The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Ron Paul at CPAC

Text Size

Ron Paul at CPAC

By W. James Antle, III on 3.3.09 @ 1:24PM

By popular demand, I'll weigh in on Ron Paul's CPAC speech (I've discussed it previously here). Paul was very well received by the crowd. Partly, that's because large numbers of his own supporters -- the Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty -- were there. But he was also applauded by many of the same mainstream conservatives who would later stomp and cheer for Mitt Romney. The crowd was less stacked with Paulites than during his 2008 CPAC speech and the Paulities that were there looked much more like regular CPAC-goers than the more colorful types who came to hear Paul last year.

What gives? It isn't so much that Ron Paul's foreign-policy views have become more popular among conservatives, though they certainly do have a following. If anything, the surge has made most conservatives more convinced of the rightness of the Iraq mission than they were in 2006. Maybe humanitarian interventions or a muddled Afghan operation under Obama will make noninterventionism more popular on the right; maybe, given problems that could arise in Iran and elsewhere, it won't become more popular. But foreign policy has receded as an issue given the financial meltdown, the bailouts and stimulus packages, and Obama's agenda of government growth. Here is the area where Paul has the most to say to a Republican audience.

Paul didn't flinch from criticizing the Republicans' Bush-era record on spending and expanding the federal government, but much of that has become conservative conventional wisdom. Yet Paul also hit the Democrats hard, saying they'll "make us look like pikers" and strongly opposing their new spending. His Austrian economic views offer a counter-narrative to the liberal lament that the market is to blame for the bad economy, one that is getting more of a hearing in mainstream conservative circles.

Paul had to be pleased to tie the 2008 vice-presidential nominee in the CPAC straw poll, finishing third with 13 percent of the vote, seven points behind the winner. A question for 2012 is whether he will be the candidate of free markets, sound money, fiscal discipline, cutting the federal budget back down to constitutional size, and limited government at home and abroad or whether another more mainstream candidate will pick up the mantle. Like Mark Sanford, perhaps.

View all comments (29) | Leave a comment

Sean| 3.3.09 @ 3:05PM

Republicans are known for being the stupid party. This can go for some so called conservatives who were already burned by a GWB presidency. Twenty percent of CPAC voters picked Romney in the straw poll. Romney care for the nation anyone? Romney is definitely not a conservative yet wins the conservative vote.

Interloper| 3.3.09 @ 3:54PM

Someone with Ron Paul's John Birch Society, neo-Confederate, segregationist views is not going to be a viable candidate for anything beyond the House of Representatives in 2012. (If he is even alive by then. Paul makes John McCain look sprightly.)

Other than old age, much the same applies to Sanford. He may have a future as the leader of a GOP completely turned SRP (Southern Regional Party) in 2012 or beyond. It would be the same role deposed Virginia senator George Allen was the former hopeful for. But, the arc of demography guarantees the SRP will not be going to the White House.

BJC| 3.3.09 @ 4:51PM

Ron Paul is a reliable libertarian conservative and a principled political philosopher. I admire him greatly for being "Dr. No" before Tom Coburn was handed that moniker and before the GOP was tarred as "The Party of No." But I disagree strenuously with Dr. Paul over the primacy of premises. (Perhaps that means I disagree with you too, Jim? Yes? No?)

I differ with Dr. Paul over whether free markets are self-creating and self-sustaining; that I do not believe. Other precursors are necessary before a free market can originate -- the cultural, "manner of life" experience of liberty must arise first, followed by philosophical governmental/political principles honoring freedom second, leading to government-implemented laws respecting freedom of contracting and so forth....

CD| 3.3.09 @ 5:15PM

Good article, but foreign policy is a part of the economic meltdown. How do we pay for all our bases and wars? With money. Where does the money comes from? It's borrowed or printed. Why is it that foreign policy is not talked about in the same sentence as the economy? Whether you agree with RP's foreign policy or George Bush's, it wont matter what you think if there is no money to sustain it. Then what?

Red Phillips| 3.3.09 @ 5:35PM

Interloper's liberal self congratulation is actually sometimes helpful. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see what the insiders can't.

"But, the arc of demography guarantees the SRP will not be going to the White House."

You are absolutely correct, and this is part of the problem. Immigration restriction anyone? Secession anyone? But of course that would make me a "neo-Confederate" wouldn't it? Perhaps the neo-Confederates are the only ones with a viable plan to at least salvage part of this once great Republic.

Red Phillips| 3.3.09 @ 5:40PM

To capture the Paul vote Sanford needs to come out as a non-interventionist or at least as a foreign policy realist. I also heard that he flirted with the idea of endorsing Rudy. If this is true then that is very troubling. Anyone know if this is true?

