Poland and France. Makes sense to me, right? Over decades conservatives have abided shortcomings in some of our favored candidates. Silliness is not one of them. More troubling than Paul’s historical revisionism is his antipathy to Israel. That tiny spot of dirt (7,847 square miles—less than twice the size of Los Angeles County) is more free, more successful, more innovative than its eight or nine hostile neighbors who, in the main, want to see it destroyed. Two million square miles of “their” land is certainly sufficient to carve out a “ Palestinian State”. But who wants them? Moreover, as a Christian, I am charged—both by the Old and New Testaments--with honoring and defending Israel’s right to exist. I am not a Jew: my Pilgrim ancestors (Bartholomews) came to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635—Protestants then, Protestants now. Finally, am I the only conservative who finds Congressman Paul’s favorable (64%) rating from the ACLU unsettling? His is the highest of any Republican in Congress, and higher than many Democrats. Maybe he should reflect on the words of the ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." Are these goals to which Ron Paul accedes? If Paul were the Republican nominee against Hillary or Barak Obama, would I vote for him? Yes, albeit reluctantly. My first fear would be he would name Rosie O’Donnell as Secretary of State. Allen Brandstater

If I may make an observation as someone who is not a conservative by temperament and who didn't share the travails of the long march from 1964 to Reagan White House, part of the problem we're facing is the result of our successes. Slashing welfare, putting al-Qaeda on the run, taking a more aggressive stance towards crime, getting tax cuts in place that buoyed the economy --- all of these have taken electoral issues away from us and caused our elected leaders to wobble more than they should. But that's politics. The conservative coalition is so broad that it's bound to cause problems along the way. And that's what we're facing now. Christopher Manion's defense of Ron Pail’s Constitutionalism is scholastic. No American president, Democrat or Republican, has gone to Congress for a formal declaration of war since 1941. Whatever the reason, it certainly isn't because we lacked a personality in the White House who thought the Constitution was important. By the same token we haven't tried anyone for treason since Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. Not the Rosenbergs, not Hiss, not Aldrich Ames, not John Walker Lindh. If Paul is so concerned about the Constitution why isn't he concerned about this? Or about the 20 million illegal aliens who symbolize the inability of even a Republican president and self-described conservative to assert the most basic principle of the Republic, its sovereignty? Paul is no different from our other political leaders who haven't figured out how to address these problems. But in invoking the Constitution as his "theme" he is deceptive in a way the others are not. We know very well why Bush has absurdly named the enemy as "terror" when we are in fact fighting an Islamic crusade against the West. This is a political issue and can only be resolved by political leadership. A proper war against this Islamic crusade would create, for example, a violent rupture in our relations with Saudi Arabia, which is the fountainhead of radical Islamic doctrines and more, and on which our industrial civilization is dependent for oil. I'm not sure "moderate Muslims" is a useful phrase. I prefer Bush's formulation for foreign entities: you're either for us or against us. I agree that constitutional protections should not be given up lightly. Don't underestimate the internal enemy however -- people who are in what I have called an "unholy alliance" with the enemy. They surely number in the millions. The anti-war left (and I include Lew Rockwell and his website antiwar.com in this category) and domestic Islamic radicals. It is not a small number. People who regard the Bush administration as "fascist" are likely to think that treason is patriotism. If you want to fault Bush (and I do), his failure to develop an energy policy that would free us to confront our enemies is a prime reason why he is unable to do what Chris Manion would like him to do. It is a problem that only political leadership (and certainly not Ron Paul's anarcho-pacificist, America-the-guilty leadership) can solve. How secure is freedom in a shrinking global environment where fanatical religious totalitarians backed by state powers are not only on the loose but on a crusade against those freedoms? Ron Paul is not only a relic. Ron Paul is a menace in this political environment, and should be regarded as such. The world is much smaller and much more dangerous than it was even in 1964 -- and Goldwater was not a blame America First libertarian like Paul. He had a healthy concern for the dangers that faced us. David Horowitz

