Are you a Ron Paul conservative?

[1836]

Here is the question:

As the RP Revolution seems to be filtering out the "progressives" and anti-war-only types, we are left with more and more of the classically liberal-based, Old Right conservatism that Ron Paul so embodies.

So, here's the question.

As the Ron Paul Revolution defines itself more and more as an Old Right movement, do you feel comfortable with the label "Republican conservative?"

[TruckinMike]

I voted no. Why? Because the perception of what a Republican has changed. The definition of a republican has changed. If I could reform the definition in all the worlds mind-- I would, but I can't.

If you are wondering, yes, I am the old right. I fit nicely into that box, I'm a gun totin', quote throwin', Man of the Constitution.

TMike

PS- I'm still registered as a republican and will continue, but I'm not a proud of it, its my only choice.

[ryanmkeisling]

I voted yes because as I see it these entitlements are meaningless. The republican party was founded on anti-slavery principles but today is mostly associated with the opposite. As for the Democrats, well they are both the same in essence. IMO It doesn't matter what any of us are labeled as; the message is clear and strong if you are ready to hear it.

[Spirit of '76]

Yes, and just like Ron Paul, I am working to remind people what a Republican should be.

[Richie]

I voted no, because I'm a capital-L Libertarian. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the old right. The first Republican President was Lincoln, who was even worse then W. Bush. If that's what you mean by the old right, then I'm glad I voted no. If, however, you mean Goldwater Republican, I would definitely be in that group.

[Truth Warrior]

No, I used to be a proud Conservative Republican many years ago. Since then, I took the red pill on politics and became a proud libertarian.

I love my country dearly and now thoroughly detest what the government has done and continues to do to it.

"A true patriot must always be prepared to take back his country from it's government."

[mmink15]

I voted yes, although I may not completely understand your definition now that I read the reply posts. I probably am more of a libertarian, but mostly I'm still just new to politics.
Also, I reject the notion that the Ron Paul Revolution is slowing down. I am in PA and we have yet to vote and at least as many people on the ground working as I saw in New Hampshire. Traffic to this one forums site is a terrible way to judge the rise and fall of the entire movement, there are many Ron Paul supporters I know who have never been here. This isn't gonna stop after the RNC, it's going to keep going. If Ron Paul isn't elected POTUS, I will spend the next four years saying, "Ron Paul would have blocked that because..."

[1836]

I voted no, because I'm a capital-L Libertarian. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the old right. The first Republican President was Lincoln, who was even worse then W. Bush. If that's what you mean by the old right, then I'm glad I voted no. If, however, you mean Goldwater Republican, I would definitely be in that group.

Old Right is generally accepted to mean in line with the mid-20th century tradition of Robert Taft. This was (mostly) continued with Barry Goldwater, and to a somewhat lesser extent with Ronald Reagan.

Pat Buchanan falls into some of the definition as well - you might today say "paleoconservative" or "paleolibertarian," though I'm not sure about the second one.

[Enzo]

I guess I missed the memo about the filtering out.

To me the labels of Liberal and Conservative are dead.

It's beyond that now.

It doesn't mean much of anything to call yourself either.

[pcosmar]

I am an Independent Voter, and a Constitutional Conservative.
I am an Individualist.
In supporting and promoting Ron Paul, the biggest obstacle has been the Republican Party, or at least what it has become.
I am hopeful for change within the Party, but until I see some real change I can not support the Party. I will support those that also want change.
Ron Paul seems to be an anomaly within the Republican Party.

[The Proservative]

I am a Ron Paul/Proservative Republican, with the emphasis on being Ron Paul/Proservative BEFORE any affliation to any party...

Proservative Republican, Proservative Democrat, Proservative Libertarian...etc. Time to think outside the "party" box people.

[josephadel_3]

I voted no. Why? Because the perception of what a Republican has changed. The definition of a republican has changed. If I could reform the definition in all the worlds mind-- I would, but I can't.

If you are wondering, yes, I am the old right. I fit nicely into that box, I'm a gun totin', quote throwin', Man of the Constitution.

TMike

PS- I'm still registered as a republican and will continue, but I'm not a proud of it, its my only choice.

+1

I hate calling myself a Republican, because immediately people think I support the war on terrorism, fiscal irresponsibility, and the destruction of civil liberties. I am registered Republican, and a paying member of the Libertarian party. I either call myself a libertarian, or a libertarian Republican.

