The American Spectator

William R| 9.7.11 @ 11:22AM

I think Reagan failing to establish the dollar gold link is what upset Ron Paul more than anything . Especially after Reagan campaigned on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Foreign policy is Reagan's greatest legacy. He managed to end the Cold war peacefully and lived long enough to see the Iron curtain fall. The NeoCons blasted him over Gorbachev. Buckley wasn't that thrilled either.

But what upset the NeoCons more than anything else is when the Marines were attacked at the Beirut aiport and 241 were killed. Reagan had enough sense to get out.

Midge Decter, Norm Podhoretz’s wife and a prominent neoconservative herself, said she was “disgusted.” In America’s first major confrontation with Islamist terror, Reagan had cut and run. But for Reagan, the lesson was exactly the opposite. His final words as president were “the worst thing I ever did was send those troops to Beirut.”

It is very disgusting to listen to NeoCons today on how Reagan was some foreign policy HAWK.

USS Constitution.| 9.7.11 @ 12:48PM

Ron Paul is right about the overall Reagan Administration, and the support for Reagan when others mocked him.

But in Reagan's defense regarding monetary policy, he changed his tune after the assassination attempt that came VERY early in his presidency.

He started on it, with the Grace Commission and so on. He intended to hold true on his word.

I'm sure some will call me crazy, but I think it was pretty much made point to him that you will not go through with this. And Reagan figured he would just do the best he could otherwise.

The whole VP thing and the quick assassination attempt I've always thought was really shady.

Could be coincidence I guess, but considering history regarding those who threaten the monetary policy - I don't think so.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 4:51PM

It was a mistake to try to protect the Islamists against the Israelis---the Islamists recognize no friends, and will cheerfully kill those who try to help them.

Quartermaster| 9.7.11 @ 8:41PM

Jeff Lord leaves a lot out so that he can grind his own ax against Ron Paul. As I have said, I am no fan of Ron Paul, but Jeff Lord is just acting as the leftist smear bund acts when they think someone is in the way. Lord is in no way objective in the matter of Ron Paul, and I don't think he even cares about being accurate in the matter. He's just another neocon.

C Bowen| 9.7.11 @ 11:54AM

Mr. Antle,

One also has to discuss Congressman Larry McDonald, a Democrat to the Right of Reagan who might have been a primary challenger until he died on a Korean Airlines Flight.

Also, Jesse Helms was a frequent dissent to the Reagan compromises to the Left. That is, the Right organizationally speaking, was less then impressed with Reagan and his Administration, and one should look to the Summer of 80, when he took on GHW Bush as VP after promising he would not as the starting point of disillusion.

Red Phillips| 9.7.11 @ 3:10PM

"one should look to the Summer of 80, when he took on GHW Bush as VP after promising he would not as the starting point of disillusion."

Also, the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court lost a lot of conservatives. If I'm not mistaken, it was the nomination of O'Connor that caused Howard Phillips to abandon Reagan.

C Bowen| 9.7.11 @ 3:43PM

True, and of course Dave Stockman's resignation, and for the Cold Warriors, when Reagan lifted the Grain Embargo to the Soviet, the embargo Carter had initiated in response to Afghanistan, what was Reagan saying about the nature of the Cold War?

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.7.11 @ 12:12PM

We have not had a perfect President, and probably never will - regardless of whose definition of "perfect" you opt to use.

Beware of people who make the perfect the enemy of the good enough.

One of the main reasons I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, in spite of my strong affinities, is because they are far more interested in maintaining their pristine ideological purity than they are in actually winning elections and governing, as the results from election after election demonstrate.

Meanwhile, the malevolent idiots that actually do get elected are driving the Republic into utter ruination.

eric lukas| 9.7.11 @ 12:25PM

Ron Paul is the guy on the issues, he has THE BEST STANCE on the monetary system and foreign policy.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 12:34PM

Dr.Ron Paul understands Austrian School Economics trumps Keynesian Economics.

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 12:48PM

Okay. Now, I have to admit that I was a big-time Reagan Republican, back in the day. I hated Carter, was creeped out by 'Poppy' Bush, and was an early Reagan supporter.