Ron Paul Is Our Goldwater Conscience

Ron Paul may or may not be a sterling character, but the response he’s getting should tell all of us something. I’ve said that he’s like the little fellow who arrives with a puff of smoke on a Disney character’s shoulder who turns out to be the character’s conscience … reminding him of what he really believes. Paul’s biggest substantive problem is that he has managed to slip into the very same posture many libertarians took during the cold war. Their logic and the desire for a smaller government led them to suggest that a) the growth of the state is historically tied to periods of international tension and particularly to wars; b) if there were no wars or international enemies there would be no need for a powerful state to protect us from our enemies. This is all, of course, quite true, but to then conclude as they did then that there are no real enemies (the cold war was our fault and if we’d just leave the Soviets alone all would be well) and therefore no need for a defense establishment was just plain silly. Paul makes the same mistake today re the radical Muslim Jihadists. Iraq may or may not have been the place to fight them and there might be far better ways to fight them than Bush has been able to come up with, but to merely wish them away would be a mistake. One can favor restraint and reject nation building and hegemonic attempts to remake the world in our own image without believing that the world is a fine place without real enemies or that the only enemy out there is us. Having said all this, I believe that given the moral and intellectual rot at the center of the movement and the party to which we’ve tied ourselves, Paul would be running stronger without Iraq. The response to him, flawed as he may be, is not based simply on a reaction to the Iraq war, but to the fact that many have lost sight of our true beliefs and goals. Dave Keene

This is a tough one. I suppose that when I was in my twenties I would have admired Ron Paul's domestic ideas without giving a thought to whether they were politically realistic. I still admire them but now worry about his inability to work with other people. He troubles me in the foreign policy area, but I suppose your question presumes that the Cold War would be in the John Kennedy phase and Brent Bozell's 1962 Madison Square Garden speech would be YAF foreign policy and Ron Paul would have agreed with it. If Ron Paul, on the contrary, had believed back then that defending the Fulda Gap and Berlin was unconstitutional, I would have had severe problems with him. His position on Lincoln buying the slaves to free them without the carnage of the Civil War is something on which I would have supported Ron Paul as an undergraduate YAFer (1960-62), as  a military-veteran law-student YAFer (1964-67), as an older YAFer (1967-?), and even today. Charles Mills

Funny you should ask. I went out to a Ron Paul rally a couple of weeks ago precisely to see if the old blood would stir. (Paul is big here in north Florida -- more yard signs than all other R's and D's combined.) I enjoyed the riffs on personal responsibility. Nobody plays that song anymore. Paul also harped on the notion of smaller government, which seemed to be a new, bright as a penny message to the mostly twentyish audience. And the stick-it-in-their-eye anti-establishmentarianism was there, too, palpably so -- Paul's podium style is to challenge everybody in the bar simultaneously. It should also be noted, since it's just us girls talking, that the hall was filled with more than the statistically predictable cohort of oddballs and loomers, guys you want to see go home with somebody else's sister. (As a YAFer of a certain age I felt right at home.) What was missing from the Paul pitch? There was little argument and lots of asseveration, a preacher not even preaching to the choir but shouting catchphrases and code words at the only partially converted. What we all relished in a Buckley or Bozell speech was the rolling rhetoric of an idea gathering force. None of that here, just slogans slapped one upon the next. Then there's the messenger problem. I disagree (by actual count, once a century) with Ron Docksai. Paul's not unpleasant in any debilitating way. Offstage, he's almost courtly. He must have the Q score of a country doctor, which I guess he is, but he has none of the personal magnetism that helped Goldwater and Reagan make a tough sale. All of Paul's supporters seem to be pre-sold, which is another way of saying that the libertarian-conservative idea resonates still, which is a very, very good thing. Neal Freeman   

My views are similar to Neal's, David Franke’s are much more positive to Paul but he can speak for himself.  Please add his name to your list.  I will forward the last few emails to him.  Larry Callaghan 

Had Ross Perot ultimately not been so eccentric when he ran in ’92, he would have won. Ditto Ron Paul in ’08. Them’s my thoughts. L. Brent Bozell