Jim Duncan or John Hostetler could potentially capture some of the Paul vote and have more "mainstream" appeal as well.

Interloper| 3.3.09 @ 5:59PM

Sanford is pretty much a Flat Earth Society, flat tax fellow with the Neo-Confederacy baggage, as well. I've not seen him move beyond his no taxation and 'the South will rise again' obsessions.

I am skeptical that people like Sanford, Jindal and Barbour are really interested in leading the GOP qua GOP. They may really want to have a Southern Regional Party instead. That they can control. What the future would look like in their plan would be the South and a few non-Southern backwaters as an entity semi-separate from the rest of country. Only the least rational of them believe there can actually be another secession, but they would prefer to be in it, but not of it.

Louella| 3.3.09 @ 6:25PM

You forgot this part of the poll: 45% of those at CPAC "wish they had better GOP candidates to choose from". That's a much bigger percentage than a measly 20% or less of the vote, and pundits are saying Rush Limbaugh is the GOP leader. Imagine that. It's because we have no leader.

Brent Burk| 3.3.09 @ 6:28PM

Interloper,

Sanford believes in a Flat Earth? What?
Flat tax, I agree there should be a flat tax. There used to be something called equality.
And "the South will rise again"? At CPAC he said, even though he is a southerner, he doesn't know how a separated country could survive and what would happen in WWI and WWII if we weren't there. So, I dono where you get your information.

Interloper| 3.3.09 @ 7:20PM

Brent Burk, I get my information from doing research and reading rather widely. Sanford is an adherent to the traditional values of South Carolina. He hasn't a progressive idea about anything, and likely never will. For example, the reason he threatened to turn down unemployment funds in the stimulus package is because raising payments by $25 a week and extending them to some part-time workers would bring his state into compliance with national standards for unemployment compensation. Payments would still be very low, but they would be better than they are now.

South Carolina, like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and West Virginia is near the bottom on nearly every measure of quality of life, from infant mortality to educational attainment to income. That is the kind of society, Sanford and company want to maintain.

You seem to not interpret the Sanford's alleged remarks about the world wars accurately. He is saying Southerners did the U.S. a favor by participating in those wars. That the U.S. needs the South, not that the South needs the U.S. The latter is much more true since the majority of Southern states get back more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes. (Once one understands that, a lot of Right Wing bloviating can be seen for the nonsense it is.)

The key question is: What kind of country does one want the U.S. to be? Should our model be S.C., in which a feudal oligarchy lords it over a citizenry that often lives in Second, if not Third World, conditions? Or, should our models be the progressive things being done in cities ranging from New York to Colorado to Oregon?

Louella, you are on to something.

Alan Brooks| 3.3.09 @ 8:10PM

as far as quality of life goes, all America has a bad skool sistum, not just southern states.

Thomas| 3.3.09 @ 11:02PM

Dr. Paul is a very interesting man. But, not one that should be leading a major nation in the world today. Since the War of 1812, this nation has followed the principle of fighting our wars in the other guy's back yard, not ours. This is at odds with traditions of fair play that have dominated the culture of this country since its inception. But, as a practical matter, it is tremendously less expensive to discourage aggressors or, if necessary, to fight on their turf, destroying their infrastructure and society, rather than your own. This country can no longer follow an isolationist path and survive. This Dr. Paul does not understand. And this is why he is not a good candidate for President.

Scott Harmon| 3.4.09 @ 12:20AM

I'm going to take issue with the concept of "isolationism." It is clearly not isolationist to support free trade with many and all nations. It is also clearly isolationist, and protectionist, to send military troops into well over a hundred countries to insure the "natives" are kept in line as their materials are mined and their lands compromised. It's a bad system we've bought into, under cover of "free trade and democracy," and one which we cannot sustain without massive amounts of intervention and military expenditure. Based on the fact that US funding for military muscle (i.e., enforcement) is equal to that of the entire world combined, not to mention the huge sums of diplomatic bribes we offer, I question whether this interventionist (extortionist) system is even profitable. It's Gotti-think, really. Take over the city and get a cut, and pay for enforcement. Install a capo or two. It's old, worn-out thinking.

Isolationism from Paul? Hardly. He knows what a free market means. The real isolationists and mafia dons (protectionists) are all over the place, in govt and multinational corporations, fighting for their piece of turf, squashing the opposition, and crushing the free market.

Dea G.| 3.4.09 @ 1:29AM

I'd like to see a fund set up to send folks to study deeper through the irrefuteable von Mises Institute.

I'd include Thomas, Interloper, CD, Brent Burk, Loella, & BJC. It's significant that 6 out of 11 individuals interested in Conservative wisdom are dogged by such liberal sleight-of-hand and "sound-good" ambiguity.