I was too young by two years to vote in the 1980 election, but I followed every step. It wasn't until many years later that the Reagan mystique began to unravel for me (guess I wasn't as smart as Dr Paul). I followed Reagan's every word, and could find no fault. I can still find no fault with his Rhetoric. It was his deeds that fell short.

No telling how much of the wind was taken out of Reagan's sails by the assassination attempt, or whether it was always just wind. Regardless, although Reagan still sang s fine song, it may have been 'Poppy' Bush, mostly, calling the tune. The disconnect between the rhetoric and the record was monumental.

It took me several years longer than Dr Paul to wise up. I turned in my party card in 1996. I have never belonged to any other party, but haven't voted for a major party presidential nominee since 1992. I have either written in my vote or voted Constitution party, ever since.

I Held my nose and voted for Poppy Bush twice (voted for Buchanan in the 1992 primary, though). Didn't vote for Dole (wrote in Buchanan-Keyes). Didn't vote for Shrub, either time (voted Buchanan in 2000 and Baldwin in 2004). Didn't vote for McCain (voted Paul in the primary and Baldwin in the general).

It's only the fact that Ron Paul is running as a Republican that gives me any amount of faith in the party, at all, or any hope for its future. Without Paul, the party is dead to me. I will not vote for any other nominee. If Paul is denied the nomination and runs an independent campaign, I will support him.

I am disgusted by the comments of party hacks like Limbaugh (a sellout who actually promoted Buchanan and critized 'Poppy' Bush -- until he was invited to 'Poppy's' White House and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom) who howl that "Paul win distroy the party!" -- as if the party were their mother. Paul could actually save the party, by returning to it paleoconservatives, like me, who had lost confidence in it.

What Paul threatens is the strangle-hold of neocons on the party machinery; that strangle-hold is what actually threatens to kill the party, by eventually driving every last, honest, thinking conservative out of its ranks, and leaving it with nothing left but a faction of mindless, soulless sheep.

What's worse, though, is that the party, in its present configuration, threatens to kill the country. The country can survive the loss of the party (both of them, preferrably). But the party will not survive the loss of the country. So, get your heads out of your collective sphincters and nominate Ron Paul.

You know, to most of us, the party is not our bread and butter; it isn't our business. To most of us, it is just a service provider. When it stops proving the service we want (i.e., candidates who genuinely share our values), it's time for either new management or a new provider. Those of you whose incomes are actually dependent upon the marketshares of Republico and Democorp probably really ought to start considering a new line of work ... or a better product line.

Steve| 9.7.11 @ 2:00PM

@Larry MacDonald - I couldn't agree more with you in that the Republican party is dead to me if Ron Paul does not win the primary. All the neo-conservative talk show hosts are either ignoring him or excoriating him. For example; Mark Levin, who was my favorite talk show host due to his ability to so eloquently speak with passion, has resorted to blatant smear tactics regarding Ron Paul. I will never listen to Levin again for being so dishonest.

W| 9.7.11 @ 3:58PM

Larry,
You cannot be serious the Poppy called the shots for Reagan.
Reagan's accomplishments are too numerous for me to write here. If you do not know about them then that means your are not interested.
Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee, and he will not be president. His views on terrorrism, blaiming the USA, and abandoning Israel have doomed whatever chance he may have had.

Given your history of voting for third parties, which helps the Dems, you are not a true conservative. You might as well just vote for the Dems if you will not support the Republican nominee.

KlatuBerataNicto| 9.7.11 @ 4:55PM

Tell me again how our presence in the middle east is helping us, and not creating more terrorists? Didn't 9/11 happen BECAUSE of our interventions and presence in the middle east? You sir have dranketh the kool aid, but you'll be happy to know that whomever is elected, there will still be plenty of Saturday morning cartoons for you.

W| 9.7.11 @ 5:52PM

You and Ron Paul and Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich are correct. It is all our fault. The religion of peace attacked us because of our presence in the middle east.

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 5:46PM

@W:

Does "Republican" now mean "conservative"? I was under the impression that Jefferson gave that label to his party to demostrate his conviction that all political power derives from the consent of the governed. As a first principle, republicanism (notice the lower-case 'r') is a good start, but it isn't exactly a synonym for "conservatism." As the original author of the article that started all this stated, "it's complicated."