So far, the responses to your query have generally not taken seriously your instruction to put one's self into (in my case) a 19 year old's mindset here at the end of 2007 before assessing Ron Paul's desirability as a presidential candidate. Tricky question, Professor Devine! First of all, it's worth noting that Ron Paul hovers at 5% support among Republicans at this stage -- far less than Barry Goldwater in 1963/4. Those of us who labored on the Goldwater campaign at least had a pretty solid feeling that we could win the nomination, if not necessarily the general election. Paul is not so blessed, and so is less attractive as a vehicle for conservatives in a primary contest filled with them. There's nothing quite like having a single opponent who represents everything that is wrong with the party, and Nelson Rockefeller fit the bill perfectly. The post-Reagan world, where even Rudy is seeking conservative approval, is a different place politically. The questions for your hypothetical 2007 incarnation of the young YAFer are twofold: (a) is Ron Paul the candidate who most clearly understands - and is willing to articulate - how far Dubya has taken the GOP away from the limited government and free market principles we fought so hard to put at its core? And (b) is Ron Paul the candidate with the best prospects for leading the counter-reformation? Paul wins question (a) hands down. But he does not have a prayer of winning the nomination, and so lending him support is an act of protest and not much more. Alright, then, young YAFer -- is that worth the candle? In my younger years, I was no stranger to embracing a candidate who had no chance of winning the nomination. I worked on John Ashbrook's presidential primary campaign in 1972 (he won 8% in New Hampshire, and 10% in Florida). It was one of the most rewarding things I've ever done. In the general elections of '72 or '76 I voted for John Schmitz (1.4% of the popular vote), and Roger MacBride (.2% of the popular vote). But those third-party protest votes, while viscerally satisfying, were justified by the fact there was no remotely conservative alternative. In today's circumstances, where every Republican in a crowded primary field purports to pay homage to conservative principles, the matter is less clear. Our battles at around the time of the founding of YAF involved bigger-than-life heroes: Goldwater, the rough-and-tumble Arizona horseman, was plain-spoken, had a knack for clarity, and took no guff from anybody in the media (or anywhere else). Reagan, another Western horseman, also plain-spoken and able to speak clearly and stirringly, was more congenial than Barry, and all the more effective for that. Both could inspire crowds and get the blood rushing at the drop of a (cowboy) hat. I like Ron Paul, but he is a bit of a nebbish, and is prone to the sort of convoluted libertarian-speak that makes eyes glaze over. He was completely unprepared for his Meet the Press appearance, and Tim Russert (who had carefully researched every odd thing he'd ever said or wrote) shredded him to bits. Goldwater or Reagan would be out there pointing to the latest lunacy from Capitol Hill--enacting a law to ban the incandescent light bulb--as proof beyond all doubt that the government in Washington has lost its sanity, and that for all his lip-service, George Bush (who signed the damned thing with great delight) has lost any notion he may once have had of the meaning of limited government. But on foreign policy the early YAFers were not lineal descendants of the America First conservatives of pre-World War II vintage. For us, waiting until foreign threats, in those days specifically communist threats, reached our shores was a luxury we felt we the nation could not afford. Geographical isolation no longer provided security in an era when ballistic missiles could arrive mere minutes after launch. Rather than wasting our breath pining away for the days when war declarations were the norm and wars were always fought between national armies, we should turn our creative and intellectual abilities toward proposing a construct under which major military actions can be undertaken in an era of asymmetrical warfare, consistent with the constitutional roles that the executive and legislative branches properly exercise in making such a decision. We will have plenty of allies on the left when it comes to protecting civil liberties; we will be all alone in proposing ways in which government's size and reach can be held in check. (I will now step back and await the incoming barrage of artillery which will inevitably follow.) Let me make a personal aside. Bill Odom was a major general in Army intelligence when my son Brian was born in 1982. Today, Brian is a Navy intelligence specialist who has done several tours of sea duty in the Persian Gulf and shore duty with the Seals in Falujiah. For Odom to declare now, with 160,000 members of the U.S. armed services on the ground putting their lives on the line every day, that Iraq will be "the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history" is an incomprehensible assault on the morale of the solders in harm's way. Why should any of them risk their lives if generals are calling it pure folly? One can be a critic without being pig headed about it. Unfortunately, generals sometimes have egos so large that it clouds their judgment. Odom is a prime example. So too is (sorry, Bob!) MacArthur. The heroes of this conflict are the enlisted ranks and the lieutenants, captains, majors and colonels who've proven to be the most consistently capable military force we've ever had. And the country can thank Barry Goldwater and the conservative movement for having provided the impetus for creating a superbly professional volunteer military. Ron Paul's outlook on foreign policy is decisive for me. I could not support him. I think my best advice to the young YAFer in 2007 would be to Google himself a copy of the Sharon Statement and take it to heart. I reread it this afternoon, and it remains the single finest declaration of conservative principles to appear since 1776. Update the line that says, "the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties," and we'd have something to nail to every tree in sight. Measure every candidate against it (Ron Paul included), and judge their willingness and ability to make it sing in the public heart. The goal is to get the job done. And if none of the candidates measure up, the hell with 'em. Out of 300 million people in this country, there's got to be somebody who can do it. And, young YAFer, it might even be you in a few years. Pat Korten

