Uh, guys...

The New Republic's James Kirchick wrote a piece about the darker side of Ron Paul:  Angry White Man.  Read the whole thing, or excerpts at Hot Air (also with a link to Kirchick being interviewed by John Gibson) or Pajamas Media if you want, but all of this stuff could have been easily figured out without Kirchick's expose of Paul's past newsletters.  This is merely icing on the cake for Paul's detractors - making TNR's (yes, that TNR) involvement irrelevant.

The thing I don't get are comments like this from Ace at AoSHQ:

Ron Paul lives in a strange, dark, demon-haunted world. If this stuff is true -- and I assume it is -- it's about time for supposedly-sane Ron Paul boosters like the crew at Reason to admit what this man really is and what he represents. If this is "libertarianism," I want no part of it.

Where have you been?  You obviously haven't spent any time in Michigan.  Back in high school I played a bit in libertarian circles - went to a Gun Stock rally, occasionally listened to Mark Scott (an obituary on Lew Rockwell's blog), went to some LP meetings, got Jon Coon to talk to my high school political science class, and got all hopped up on this "freedom" rhetoric.  But freedom of or from what?  No one knew.  It was just freedom - which is why Ron Paul has, as Andrew Walden writes, an "odd alliance" of supporters.  Communists, Fascists, racists, anti-Semites, and believers of any sort of conspiracy theory*.  Walden's listing of Paulinistas mirrors my own experiences with "libertarians" in the mid-90's when the frenzied talk was of the United Nations invading and taking over the United States - amongst other things.  Nevermind that sort of inane talk was between overweight, middle-aged men in orange camo tramping through the woods with Bud Light and high-powered rifles trying to read The Turner Diaries.

Freedom, man.  Unqualified, unconditional.  Anyone who preaches that is as dangerous as someone preaching populism.

Kirchick's article is nothing new and not surprising, but hopefully it will help put Ron Paul into the same category as Lyndon LaRouche.

Update:  Seeing as I linked Rockwell's blog above I figured I'd read a bit.  Seems the posters over there are a bit upset about Kirchick's "hit piece."  So, naturally, they attack TNR itself. 

The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a "Progressive" who believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the will of governing elites.

In the context of knowing where TNR is coming from it makes sense to point this out.  It explains why TNR might go after a Republican candidate; however, it doesn't explain why it would go after Ron Paul.  Paul is clearly anti-war - ostensibly one of the most important issues on TNR's roster.  Plus, Paul is helping to tear the Republican Party apart - something I'm guessing TNR has some interest in doing.  Taking down Paul, then, isn't in their own interests.  Boosting Paul would be.

It also neglects the fact that the Paulinistas, as described above, are from all over the political field.  As seen in the Andrew Walden piece and at the biography page of Karen De Coster - who Rockwell quotes in the Mark Scott obituary I linked above.

I am a CPA and freelance writer who is devoted to the causes of liberty, individualism, and the free market. I embrace the right to keep and bear arms; recognize the superiority of the Articles of Confederation; subscribe to a motley assortment of minor conspiracy theories; and believe that government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society.

I wonder, what exactly is a minor conspiracy theory?  Your neighbors tossing their leaves into your yard?  Nevertheless, these are the people who populate Ron Paul Land where shadows take physical form and goblins steal your cookies.  Excelsior!

(By the way, just how can you believe government is unnecessary in a free society and believe in the Articles of Confederation - a type of government?)

Also, the post at Rockwell just before the attack on TNR:  "Pimply-Faced Youth" Admits He's a Liar.  Apparently, Kirchick first claimed Paul was a homophobe then said Paul wasn't a homophobe in an email to a blogger at Gays & Lesbians for Ron Paul.

This episode illustrates the lack self libertarianism has that I noted in my original post.  While the Rockwell blog describes TNR as having "a view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to do, and use lethal force against people who resist" it links to a blog, in order to attack Kirchick, that described TNR as having a "history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse."

Anything to anyone.  And they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

Update2:  To expand on that "government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society" and the "anything to anyone" insanity.  How about:  Government, despite its inevitable faults, is necessary for a free society and in order to create a government as free as possible of flaws we must use concretely defined terms.

Case in point:  Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO gets a not-so-vague death threat from a, er, freedom-loving goon.

There's gotta be consequences to what you people are doing. Hannity got chased off the streets... he's lucky that's all that happens. Rudy got locked in a bathroom in a boat in MI. The revolution is real, not symbolic... I wouldn't smack at a hornets nest.

The media is generating hate and their own version of blowback. In America, blowback lead to 9/11. What will your blowback lead to? We're really starting to hate you folks.

Freedom!

*I don't think all of Paul's supporters are creeps.  Some - maybe most - might just be the "leave me alone" types without any ulterior motives.  I don't even think libertarianism is necessarily a bad thing.  I do think it's pretty much undefined and so may mean anything anyone wants it to mean - just like unconditional freedom.  Communists, Fascists, and racists all believe in freedom from or of something afterall.

Posted by: Jason at 05:04 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1019 words, total size 8 kb.