This may help uncomplicate it:

A "conservative" is a traditionalist, one who resists change. In the American political tradition, a "conservative" is one who clings to America' s founding principles, who recognizes them as grand ideals, worthy of preservation, reverence, and dedication - - even if , as MLK indicated, we have yet to actually faithfully apply those principles.

What, then, is a "neo-conservative"? Well, what 's a "new traditionalist"? If neo- cons were really conservatives, they would scarcely need to distinguish themselves from the genuine article by designating themselves as something "new (neo) ," would they?

Does anyone else remember New Coke? In the mid- eighties, Coca -Cola made a foolish marketing ploy, by copying Pepsi-Cola 's recipe, and rebranding itself as New Coke, in an effort to recapture it' s declining market share. The result was a disaster: almost overnight, Coca- Cola' s market share went into a dead drop.

Consumers didn 't want 2 virtually indistinguishable products disguised beneath 2 cleaverly designed labels. Coca-Cola quickly learned its lesson and immediately re-
released its original formula as Coca- Cola Classic, and allowed New Coke to fade into the sunset of forgotten marketing failures.

Now, imagine that, instead of being a Coca-Cola Company initiative, New Coke had been the result of a hostile corporate takeover by the Pepsi- cola Company. Imagine further that New Coke was never recalled, but was, instead, presented to consumers as if it had always been there, that it was the original and only formula, that there was no Coca- Cola Classic, and that anyone who said different was a kook or an impostor.

Of course, in the above described scenario, neo-conservatism is New Coke , paleo-conservatism (or just plain "conservatism") is Coca -Cola Classic, and Pepsi is marxism (my apologies to Pepsi; it' s just an allegory).

There you have it: Levin, Limbaugh , Hannity, O'Reilly, and most of the Republican field are marxism' s false opposition -- which is why they all hate Ron Paul, marxism' s only genuine opponent among the 2012 crop of presidential contenders .

W| 9.7.11 @ 5:54PM

Larry,
Jefferson founded the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party was founded in 1855 as the anti slavery party. Lincoln is the first Republican president.
I assume you went to public schools?

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 6:22PM

@W:

You got me; I did go to public schools, and parochial schools, and secular private schools. My dad worked for the DoD, and we moved a lot.

However, the original name of the Democratic party was the "Republican" party. That's the name Mr Jefferson gave it. Thomas Jefferson was the first Republican president.

When local party chapters were established, they called themselves "democratic societies." Eventually, the party became known as the Democratic-Republican party, until (about the time of Andy Jackson) the party dropped the name Jefferson gave it, and simply became the Democratic party (why they dropped "Republican" instead of "Democratic" I don't immediately recall).

Anyway, the name was now up for grabs, and was adopted, (more or less) as you note, by the upstart composition party of Mr Lincoln.

W| 9.7.11 @ 6:38PM

Larry,
Why don't you skip the analogies and say what you mean in plain english, as the good nuns taught you, about conservatives and neo conservatives.

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 8:43PM

You want it in plain english, W?

Neocons are fake conservatives. There is nothing of the golden rule about neocons (the good sisters taught me that).

Neocons only believe in two things: 1) bombs for their enemies abroad 2) and batons for their enemies at home. That may sound awfully macho, to you, but, as someone who grew up during the Cold War, it sounds indistinguishable from Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China.

Foreign militarism with a domestic police state may be sexy to some, but it isn't freedom; it isn't what the founders envisioned for America; and it's, therefore, NOT conservative (maybe that's conservative in Russia).

American conservatism is about conserving the principles of liberty and limited government, left to us by the authors of our founding documents. It isn't about misguided party loyalties or worshiping the military-industrial complex.

America is only "exceptional" to the degree that we honor our heritage and strive to live the ideals that formed our nation. The American ideals are that governments derive their powers from the people (not the other way around), that people derive their rights from God (not from governments), that the only just purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, and that a people displeased with the performance of their government retain the right to alter or abolish it (hence the 2nd amendment).

The father of our country wished our foreign policy to be one of friendship and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none (a wish he expressed in his farewell address).