As usual, Reagan said it most succinctly. That is what we should say over and over and over to the 19-year-old. "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" Ron Paul may well be the only one among the present GOP contenders who actually believes something closely approximating Reagan's maxim on domestic issues, but then he starts mumbling incomprehensibly about the terrorists attacking us because we put troops in Saudi Arabia in 91 (conveniently forgetting/ignoring/not knowing the Muslim Brotherhood targeted the U.S. years before that). That's when I see this guy isn't quite connected to reality on foreign policy issues. The problem is Paul is probably as good as it gets with the GOP in 2008. Given the present cast of characters, I don't see much reason to believe that situation is going to change for the better any time soon because we have to spend so much energy fighting Leviathan's advocates within our own ranks (see any of the Senate earmark votes of the past two years) that we have little or no opportunity to mount effective efforts on behalf of principled proposals. BUT ... the Internet is replacing the mainstream media and empowering citizen groups like the Sam Adams Alliance to find and cultivate people who know the right battles to be fought and how to win them. That is why I still believe we will ultimately overcome Leviathan because most people can quickly grasp the enduring truth of Reagan's maxim and we have now been given (Thanks, Al!) communications and organizational tools to regain the commanding heights of the national debate. But it's going to take another generation to accomplish. Those of us who have been in this from the earlier days (I came around in 64 with the Reagan speech, so I guess that makes me a second generation child of the conservative movement) probably aren't going to see the Promised Land but from afar, so our task now is to do everything we can to educate the next generation and build the Internet-based media and activist organizations that will eventually carry the day. So on balance I remain optimistic. Who will I vote for in 08? I think I'm going to write-in Tom Coburn. I don't know if he rides a horse but I look at his voting record, read his legislative proposals like the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 and listen to his Senate floor speeches and I know he's the real thing. And a Coburn-Cornyn ticket has a nice ring to it for 2012. Mark Tapscott

The resonance of Ron Paul is less his flawed foreign policy prescriptions than a discomfort with the excessive spin and vapid slogans of the rest of the field. Maybe we've been spoiled, but we can remember when we had better. War is, among others things, both a very serious, dramatic act of the nation--and, like welfare, No Child Left Behind, farm subsidies, etc.--a government program. As a serious, dramatic act, the Founders felt it should be serious debated by the branch closest to the people. Perhaps this is no longer viable or perhaps it is ignored constitutionally. But the essence should still obtain: when possible it should be seriously considered and the entire nation should be on board, knowing who we are fighting and some idea of the costs as well as the benefits. Even those supportive of both wars ( Afghanistan and Iraq) are uneasy that these wars may have gone astray, surge or no surge. Simply leaving it as simplistic as thinking we have no enemies and that trade will conquer all. Let me veer off in a related speculation: at least the last two administrations failed to act to defend the country even when they had solid reasons for being alarmed. Pre 9/11 they were participating in Ron Paul's naiveté. Deputy Attorney General Jaime Gorelick's "wall of separation" between FBI and CIA sharing of information; Sandy Berger's super secret memos that he feloniously hoped to expunge from the record; Clinton's Charlie Rose outburst falsely claiming he had done more to get bin Laden than anyone else; the August memo that the vile Ben Veniste wanted to get into the record and the Crawford briefing where GWB ended by saying "Now that you've covered your asses, you can go back to DC." Given their sense that they failed, terribly, there is now an effort to take on a John Wayne bravado. It projects confidence and certainty about what is being done -- even though there is little ground for either. When Irish Catholics were terrorists (IRA), we all knew enough not to think it either rooted in Irishness or Catholicism -- even if those two were not entirely irrelevant. Government officials acting as if they knew how to solve the problem is different than their actually knowing what the problem is or how to solve it. It would be delightful if the enemy today were against our "freedom". Who would not want to enter the lists on behalf of our freedom? But it does not explain the assassination of Sadat, the bombings in Morocco, the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, the carnage that was once the Switzerland of the Middle East ( Lebanon). Nor can it simply be the Israeli-Palestinian issue. If every Palestinian were given a mansion on the coast in North Africa -- the problem would not disappear. If Israeli decided to move en masse to London, New York and Oslo (or wherever) the problem would not disappear. Nor, I suspect, is economic development (the panacea of both secular liberals and libertarians). Bin Laden was wealthy; one of the intellectual founders of the Muslim Brotherhood studied in U.S. While the actual suicide bomber may be pretty dumb and feeling hopeless, some of these guys have had advantages and may not be stupid. And, while I hate to agree with Bill Maher on anything, they seem not to be cowards, however demented and evil they may be. Those who clamor for a huge effort against the "Islamic crusade against the West" never define their terms narrowly. They want to imply an existential war that will last decades if not centuries. The fear factor must be off the charts so that any action, however unconstitutional, is deemed necessary. If "the enemy" are all Islamic but deeply divided among themselves, and only some of these crazies are serious threats to us (as opposed to other Muslims closer to home), then we could focus on them and be more effective in killing them. And Muslims who have no inclination to do violence toward us should hear terms that would not make them wonder if in fact the West was not in a war against Islam generally. Those who spend their lives using words should not be so easily misunderstood -- unless they are deliberately using vague words to conjure up fear lest reason and evidence be allowed into the debate. Killing bin Laden should have been our highest priority. It is terribly damaging to us that he has lived this long and will be a disaster if he dies a natural death. It adds credibility that these and greater things can be done against us without serious consequences. Yet, so many wanted to divert our efforts (despite a greatly reduced military) to invading Iraq to the Middle East would be transformed. The result is the Iraq that was the important buffer to Iran (an 8 year war with a million left dead), is now dysfunctional and our military struggling and unable to carry forward any other mission. And the 1+ billion Muslims, instead of understanding and largely supporting the effort in Afghanistan, are now wondering whether the U.S. is in a war against Islam -- a notion radical clerics are happy to foster as well. Robert Novak and others were not "unpatriotic" to caution about invading Iraq. In the meantime, as an Anglican I'm happy Charles Martel stopped the Muslim hordes in France so my son can study at an Oxford without minarets (except a few tasteful ones). China is a unified enemy with nuclear arms. The Middle East has some very bad actors who need to be taken out, but Suhail Kahn, Bob Novak, Generals Shinseki, Zinni, Odom and Scowcroft are not among those. Looking forward, extricating ourselves from Iraq will be very damaging to the U.S. and its interests. Doing so in a way that causes least damage (although severe) will require serious thinking and statesmanship. (I see neither on the horizon). Until then, we will be bled militarily and financially. Only our navy and air force can now imply any kind of threat to anyone. Our National Guard is hard pressed to put out forest fires. To add more to Neal's point: the conservative leadership on foreign policy is nonexistent and the conservative movement has retreated into rehashed Cold War slogans. If we went into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, then what constitutes "victory"? The war analogy does not hold up, so references to WWII and even the Cold War are inapt. A final note on our flawed political leadership. It is interesting that both Barry and Reagan worked to support a conservative movement. Reagan, we are now finding out, read rather widely in "our" classics. Ron Paul has, at least, read into Hayek, Mises, Rothbard. While no one should try to discern a foreign policy from Mises, at least is suggests some kind of seriousness. Does anyone know what any of the others have: 1) done to further the conservative movement before they announced for president; and 2) read -- beyond, say, memos from their staff and WSJ editorials? Bob Schadler

