| | Michael,
I think your position is totally wrong. If you have some evidence you should present it. You should be specific about what his 'real' beliefs are. You should say what, specifically, he has done to damage liberty. You said that his beliefs are poorly understood - I've read some of his books and have to say that is just not true.
Here is a quick summary of why it makes no sense to see Ron Paul as a Paleo-conservative: - Paleo-conservatives are often anti-corporation, Paul isn't.
- Paleo-conservatives are usually anti-gay, and want a national definition of marriage act, Paul doesn't believe government has the right to tell people what marriage is or isn't - he treats it as a first amendment issue and a contract.
- Paleo-conservatives base their political beliefs on tradition, Paul explicitly defines his as based upon liberty as described by non-initiation of violence.
- Paleo-conservatives often advocate protectionism, Paul says the government has no right to stop free trade between private individuals.
- Paleo-conservatives usually favor conscription, Paul considers it totalitarian.
- Paleo-conservatives often favor some degree of spying on citizens to root out terrorists, Paul sees any invasion of privacy not proceeded by probable cause verified by a judge as a violation of the constitution.
From Wikipedia: "Paleocons tend to dislike abstract principles presented without connection to concrete roots, like religion, heritage or traditional institutions." That's totally opposite of Paul who derives his positions from the basic Libertarian principles. And, "Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland) on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes; he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period."
Read the list of books that Paul recommends people read. It is in the very back of Revolution (with an effort you can find it at the bottom of the Table of Contents preview where Amazon.com lets you look inside a book) - It includes a recommendation that every book of Ayn Rand's be read. It is not a conservative's reading list.
The idea that Paul would pretend to be something other than he is doesn't make sense and doesn't match up with his personality.
|
|