The neocon concept of American exceptionalism is a smug sense of entitlement, seen by America's friends and foes, alike, as a type of collective sociopathic narcissism. I share that opinion.

Is that plain enough for you?

W| 9.7.11 @ 10:09PM

Larry,
That is better than the coke/pepsi muddle.
But what concrete policies do you favor or not favor. For example, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, waterboarding, rendition, abolish the income tax?, tax policy, what depts of government to keep or abolish, abortion, etc.
The general stuff is ok but the specifics are better. Who knows, we may agree.
Seems like that parochial education is coming through.

Quartermaster| 9.7.11 @ 8:47PM

He answered your question completely. Acting as if he didn't marks you as something other than what you wish to portray yourself to be. The term "liar" would be an accurate description of what you really are.

W| 9.7.11 @ 10:11PM

Q, who cares about your pompous nonsense. You once wrote it was bad to bomb a church, even if it was a Catholic church, remember Q?

Larry MacDonald| 9.8.11 @ 8:17AM

W,

I think I've been clear enough, but, if you can identify just one of the 10 planks of Karl Marx's 1848 'Communist Manifesto' that America has not since adopted, in whole or in part, I'll play along. Remember : all you need is one.

W| 9.8.11 @ 2:19PM

Larry, everyone knows we adopted the progressive income tax and others, but what is your point? Again, just say what you want to say and say it clearly. The nuns will be happy in Heaven.

Larry MacDonald| 9.8.11 @ 3:41PM

W,

Well, golly, Mr Wizard, what does it mean to YOU, that America has adopted then entire Communist Manifesto? Maybe, we're not in Kansas, anymore, Sparky? Do your own homework ; I'm tired of feeding the trolls.

W| 9.8.11 @ 4:28PM

Gee, didn't mean to strain your brain asking you to speak in English and declarative sentences.
Go back to your conspiracy club.

Larry MacDonald| 9.8.11 @ 6:53PM

What's a "conspiracy"?

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 12:49PM

very well said

Darryl Schmitz| 9.7.11 @ 1:01PM

It is sickening to read the way Paul's candidacy in 2007-8 was routinely summarized by and dismissed with terms like "quixotic", "long-shot" and "extremist". And to this day, the media, with its amazing web of news resources, still can't seem to get its basic facts right. Although CNN, through the past four years, has been fairer in its coverage of Ron Paul than CBS, NBC, ABC and even Fox News, they couldn't even manage to ascertain the stated basics of the Paul ad criticizing Perry:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....=allsearch
Note that CNN refers to Paul's support of Reagan during the 1980 election, when this ad is referring to Reagan's "long-shot" challenge to incumbent president, Gerald Ford. It is very, very annoying to try to rely on these news organizations, replete with journalists who have no doubt gone to college and taken journalistic ethics classes, when they so casually screw up with their coverage of the basic facts of a story!

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.7.11 @ 1:51PM

Ha! Once again, Jim Antle has utterly discredited himself by making excuses for his preferred candidate, the also utterly discredited, and downright despicable, Ron Paul:

Not so cut and dry. It's true that Paul and many in his intellectual circle are unmistakably disciples of Murray Rothbard. But Paul never went the full Rothbardian route on the Cold War. (...) If these conservatives and libertarians all had to describe their relationship status via Facebook, the description that would best apply is "It's Complicated.""

That's utter garbage. Ron Paul is NOT a conservative and has never been. He has NOTHING to do with conservatism. The same applies to the now-dead Murray Rothbard, who is deservedly baking in the hottest corner of the hell as I type this. Ron Paul DID go the full Rothbardian route on the Cold War. He denounced Reagan's defense budgets and his policy against the Soviet Union, and fought against both of them in Congress. He voted against Reagan's defense budgets, against the B-1 bomber program, against funding of Nicaraguan contras, against aid to other allies, etc. He denounced aid to the contras, the Reagan defense buildup, placing IRBMs in Europe, and the intervention in Grenada. He also said that the Communist threat was "faked". He denounced Reagan's entire foreign policy as "unconstitutional" and "militaristic".

In the best case, Ron Paul was a useful idiot for the Soviets. In the worst case, he was a complicit aide of theirs. Whichever, he is a despicable traitor, just like Murray Rothbard was.

