Two related columns were written while Barely A Blog was down.
The most recent was “Israel’s sanity among savagery” (WND’s title). The “M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever) Are At it Again” came before.
If you were itching to have a go at me for either one or both, go ahead.
Category Archives: Ron Paul
Derb On The Irrelevance of Libertarianism
Elections 2008, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul
In “High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul” I contended that whatever was revving the Ron Paul Revolution, it was not the ideas or the “energy” of Beltway libertarians, represented by the Cato and Reason claque. In fact, there was almost no overlap between “the [Ron] Paul and the [Virginia] Postrel solitudes”:
“Ron’s Revolutionaries have coalesced around the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, against America’s hegemonic overreach, and for a sovereign, less ‘cosmopolitan,’ America.
Beltway libertarians, conversely, are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else ‘cool and cosmopolitan.’”
John Derbyshire goes further. In a new VDARE.com column, Derb contends that, “Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s candidacy is proving the irrelevance of libertarianism.”
Particularly courageous, given the commentariat’s general allergy to the truth, is Derb’s daring defense of Paul’s association
“with people, fifteen or twenty years ago, who thought that we were all better off when homosexuals had to be discreet, and that black Americans are prone to civil disorder, and that Martin Luther King was a philandering plagiarist, and that the Confederacy had a right to secede from the Union, and that the Korean storekeepers of Los Angeles behaved in true American spirit when they defended their property with guns against rioters. People really seem to have believed such things! And Paul gave them space in his newsletters! Euiw!”
As I’ve said in this space, “Derb’s Da Man.”
Derb also adds an “affirmations of undying political correctness” to his indictment of the Girls and Girly Boys of the Beltway.
That has to be particularly painful to a collective—and they do act and think as one—that likes to think of itself as ultra-rad (man).
The article is “Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s Success Proving Irrelevance of Libertarianism”
High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul
“What are the odds that Rep. Paul’s followers have come to the philosophy of freedom through Reason Magazine? Is it remotely possible that the passionate soldiers of the Paul Army enlisted after chancing upon a dispassionate, desiccated, dry-as-dust disquisition on a free market in kidneys (I’m all for it)? I think not…
Picture a Venn diagram. The overlap between the Paul and the Postrel solitudes is invisible to the naked eye. Only in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media does Postrel’s stuff resonate.
Ron’s Revolutionaries have coalesced around the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, against America’s hegemonic overreach, and for a sovereign, less “cosmopolitan,” America.
Beltway libertarians, conversely, are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else “cool and cosmopolitan…”
In “High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul” you can read why “the Reason Magazine and Cato Institute claque,” as well as others “in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media,” don’t count much in the Ron Paul Revolution.
Derb’s Da Man Part 2
Here’s Part One of John Derbyshire’s odyssey.
I agree entirely with what Derb has to say today at The Corner:
“I take the naïve point of view that you support the candidate whose principles are closest to your own, and whose record suggests sufficiently strong will to stick to those principles, and sufficient ability to act on them. Since Paul is promoting a passive style of federal government — i.e. masterly inaction, leaving the country to run itself so far as possible — the last doesn’t really apply. On the second, Paul’s record is hard to beat for consistency (though the standard here is a political one, i.e. low). And on the candidate debates I’ve watched, or read transcripts of, Paul is the one I most agree with. I can’t see that I need justify myself any further than that.
If I can’t get a Paul-Thompson ticket, I’ll settle for Thompson-Paul, or even Thompson-Giuliani. When a dysfunctional federal government generates systemic problems, though — and there are some doozies just over the horizon — you need systemic solutions. I believe that in current circumstances, that means a withdrawal of federal power from areas where it never had any proper business being, and a return to a strict reading of the federal Constitution. I see the same belief in Paul. I don’t see it Fred.”