The way I look at it, Ron Paul represents a kind of failure of the Movement.  It isn't his attack on Lincoln (his views on Lincoln are perhaps not greatly distinguishable from Frank Meyer's); it is more that he is the only candidate who really fits in with even part of what we were in the 1960s (with Tommy Thompson long out of the race and John McCain somewhat dubious at best -- though I have a weakness for Arizona mavericks), and Paul also the only candidate (besides McCain and the liberal Huckabee) who seems willing to take a moral stand, albeit a confused one (well, maybe Fred Thompson, but his model is Sam Ervin, apart from which he's a Nixonian).  Ron Paul may be the best the libertarians have to offer (yecchh?), and with no real conservatives in the race, therefore the best the Movement has to offer, in which case, were we really successful?  I didn't want George Romney in '68 and I don't want his son now.  I don't want any member of the House of Representatives (remember when Barry chose Bill Miller).  I don't want a liberal from Hope, Arkansas, whose grasp of foreign policy seems to come in on the zero-or-less scale.  And I don't want anyone who wants to put a mob connection in charge of "Homeland Security" (speaking of Nazi sound-alikes!) -- quite apart from my other dislike of liberals like RG.  At least (viz Huckaby) Nelson Rockefeller wasn't entirely unsound on foreign policy (sound on Venezuela, but of course they owned it).  But I do see signs in 2007-8 of what might be thought a degree of past failure on our part. I'd like it if I could be persuaded otherwise. Jared Lobdell

Paul's "anti-interventionism," to which I subscribe presumptively but not prudentially (I know, the syntax is a little off, but it should make sense), is actually a misapplication of subsidiarity, which tells us that in a world of states and other forces hostile to freedom we must be active as the one state activated by the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Free-trading libertarians, and I am one, love to champion a small world of "quicksilver capital." We must be quicksilver freedom fighters and anti-terrorists in this "borderless world" as well. Kenneth Grubbs