Ron Paul DID go the full Rothbardian route and DID fight against ALL of Reagan's foreign and defense policies. That is a fact.

WilliamR| 9.7.11 @ 2:16PM

Of course Ron Paul is a conservative. It is Zbigniew Mazurak who cannot claim the conservative label unless fighting endless war in the Middle East has become conservative.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:21PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Tehran Boy Ziggy Is A PropagandaBoy Neo-Chickenhawk Agenda Queen.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:03PM

Was this before or after Paul publicly attacked Reagan's foreign policy?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:21PM

Was that before or after You became A Maniac Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Traitor Bastard,Tool Job?

Red Phillips| 9.7.11 @ 3:22PM

Philosophically, Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian, but the political expression of his paleolibertarianism is rigorous originalist constitutionalism which is entirely conservative in thinking and in effect. Why do you think non-libertarian conservative constitutionalists like Howard Phillips, who voted for Paul in ’88, like Paul so much?

ZM, I DARE you to tell me that originalist constitutionalism isn’t conservative.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:02PM

Unfortunately for the PaulBots, Paul is going to lose the Presidential nomination, NO ONE will nominate him for VEEP, and he will sink into the slime of Galveston Beach.

WilliamR| 9.7.11 @ 5:17PM

And you should get hell out of my country. You are a pathetic fifth columnist. Your loyalty is to a foreign country that murders our sailors, loots our secrets and gives them to our enemy and if Fox News is to be believed knew about 9/11 in advance and did not warn us.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:24PM

Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Neo-Chickenhawk, Tool Job's The Trash Talkin' Shuck & Jive Bloviator,Who Told Us How Pawlenty Was Gonna Rip Dr.Ron Paul Up In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 4:58PM

Zbig:

In talking with Paulists, it is helpful to review the life history, nervous system, and method of reproduction of Caenorhabditis elegans. As one who has worked with the creature for two years of my life, might I recommend the Wiki link for an intro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....s_elegans.

Study the reproductive and nervous systems closely, Zbig. Much will be revealed. G-d Bless.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:00PM

Dear Zbig:

I checked this after posting, and for some reason it doesn't go directly there, but one can follow the links.

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 5:59PM

@Zbig:

Dr Ron Paul is not a NEO-conservative, and has never been one of THOSE. But, since neocons are NOT conservatives (hence the oxymoronic "neo" prefix), you can safely disassociate your own view from his.

Really, what was the point in calling yourselves "neo-conservatives," in the first place, if you are always trying to drop the prefix? It's as if you were intentionally trying to blur the distinction. Hmmm?

WilliamR| 9.7.11 @ 2:12PM

Google Hans Sennolz Ron Paul

then Google

Hans Sennholz Ronald Reagan

I've tried to write a reply but it keeps getting labeled as spam.

Phil Hazlitt| 9.7.11 @ 2:17PM

@Zbigniew Mazurak,

Does that mean Robert Taft---Mr. Republican---was not conservative because he was a non-interventionist?

Does that mean Woodrow Wilson---League of Nations---was conservative because he was an interventionist?

To claim somebody is conservative only if they have a Wilsonian foreign policy is laughable.

Aside from the fact that the word "conservative" has changed over time, the word has a deep tradition and link with non-interventionism.

Even Barry Goldwater---Mr. Conservative--was against nation building and occupation. He desired to bomb authoritarian socialism ("communism") to stop it from spreading, but, unlike Reagan, he was for civil liberties like Ron Paul. He was against the banks that backed the Rockefeller campaigns. He didn't see a need for defense if it wasn't actually for defense. And, ironically, Goldwater and Goldwater, Jr. were strong allies with Ron Paul.

I guess the problem here is your misconception of the word "conservative".

Derek Leaberry| 9.7.11 @ 2:19PM

Although I wouldn't go as far as confining Murray Rothbard to Hell, the main problem with libertarians is that they are cultural nihilists. They are at odds with important elements of conservatism.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:26PM

Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

Phil Hazlitt| 9.7.11 @ 2:20PM

In addition,

If Ron Paul went "full-Rothbardian" (sounds like a wrestling move), he wouldn't be involved in government. Rothbard was a market-anarchist and believed in the abolition of the State. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist who happens to subscribe to the Austrian School of Economics.

