Bradley in DC
08-21-2007, 10:31 PM
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/blackhedd/2007/aug/21/what_does_the_candidacy_of_ron_paul_mean_for_the_u nited_states
What does the candidacy of Ron Paul mean for the United States?
By blackhedd Posted in Culture — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Nearby you'll find a diary which compares Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, I found that diary to be unserious.
However, I do think the candidacy of Ron Paul raises some existential questions about the nature and global role of the United States.
What did we learn from Ronald Reagan, a former New Deal supporter? We learned that self-reliance, a traditional American virtue, is so important as an element of both personal and national character, that it precludes a large role for the Federal power in the regulation of daily life.
Reagan's understanding of freedom (the "negative" freedom which leaves people free to determine their own lives) stands in contradistinction to freedom as understood by our friends on the Left (a "positive" freedom that seeks to free everyone from pain, suffering, risk, and inequality).
But Paulite libertarianism understands freedom in the sense of "I'll go my own way, and you can go to H*ll if you so desire." It shares with conservatism a deep wariness of government power, which is infinitely corruptible, even as the Left embraces government power as the answer to the infinite corruptibility of individuals.
Paulites thus felicitously cloak themselves in the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of limited government.
Read on . . .
But what Paulism does not do is envision the nature and role of the United States as a nation. And from its very first days, the US has been an aggressive, expansionist, seafaring power, dedicated to economic prosperity, and with both the desire and the justification to take a large role on the world stage. America is a global empire.
To me, this is an exceedingly good thing, and it should continue. I believe that Ronald Reagan would have agreed with me. After all, when asked in 1980 why he wanted to be made President, he answered unblinkingly and unhesitatingly: "To win the Cold War."
Now the problem with the Paulite interpretation of America as a collection of free-standing individuals is that it leaves no role for a unified global purpose. It fully subordinates America as a nation to America as a set of individuals.
The Left-wing interpretation, of course, also suppresses any role for America as a global empire by going the opposite way. It subordinates the individualism and private ambitions of Americans to a utopian dream of social collectivity.
It's up to us, the Conservatives, to take a middle ground. We must recognize that there is a role for institutions of government, and for quasi-government entities like the Federal Reserve System. There is a role for the Defense Department. There is a role for a minimal and means-tested social safety net, which includes some provision for health benefits. And there is most definitely a role for an aggressive foreign policy.
My greatest and deepest quarrel with the Federal government that we have now is that it has become unresponsive to the wishes of ordinary Americans. And we ordinary Americans share much of the blame for that, by allowing the ideals of citizenship that informed an earlier age to become attenuated and hollow. These ideals called for rugged self-reliance within a context of national purpose and unity. That's what we need to get back. Both Ron Paul and people like Dennis Kucinich would take us in the wrong direction.
What does the candidacy of Ron Paul mean for the United States?
By blackhedd Posted in Culture — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Nearby you'll find a diary which compares Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, I found that diary to be unserious.
However, I do think the candidacy of Ron Paul raises some existential questions about the nature and global role of the United States.
What did we learn from Ronald Reagan, a former New Deal supporter? We learned that self-reliance, a traditional American virtue, is so important as an element of both personal and national character, that it precludes a large role for the Federal power in the regulation of daily life.
Reagan's understanding of freedom (the "negative" freedom which leaves people free to determine their own lives) stands in contradistinction to freedom as understood by our friends on the Left (a "positive" freedom that seeks to free everyone from pain, suffering, risk, and inequality).
But Paulite libertarianism understands freedom in the sense of "I'll go my own way, and you can go to H*ll if you so desire." It shares with conservatism a deep wariness of government power, which is infinitely corruptible, even as the Left embraces government power as the answer to the infinite corruptibility of individuals.
Paulites thus felicitously cloak themselves in the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of limited government.
Read on . . .
But what Paulism does not do is envision the nature and role of the United States as a nation. And from its very first days, the US has been an aggressive, expansionist, seafaring power, dedicated to economic prosperity, and with both the desire and the justification to take a large role on the world stage. America is a global empire.
To me, this is an exceedingly good thing, and it should continue. I believe that Ronald Reagan would have agreed with me. After all, when asked in 1980 why he wanted to be made President, he answered unblinkingly and unhesitatingly: "To win the Cold War."
Now the problem with the Paulite interpretation of America as a collection of free-standing individuals is that it leaves no role for a unified global purpose. It fully subordinates America as a nation to America as a set of individuals.
The Left-wing interpretation, of course, also suppresses any role for America as a global empire by going the opposite way. It subordinates the individualism and private ambitions of Americans to a utopian dream of social collectivity.
It's up to us, the Conservatives, to take a middle ground. We must recognize that there is a role for institutions of government, and for quasi-government entities like the Federal Reserve System. There is a role for the Defense Department. There is a role for a minimal and means-tested social safety net, which includes some provision for health benefits. And there is most definitely a role for an aggressive foreign policy.
My greatest and deepest quarrel with the Federal government that we have now is that it has become unresponsive to the wishes of ordinary Americans. And we ordinary Americans share much of the blame for that, by allowing the ideals of citizenship that informed an earlier age to become attenuated and hollow. These ideals called for rugged self-reliance within a context of national purpose and unity. That's what we need to get back. Both Ron Paul and people like Dennis Kucinich would take us in the wrong direction.