I gave Barack Obama my qualified support in a previous column, which provoked a surge in e-mails. Being clinically diagnosed as a moron was one of the gentler observations given to me, but one comment stuck out in my mind, because it was on target: “So a libertarian is now supporting Obama.”
How can I justify this position? Obama, obviously, is no libertarian. He believes in government and social engineering and many other things liberal. So what gives?
My reply: “It’s Iraq, stupid.”
Of course, the Republicans have one nominee named Ron Paul whose anti-war stance is music to my ears. He is a serious candidate, worthy of consideration and support. In an ideal world, Ron Paul would win 12% of the national vote, while every other candidate would get 8 to 11%. Paul may finish 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire, which will give Establishment Republicans the rebuke they deserve.
Unfortunately, Paul’s candidacy is on the margins. This means he can make small waves to change the party for future generations, but there is no way he can lead the party today. Too bad.
It is fascinating to me to see how mainstream Republicans dismiss Ron Paul so glibly and unfairly. A perfect case in point was made apparent when Bobby Eberle from GOPUSA.com wrote a piece that examined the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate:
“Paul may serve as a Republican in Congress and boast that he has won election after election as a Republican. It’s true. But it is true, because he knows he would not win running as a Libertarian. Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian running as a Republican, and the coalition he has assembled will do nothing to help grow the Republican Party. Angry anti-war liberals do not help grow a conservative base.”
Dear reader, did you notice the language shift that occurred within two sentences? Eberle first described Paul as a libertarian. That is correct. Eberle then says that Paul will not help the GOP. That is highly debatable from my point of view, but I see where he is coming from. But then, Paul is labeled indirectly as an “angry anti-war liberal.”
Ron Paul, a devotee of Austrian economics and the most ardent opponent to government spending in Washington, is a liberal? Come on!
I quote Mr. Eberle because he represents the conventional wisdom and aspirations of conservative Republicans. He started GOPUSA.com as an entrepreneur, and it has grown into a successful site. (I wrote for GOPUSA.com many moons ago.) He is smart, driven, and devoted to conservative values.
His comment was also a smear, pure and simple. Eberle and like-minded conservatives believe they can dismiss Paul merely with a liberal tag. That may be good politics, but it is despicable to degrade anyone as being liberal just because he or she does not share the vision of imperialist neoconservatives, which, I must add, has nothing to do with the conservative movement that came onto the scene in the last half-century.
I wish the term “pro-war conservative” was as much of an insult as “anti-war liberal.” Anyone who supports this war (started on false pretenses, waged with arrogance and thoughtlessness, and justified with emotional appeals instead of legitimate argument) should understand that there is nothing conservative about it. Restraint, pragmatism, a rejection of foreign interventions, and a commitment to smaller government are all conservative values, and these values have been trashed since we invaded Iraq.
I am no liberal. But I am anti-war. And I am sick and tired of establishment commentators who cannot make a distinction between true conservatism and a gooey kind of fascism.
But wait a minute! If I’m no liberal, why am I supporting Obama?
Obama (tentatively) opposed the Iraqi War back in 2003, when it was a politically unpopular position to take. It was a principled decision, based upon how our invasion could and did backfire. For this reason alone, Obama deserves credibility and support.
If Obama’s blueprint for this country comes to pass, the government may be bigger and badder, taxes may be higher, and many disproved ideas will have their day in the sun. But you know what? We’ve spent hundreds of billions on this God-awful war. Any health care plan or liberal initiative, no matter how bad, dwarfs the catastrophe that currently envelopsMesopotamia.
Obama is no pacifist, and no enemy to this country’s establishment. He’ll run the country from the murky middle. What will be refreshing is not to have a political party in charge that prattles on about “protecting America” while we napalm Fallujah. To think the latter action achieves the former goal is insanity. Just nuts.
I hope this incendiary column makes Republicans enraged. It is my small token effort to try to get the Republicans to lose even bigger than they did in 1964. Their political clout should be destroyed, clobbered, and beaten to a pulp. After all, they deserve nothing less.
If anyone sympathetic to conservatism is still reading, consider this point. I’ve been an advocate for many conservative ideas for a long time, many of them related to supply-side economics. Conservatives: if you have lost people like me, probably forever, then you should think twice about the direction of the movement that you represent and cherish.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”