In my American Government class today, my teacher asked, "What's the difference between democrats and republicans?" I wanted to say, "Nothing, except what they want to spend money on. The Republicans want to spend money on war, the Democrats on welfare and useless social programs. " But I refrained because the tone of the class is generally dumb, and I didn't feel like disrupting everyone's status quo mentality that early in the morning.

[defe07]

I consider myself more of a moderate libertarian. I'm generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative but I'm kind of a maverick on some issues. I used to be a moderate liberal I'm guessing but reading about economics and how a free market benefits us in the long run moved me. I'm not hostile towards people who may be more liberal or conservative than me though.

[Broadlighter]

+1

I hate calling myself a Republican, because immediately people think I support the war on terrorism, fiscal irresponsibility, and the destruction of civil liberties. I am registered Republican, and a paying member of the Libertarian party. I either call myself a libertarian, or a libertarian Republican.

In my American Government class today, my teacher asked, "What's the difference between democrats and republicans?" I wanted to say, "Nothing, except what they want to spend money on. The Republicans want to spend money on war, the Democrats on welfare and useless social programs. " But I refrained because the tone of the class is generally dumb, and I didn't feel like disrupting everyone's status quo mentality that early in the morning.

You had a golden opportunity to rock the boat. People in class may be dumb, but you could at least have been first to set the definitions of Democrat and Republican. It may not have won you any friends, but you would have got some people thinking and maybe rethinking their beliefs.

If I have to label myself anything, I'd be a libertarian. Freedom is not just a goal, it's a guiding principle. I'm not particularly fond of labels. Too much pride often goes before a fall. Underneath it all, I am an American and Libertarianism is the true ideology of America, IMO.

[CopperheadNC]

My political philosophy boils down to a single phrase:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

That hasn't been liberal ever. That hasn't even really been conservative ever. That is very libertarian, except for when libertarians ain't acting very libertarian (Cato, Reason, et al).

I think the older I get, the closer I move towards anarchy. Ironic in a way, I guess.

[nate895]

My political philosophy boils down to a single phrase:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

That hasn't been liberal ever. That hasn't even really been conservative ever. That is very libertarian, except for when libertarians ain't acting very libertarian (Cato, Reason, et al).

I think the older I get, the closer I move towards anarchy. Ironic in a way, I guess.

That is Conservative, otherwise there would be none of them. That is one of the very basic principles of Conservatism.

[Nate SY]

Thread Name - Are you a Ron Paul conservative?
Poll Question - Can you consider yourself a "Republican Conservative?"

Two totally different things, at least how I see it. If I was answering the first I would definitely say yes. But I had to answer no to calling myself a "Republican Conservative". I see myself as more of a straight up statesman. I think we need a Libertarian federal government with a (small, as in VERY small) conservative state government.

[CopperheadNC]

That is Conservative, otherwise there would be none of them. That is one of the very basic principles of Conservatism.

I just don't see it that way. Historically, conservatives have generally talked a good game about reducing the size of government, but in practice, they have fallen short. Way short. Most so-called conservative administrations have been as authoritarian if not more authoritarian than their so-called liberal counterparts.

Being anti-communist does not make one an advocate of small government. Isn't that really what defined American conservatism throughout the second half of the 20th century? And if you look at Conservatism in other countries, it gets really bleak.

I just don't see this title as meaning much of anything anymore, outside of an identification that someone listens to AM radio a lot.

[nate895]

I just don't see it that way. Historically, conservatives have generally talked a good game about reducing the size of government, but in practice, they have fallen short. Way short. Most so-called conservative administrations have been as authoritarian if not more authoritarian than their so-called liberal counterparts.

Being anti-communist does not make one an advocate of small government. Isn't that really what defined American conservatism throughout the second half of the 20th century? And if you look at Conservatism in other countries, it gets really bleak.

I just don't see this title as meaning much of anything anymore, outside of an identification that someone listens to AM radio a lot.

Conservatism means different things in different countries for one, such as communism could be considered conservative in Russia, and our philosophy can be considered fringe liberal.

I contend that the Republican Administrations haven't been conservative since Hoover, possibly Eisenhower.

[Todd]

I answered yes because I still believe in what Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan's intentions were even if the party is full of RINOs and the platform was hijacked by Neocons hell bent on war in the name of democracy.
The Republican party always had a strong libertarian streak running through it...it has only been supressed. I liken myself to what someone said in an earlier post on this thread. It's difficult for me to be labeled these days because the dynamics of the Paul campaign have changed my views of what it means to be a conservative so it's about reclaiming the foundations of our liberties and lessening the stranglehold of the behoth Fed.