So much to do.
To work ~ for fun & for profit!
And may peace break out.

Roy| 3.4.09 @ 2:30AM

Every time Democrats complain about the Republican spending:

1) Democrats controlled the presidency 1994-2000, the Senate 2000-2002, and both branches of Congress 2006-2008.
2) And even in the grand total of four years where Republicans, though not by any means conservatives, controlled all three branches - are we to envision Democrats as having constantly fought for less spending? I can try to envision that if I need some good laughs, but not when I'm remembering the truth.

The Democrat party(which contains Barack Obama) constantly howled and yibbered for MORE, not less spending. If they had been in charge the deficit would be 100 times worse. Except of course that they would have put Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his spokesman, Michael Moore, in charge of Iraq, they would have nuked us, and it would all be a moot point.

Basil Plumley| 3.4.09 @ 10:34AM

@ Interloper
you said-I get my information from doing research and reading rather widely. Sanford is an adherent to the traditional values of South Carolina ......

I call bullspit on that. That is almost verbatim language used by James Clyburn to complain about certain GOP governors not accepting Stimulus funds. I am sure you disseminated (plagiarized) this from some loony tune web site.

You never cease to amaze with your breadth of intellectual vacuousness.
Clyburn, like you, have no problem tossing the race card about to inflame folks. That kind of makes you the racist doesn't it, Mr. Separate But Equal?

Jim| 3.4.09 @ 11:00AM

Yes, we need a more mainstream candidate. All this stuff about liberty, peace and honest money is just so... old-fashioned and odd. Why can't he just come out for more spending, debt and war like everyone else? That's what happens when you get tangled up with this integrity and virtue nonsense, you know, it completely screws up your political viability. Get with it Ron!

Scott | 3.4.09 @ 12:09PM

Abe Lincoln has said far worse about minority races than the Ron Paul Politcal Report has. Abe Lincoln is a hero to hypocritical modern-liberals.

Thomas| 3.4.09 @ 12:11PM

Is the cost of a fire department 'worth it"? How about a police department? In terms of the number of man hours expended per fire or arrest, probably not. So why even have them? After all, volunteer fire departments are still used in this country. Your barn catches fire , just call the fire chief, he'll call all of the volunteers and they will arrive in time to water down the ashes. Cops? When you see the neighbor lady getting beaten in her front yard by a gang, call the police chief and he can round up a posse and try to chase them down, just like the old west. Or you can spring for a professional fire department with sufficient resources on duty to save most of the barn, or for sufficient police on the streets to inhibit criminal activity. Or, just say "To hell with my neighbors, I'll take care of myself and hope that I never need their help."

But let's talk trade, here. Just as national chain stores either move out of, or never open in, unstable, crime ridden neighborhoods; the same is true of countries. Free trade does not work well in war zones. That is one of the reasons for US military deployment around the world, to provide stability for trade. I don't think that Dr. Paul and most of the Paulites realize this. They are isolationists, irregardless of the rational that they use to justify it.

Miguel| 3.4.09 @ 1:09PM

Do we need to be the policeman of the world, throw billions of dollars towards groups like The National Endowment for Democracy, and have a global interventionist foreign policy in order to continue free trade? Maybe I'm a dunce, but it seems to me to be extremely foolish to say that if your answer is no, then you're a stick your head in the sand type person whose mentality leads to things like World War. Having a non-interventionist foreign policy mean doesn't mean that a military solution is always taken off the table until a situtation is completely dire, and it's not isolationist to not believe in subverting other country's governments in a violent or coercive way to advance National Interests for only a few. National security is another manner, and most decent and moral Libertarians I've conversed with do believe in having the biggest, baddest military to protect us, just not using it in the name of "spreading democratic ideals." Ideals that we could certainly work on elevating to the standards that our Founding Fathers clearly articulated.

Thomas| 3.4.09 @ 4:46PM

Well, Manuel, do we? Do we need to spend the money to staff fire stations in metropolitan areas just to in case there is a fire? Do we need to spend money on police officers to look for criminals and discourage criminal behavior before it occurs, or just wait until your house is burglarized or you are robbed then try to find the perpetrators? The first thing that happens in blighted areas without adequate police and fire protection is that business moves out or doesn't move in at all. Are companies beating a path to Darfur, the Sudan, Palestine, or Leenon? No. Why? Lack of security.

Now can we cut back our military obligations? Yes. Can we cut back and be more selective in our foreign aid agreements? Yes. Can we afford to remove US troops from foreign soil? No. As for using the military to "spread democratic ideals," the US does not do this on a Republican watch. The military projects a reminder of American force overseas to discourage our enemies from messing with our national interests, of which trade is a big part. As for subverting another country's government to advance National Interests, it is always important to define exactly what those interests are. Bringing down the Third Reich in 1938 would probably be looked on favorably if the alternative was known to be WWII. The same with the overthrow of Pol Pot. Very often National Interests are synonymous with National Security, even if they do not appear that way at first.

