But “an American citizen assassinating neo-con” didn’t get a Really? from you. That one you felt was a realistic appraisal of the other candidates.
Let’s say worst-case scenario. Let’s say it really is a contest between an American citizen assassinating neo-con and a real Libertarian and they’re the only two candidates.
You know what? I’d vote for the neo-con.
Sure, he’s going to kill some people and probably start another war. But he’ll at least keep the country running. The Libertarian will shut down the government, ruin the country, and we’ll have a complete collapse that’ll end up killing more people than the neo-con administration would have.
Libertarians of course are screaming, “The country won’t collapse! We’re Libertarians not Anarchists! Don’t you people get it!”
I understand what Libertarians claim. But I also understand what neo-cons claim. And I understand the difference between claims and results.
What Ron Paul believes and what he sees as a practical way to get there are two completely different things. I’m sure you all know this. Whether you believe it is a practical way to get there is up for debate.
Besides the fact that a Paul nomination would have the White House popping the champagne corks, and the Daily Show writing staff saying “Thank you Jesus,” it would also save big business a lot of money. Because while some CEOs would no doubt love removing all regulations, they also know that eliminating or hamstringing the Fed would do a hell of a lot more damage to their bottom line the the EPA and OSHA ever could. Their education in finance did not consist of dissecting cadavers.
I suspect if Paul did get nominated there would be a third party race by what passes for a rational Republican, supported by nearly all the leaders of the party.
Does anyone else think Ron Paul looks like the dad on “'Twas the Night Before Christmas”?
I thought it again during the debate last night, in which he seemed to get a lot of screen time.
Libertarians (and I was one once) tend to believe that if only people understood libertarianism they would become libertarians. That it’s a matter of education to get people to come to believe. I think the opposite is true and it’s a matter of education to get people to drop it.
Of course, call Paul a libertarian when you’re in a group of libertarians and you’ll find the fact that he puts gold on his porridge rules him right out. Or in. Or something.
Michael Moore is what passes for crazy among liberals. If you mention the latest by Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace, Patrick Buchanan, Bill O’Reilly, Rick Santorum, Pat Carr, Michelle Malkin or whomever, modern conservatives will invariably splutter about …poor 'ol Michael Moore.
Meanwhile the Republicans face a quandary. You need to be either batshit crazy to win the nomination or be willing to fake it. But the crazies tend to peak in the polls then plummet: this is what happened to Bachmann, Perry and now Gingrich. But if you only act crazy like Romney (hallucinating claims that Obama never made for example) then your phoniness turns people off.
There were lefty crazies in the 1960-70s: the draft will do that. But for the past 30 years or so they’ve been marginalized on the left just as they have gained ascendency on the right. Among Republicans in congress, half are certifiably nuts while the other half fears being primaried by the same.
Buchanan does a good job of presenting the modern conservative mentality.
The first link is to a newspaper column.
The 2nd link quotes at length a prediction by Rondroid Peter Schiff, from Dec 2009 predicting hyperinflation. Which did not occur, but would have occurred if their variant of folk economics had validity. But Buchanan can only perceive the messenger. Who he thinks is a meanie I guess.
The third link presents a chart of declining commodity prices. Earlier this year rising commodity prices were taken as proof of incipient inflation. That’s fine, except when the favored measure goes in the opposite direction, Rondroids fall silent.
It’s actually amusing. When the facts turn against real analysts, they reconsider. An example might be the respect Milton Friedman received when he attacked the static Phillips Curve and was proven correct. The static Phillips Curve was tossed in the dustbin and serious theorists thought harder about the problem. But when the facts go against Ron Paul Libertarians, they turn to conspiracy theories about Big Guv’s inflation statistics and the like.
Anyway you are absolutely correct Buchanan. Those posts were penned by scary Paul Krugman. Worse, they contain charts and facts. Krugman’s column (link 1!) captures the mentality:
Thank you Buchanan for providing me with the opportunity to elaborate upon this. The bit about the New York Times was especially hilarious, given their tendency to bend over backwards while pandering to delicate conservative sensibilities.
