Buckley 1957, Paul 2007?
Via Andrew Sullivan, a National Review reader asks if there’s “anything in Ron Paul’s platform that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with.” John Derbyshire concedes: not much.
Which casts into stark relief claims by modern-day “conservatives” like the hacks at Redstate.com that Ron Paul supporters are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.” Seven years ago, no one would have disputed that Ron Paul was a conservative Republican in the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan mold. But nowadays, the primary criteria for membership in the conservative coalition seem to be loyalty to the president’s agenda and a general suspicion of foreigners.
Ron Paul can be a conservative, and his supporters can be a bunch of anti-war liberals pretending to be Republicans, at the same time.
Much of Paul’s support is due to his stance on foreign policy. From the comments I read from Paul’s supporters, I very much doubt they support getting rid of various federal departments, the gold standard, or even his pro-life stance.
If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan vanished tomorrow, Paul’s small but fanatical supporters would vanish as well.
— Steven · Nov 8, 10:35 AM · #
Bill Buckley in 1957 was for forward defense and global engagement with the Communist threat. Ron Paul is not a part of that, in the analagous Jihadi onslaught. Moreover, Ron Paul’s philosophy also makes him likely not to have wanted to engaged in that global struggle with the commitments abroad and taxes at home it required. Further, 1957 Buckley was not against government funding of the space race. Ron Paul? Buckley was never a “gold bug.” He never claimed American action excused barbarities against his own country. In short, Sullivan is either off or on his meds again (whichever causes the greater mental derangement).
— jjv · Nov 9, 01:48 AM · #
I enjoyed Chris Roach’s input on this:
http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/is-ron-paul-nuts/
I agree with him that libertarianism really has little to do with conservatism, and Paul is definitely more of the former than the latter.
— John Savage · Nov 9, 04:34 PM · #