Scott Harmon| 3.5.09 @ 1:08AM

Well, Thomas, do we need to be in 165 countries to enforce trade agreements? The answer is no. A better answer is to work out trade agreements without force, and let the market work to its end point. What we have now is a totally unworkable military structure that cannot (and should not) enforce the capo scheme. Our "national interest" is not mining coal from some third-world country; much of the resources we need could be found at home or within our own hemisphere. This whole imperial thing is worked in concert with many other nations (e.g., Europe) that can't survive on their own. The U.S. is a premier producer of many resources, including food, precious metals, minerals, and so forth. We can easily trade these for the resources we lack. Our problem is that the U.S. elites--who are tied to European elites--want to control the planet and not barter for the resources of other nations. Our oil consumption is related to the military's thirst for energy (to patrol the planet) and the drive to finance the economies of less well-endowed nations (i.e., Europe) . The US could do quite well without the Empire. Perhaps, you should like all of the American "commoners" living in teepees so that the Elites can finance their stupid, old-world schemes? Go on. Debate the need for mercantilist Empire.

Thomas| 3.6.09 @ 10:45PM

What empire are you talking about? You can't simply ignore facts and make things up out of whole cloth. That is evidence of a psychological disorder. When you have a moment re-read my posts and address my central point that commerce does not function without security.

Scott Harmon| 3.7.09 @ 2:36AM

Thomas,
I presume that you are trying to debate my points. I don't know, for sure. An Empire may loosely be defined as one nation that owns or controls 50% of the world through military muscle or financial strangulation. Let me explain: the US military has a toe-hold on 130 nations, and some military presence in 165 countrites (courtesy, US Marine Corps Museum, which I visited). The US just built an embassy the size of the Vatican in Iraq; hangs onto a squalid NATO arrangement in Europe, years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union; inhabits South Korea with 26,000 soldiers to "fight" some armistice from the 1950s; patrols the seven seas with 13 aircraft carriers; shoots 100,000 dollar missiles from Predator drones at a few rogues in Afghanistan and Pakistan; squeezes Colombia through massive military intervention, spy-ops, and meddling to control a drug war that, well, isn't going too well; fights in Somalia; tries to engage former Soviet republics (Ukraine, et al.) to join the anti-Soviet relic of NATO; builds an "AFRICOM" command to rule over the continent of Africa as needs demand. ; spends as much money as the ENTIRE world on force protection/military; and on and on, I'm running out of space. To your point, I'm making this up and I must have a psychological disorder? Really, if you're denying these facts, I think the world would be better off if you got some therapy. The first step to the cure is this: denial of reality does not remove reality. And well, to your points about commerce not succeeding without security, this sounds a little cliche. The next time you are at Walmart, just picture this scene: men with M-16s pointed at every customer to insure they buy the "right" product. Come on, stop covering up, come clean, and admit it: you think an Empire and colonialist mercantilism are in line with "manifest destiny". Admit it, and you'll feel better. And please get that check-up soon.

Rusty Buick| 3.7.09 @ 3:23PM

I would think that any GWB conservatives would be quite happy with Obama. He's following the neo conservative path to the" T". Is it just me or does everyone that disagrees with Ron Paul's argument for sound money, constitutional government and non interventionist foreign policy look like a complete idiot. If there's one good thing about the Ron Paul movement it's that it has shown the true small government conservatives form the mouth breathing big government apologists calling themselves conservatives.

Brian| 3.13.09 @ 1:48PM

This is in response to Thomas.
The police, and fire departments are funded thru your local taxes. I also know many voluteer fire departments that run better then the paid ones. But their way they have nothing to do with your income taxes and extra federal taxes you pay for.
Local governments have a better control over your life and laws the the federal government does. Also your state and local governments are also held accountable and not full of lobbyists all day. So when ron paul talks about small government he is mostly talking about federal government and hopes that ideology continues to the local and state governments. Government is full of waste and the individuals of this country have less liberty then intended by the founding fathers. I would rather fight on our turf atleast we know who, and what we are fighting for and continue to have the reason for the 2nd amendent. If you think Cuba is going to come here and take over your sadly mistaken which is the point of the consitution to have a COMMON DEFENSE and we should have the best one.

same| 8.21.09 @ 2:33AM

It would be the same role deposed Virginia senator George Allen was the former hopeful for.

<a | 9.17.09 @ 6:59PM

I loved the editorial. It is very interesting. Thank you for the information. I will be back.
>cash loan,cash loan,
>cash loan,payday loan,
>payday loan