You know, the Pat-Buchananites, the America-Firsters, The American Conservative readers, the anti-immigration border-hawks, military isolationists, trade-protectionists, anti-Wall-Street economic-populists – which of the current crop of GOP presidential contenders speaks for them or is backed by them? Gingrich seems far too neocon, Santorum is identified with social-religious conservatism, Paul with libertarianism, Romney with the bizcons. Which of these do the paleocons like, or hate least? Anybody know?
Paul, at least judging by flipping through “The American Conservatives” website. He gets much better press there then the other three.
Paleoconservatives have mostly lost their voice due to most of them having died of old age.
That comet is a fiction concocted by the Liberal-Left consp-- [WHAM]
What is his position on immigration? (Many libertarians regard wide-open borders as an instance of “freedom.”)
Not the Minutemen, though.
Really? They’d all be over, like, 250 years old now.
Well, according to this he’s an advocate of neoliberal-globalisation. I hope that was appropriately hyphenated and an adequate summation: free movement of goods rather than free movement of people, no attempt to revoke Clinton’s militarisation of the border.
He also stated in On the Issues that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be penalised for providing for immigrants. It’s curious how useful Marx is when dealing with paleolibertarian views (reliance on parochial charity) that were considered reactionary in the 19th century. Course, they’d be in concordance on abolishing fiat currency…
We have to get away from the far right and the far left having the influence they have over our elections. The vast majority of people are middle of the road and are being un-represented. I’ll venture to say most are social liberals and fiscally conservative. Meaning I don’t think the majority of people care about gay marriage but care a lot about the goverment spending 15 trillion dollars and then asking for more.
So in answer to your question, I don’t care who they support and I’m glad they are staying quiet, though I know it won’t last.
The RCC would approve of abolishing fiat currency?!
No, in American politics the middle of the road is always vastly over-represented, even out of proportion to its numbers. Every election is a fight for those swing voters.
And the far left doesn’t have anywhere near the mainstream representation that the far right does.
There’s what, one person in the entire US Congress who could even approximately be described as “far left”, i.e., an actual, gen-yu-wine socialist? (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT.)
There are many more far-right Congresscritters. Some Republicans have started believing their own propaganda when they label Democrats in general “socialists”, but in reality, there are hardly any powerful politicians anywhere to the left of liberal centrists.
And liberal centrists have been moving to the right for a long time.
Sorry, I meant that both Ron Paul and Marx would.
The reason they are so heavily courted is because they have the numbers. But they only get lip service not any substantial representation. Once in office the politician tends to govern for their base because that’s who’s going to donate to their re-election. Because after all a politicians most important job is to get re-elected.
Nah. I mean, D is dead, but Mike Watt is 54 and George Hurley is 53.
The far left has influence over US elections? Where do you think this is true? What far left policies are being pushed? Who are the far left candidates you are talking about?
No, the reason swing voters are courted is that they are swing voters, i.e., could go either way. They don’t have the numbers, not compared to other groupings.
Look, if you really want to know how the American public breaks down politically, start with the Pew Political Typology.
The far-more-or-left-by-American-standards is there, and not too unpopular, see the OWS demonstrations; but almost no Democrats (or independents, AFAIK) seem to be running for anything this year as the “OWS candidate,” the way the GOP had its “Tea Party candidates” in 2010.
If I recall correctly, the Tea Party website was asking for $10 a month donations. They were supported by the Koch brothers. Occupy Wall Street raised about $35k according to a Daily Mail article from last year. It’s not that nobody would vote for an OWS candidate, it’s that they’d have insufficient campaign funds most likely.