[hawks4ronpaul]

I answered yes because I still believe in what Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan's intentions were even if the party is full of RINOs and the platform was hijacked by Neocons hell bent on war in the name of democracy.
The Republican party always had a strong libertarian streak running through it...it has only been supressed. I liken myself to what someone said in an earlier post on this thread. It's difficult for me to be labeled these days because the dynamics of the Paul campaign have changed my views of what it means to be a conservative so it's about reclaiming the foundations of our liberties and lessening the stranglehold of the behoth Fed.

Golden oldie post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=49624&highlight=BRIEF+HISTORY+OF+TERMS

[Anti Federalist]

An awful lot of people here dropping the names of Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan.

Buckley and Goldwater were both fiercely pro-war.

Reagan was, to a certain extent and he certainly didn't hold the line on spending and also signed a number of gun control items.

You cannot be "pro war" and be in the same school of thought as Ron Paul.

Nothing grows the power of the state faster than war.

My great-uncle was Smedley D. Butler.

This is what the two time Medal of Honor winner Marine, had to say about interventionist warfare:

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."

Read "War is a Racket" here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

So no, at least in the modern terminology, I am neither a Republican nor a "conservative". Course, I'm not a "liberal" either. Just like in Orwell's 1984 world, newspeak has robbed the language of even properly describing "freedom".

[nate895]

An awful lot of people here dropping the names of Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan.

Buckley and Goldwater were both fiercely pro-war.

Reagan was, to a certain extent and he certainly didn't hold the line on spending and also signed a number of gun control items.

You cannot be "pro war" and be in the same school of thought as Ron Paul.

Nothing grows the power of the state faster than war.

My great-uncle was Smedley D. Butler.

This is what the two time Medal of Honor winner Marine, had to say about interventionist warfare:

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."

Read "War is a Racket" here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

So no, at least in the modern terminology, I am neither a Republican nor a "conservative". Course, I'm not a "liberal" either. Just like in Orwell's 1984 world, newspeak has robbed the language of even properly describing "freedom".

If you didn't know, one of Goldwater's campaign commercials was about getting us out of Vietnam.

[Anti Federalist]

If you didn't know, one of Goldwater's campaign commercials was about getting us out of Vietnam.

Yes, by way of an even more aggressive strategy against North Vietnam, among other thing blowing up the levee systems in the North to flood them out.

[nate895]

Yes, by way of an even more aggressive strategy against North Vietnam, among other thing blowing up the levee systems in the North to flood them out.

Conservative War Philosophy: Get in when it becomes absolutely necessary (i.e. attacked or the Aircraft Carrier is on its way), and then kick ass and take names and go home ASAP. Some conservatives apply the second half to unjust wars.

[LibertyEagle]

An awful lot of people here dropping the names of Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan.

Buckley and Goldwater were both fiercely pro-war.



Goldwater was pro-war against the USSR. It was a different time and I still think he was right.

Buckley was a scuz bucket and only served to steer conservatives down the wrong path. But then again, I grew up in a Birch society family. ;)


William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment
by John F. McManus

Conservatism used to equal an undeniable love for God, family, and our Republic. That was before the "neo" conservatives came, before William F. Buckley, Jr. was chosen by the liberal establishment as the chief spokesman for conservatives. From the 1960s to today, conservative Americans have been led astray by Buckley and other false conservatives who want to interject the U.S. government into almost every aspect of our lives.
http://aobs-store.com/store/page3-ss5.html
http://www.jbs.org/node/7244

As far as the question goes -- before Ron Paul ran for President, I described myself as a Goldwater Conservative; now I consider myself a Ron Paul Conservative.

[Anti Federalist]

Liberty Eagle wrote:


Goldwater was pro-war against the USSR. It was a different time and I still think he was right.

"Hot" war against the USSR took four major forms, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Central America.

Korea was waged illegally under the flag of the UN.

Vietnam was waged based on complete fabrication: The Gulf of Tonkin.

We know all too well what our policy in Afghanistan brought us.

Central America brought us death squads, CIA drug and gun running and Iran Contra.

All wrong, wrong, wrong.

Waging war against the "evil commies" is really no different than the "War on Terrerrrr".

Endless, unjustified warfare guarantees the health and growth of the state.

Large standing armies and endless war are poisons to freedom and liberty.