And yet, in your mind, acting like Woodrow Wilson or FDR is conservative?

Phil Hazlitt| 9.7.11 @ 2:20PM

@Derek

Indeed, libertarians are not conservatives.

They're consistent.

Rob| 9.7.11 @ 3:12PM

Give Howard Phillips his due. He was the only conservative to publicly testify against the nomination of Souter, largely on Souter's pro abortion history.

Oldefarte| 9.7.11 @ 4:06PM

The fine distinctions between who's a true coanservative and who's a neo-conservative are all great coctail party chatter, but everyone had better get their collective heads out of their rear's as to the critical issue facing this country, and that is whether or not it survives facing four more years of this socialistic, domestic terrorist type political agenda from the current administration. Our economic/financial condition is so severe that we do no have four more years of existence from the same path that we've taken post 11/4/08. We are dying as a nation folks, and we will completely seek to exist as we have as a capitalistically viable country if this president and his fellow Democrats are re-elected!!!!!!

Larry MacDonald| 9.7.11 @ 5:26PM

@ oldefarte:

[just for the fun]

How to tell a neocon from a conservative:

A neocon's favorite founder is usually Alexander Hamilton ... sometimes John Adams.

A conservative's favorite founder is usually Thomas Jefferson ... sometimes George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, or George Mason.

A neocon's favorite president is usually Lincoln or the progressive Teddy Roosevelt (although, Wilson and FDR do make them moist ... too bad they were Democrats) ... sometimes John Adams.

A conservative's favorite president is usually Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson.

A conservative usually recognizes the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights as the one which best safeguards American liberty.

Neocons consider the Patriot Act the best amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Neocons believe income taxes should be "fairer and lower."

Conservatives recognize the IRS as a marxist scheme that should be abolished.

Neocons worship DEA agents as "national heroes."

Conservatives worship God, the Creator of the plants the DEA wages war against. [Conservatives don't feel the neurotic compulsion to demonstrate their disapproval of their neighbors' regrettable choices by locking them is cages]

Neocons believe that people should be allowed to fail ... unless those "people" are multinational corporations.

Conservatives believe that people should receive private help, when they need it, but that no business is so big that it must be insulated from its poor decisions by the stolen wealth of tax victims.

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 9.7.11 @ 4:37PM

Why are the Neocons acting like guilty criminals?

C Bowen| 9.7.11 @ 5:01PM

Mr. Antle;

BTW, Howard Phillips was not really a paleoconservative, but a Christian Reconstructionist.

Christian libertarian as a term gets formed in the era under consideration (e.g. Gary North worked for Ron Paul briefly) with a very authoritarian (note, not totalitarian) outlook on the world. E.g. Bachmann--not a paleoconservative.

Anyway, it was the Christian Reconstructionists, in the form of the US Tax Payers Party, that were vocally dissenting from the Reagan Administration--a more authentic American Christian Right.

Red Phillips| 9.8.11 @ 12:04AM

C Bowen, while it is fair to say that Howard Phillips was an admirer of Rushdoony, I don't think he ever entirely publicly embraced Christian Reconstructionism. (He might be a Reconstructionist, I’m not sure, but he never entirely associated himself and his political activities with Reconstructionism as far as I know.) The coalition building model of political activism, such as incorporating pre-existing conservative third parties into the US Taxpayer’s Party (later Constitution Party), that Phillips utilized was criticized by some Reconstructionists, and remains an issue to this day in the Constitution Party. But I do think it is fair to suggest that the CP, and by implication Howard Phillips, are paleoish. Phillips is certainly not in the Chronicles Magazine orbit, although I think he is friendly with Fleming, but the CP is non-interventionist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and skeptical of free trade, all things associated with paleoism.

C Bowen| 9.8.11 @ 7:54AM

No disagreement here, but Phillips was after different organizations then Chronicles/Rockford--certainly more Catholic. To lump it into one paleo group has merit most of the time, but in this case, discussing dissent from the Right to Reagan, it requires some nuance.

The Instauration group has also yet to be placed, and to lump that grouping in with Paleo has its limits.