PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul needs to heed the lessons of the Goldwater experience




LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 07:07 AM
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/101941

Ron Paul needs to heed the lessons of the Goldwater experience
Noah Clarke, Commentary
On April 8, 1957, Barry Goldwater took the Senate floor and tore into President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Eisenhower had just submitted a record $71.8 billion budget and the senator from Arizona was apoplectic. Rather than return the country to economic health through low taxes, limited spending and balanced budgets, Eisenhower, according to Goldwater, had fallen for the “siren song of socialism.”

It was Goldwater’s first major break with Republican Party orthodoxy, but it would not be his last. The words of Old Right standard-bearer Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio must have been ringing in his ears: “If you permit appeals to unity to bring an end to criticism, we endanger not only the constitutional liberties of our country, but even its future existence.”

Over the next seven years, Goldwater would rally Americans who believed in the founding fathers’ attempt to restrain the power of government. He rejected Eisenhower’s brand of big-government modern Republicanism. In his book, “The Conservative Revolution,” author Lee Edwards writes:

“Goldwater and other traditional Republicans from the Midwest and the West were determined to resist the policies of the modern ‘Me-Too’ Republicans: those who trailed in the wake of Democrats as they promised more and fatter giveaways, yelling at the top of their lungs, ‘Me too, me too!’”

The culmination of this rally was Goldwater accepting the Republican nomination for president at the Cow Palace in San Francisco in 1964 and telling his audience: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Since that time, big government has ruled the day. For the past 43 years, Republicrats have spent hundreds of billions of dollars expanding the reach of the federal government into every crevice of a citizen’s economic, personal and cultural life. Some conservatives like to point to Ronald Reagan as the embodiment of a principled conservative, but that is only because they ignore Reagan’s actual record while in office — national debt ballooned, spending skyrocketed and taxes actually increased (of course, Reagan was smart enough not to call them taxes, but “revenue generating measures”).

All the while, Americans waited for someone to talk the talk and walk the walk of Jefferson, Washington and Adams. The waiting is over. Texas Rep. Ron Paul is running for president.

Despite the mainstream media totally ignoring his campaign (and neo-conservatives and glibertarians actively disparaging it), Paul managed to do something last week that no other Republican has ever done: he raised almost $4 million over the Internet in one day. As the National Review put it: “This sort of thing just isn’t done … We can’t

know for sure until the quarter’s end, but Paul is probably leading Rudy Giuliani and perhaps even Mitt Romney in cash on hand at this moment.”

Close to 40,000 people gave an average of $98 to Paul’s campaign. The pundits are at a loss to explain what is happening, but it really doesn’t seem that complicated. Ron Paul, like Goldwater, is advocating liberty in all its forms. And — surprise! — Americans like liberty. They like being free to do as they like, think what they like, and believe what they like without government interference.

But now, if history is any lesson, Ron Paul needs to be careful. For much of the run-up to the 1964 election, Goldwater was overlooked. Most people assumed he didn’t have a chance. But as his campaign picked up steam, the modern Republicans and the liberal-leaning media got scared. They started to attack him in whatever way they could — comparing him to Hitler, lying about supposed ties to extreme right groups in Germany, implying he would start a nuclear conflagration. They did anything and everything to keep him out of the White House.

The same hysteria is set to launch itself against Ron Paul. Why? In part, because a truly limited government, a truly free American society threatens the power and prestige bureaucrats and journalists have built up over the past four decades.

For example, it is often said few in Switzerland know who their foreign minister is because the post has so little power as to be inconsequential. No one in Washington wants to be inconsequential.

The Old Right libertarian message is making a comeback. Let’s hope it has more success than in 1964.

Noah Clarke is an economist and freelance writer
living in New Hampshire.

Spirit of '76
11-14-2007, 07:13 AM
I was just about to post this one. :)

Like the author, I've been nervous that as Ron picks up steam, the media assault and Goldwater/Buchanan-style demonization will begin in earnest. :(

me3
11-14-2007, 07:16 AM
Dr. Paul will stay focused when it comes. The question is, "Will the movement?"

Ozwest
11-14-2007, 07:21 AM
Dr. Paul will stay focused when it comes. The question is, "Will the movement?"

There's a NEW moral majority. Don't be the last one on the block to start realizing this.

ConstitutionGal
11-14-2007, 07:22 AM
Robert Taft: “If you permit appeals to unity to bring an end to criticism, we endanger not only the constitutional liberties of our country, but even its future existence.”

George W. Bush: "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

Looks like Taft was one pretty smart cookie...which explains why he's one of Dr. Paul's personal heros.


...stage 3 (then they fight you)......bring it on! The faster we get through stage 3, the faster we get to stage 4 (then you win).

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 07:38 AM
why was Goldwater pro war? I just don't understand WHY

rockwell
11-14-2007, 07:44 AM
I'll say it one more time, the MSM is the enemy. They aren't incompetent, uninformed, behind the curve, not paying attention or any of the other thousand excuses I have seen posted here, they are deliberate, calculated, and thoroughly corrupted by power and influence. No matter what we do, how we act, what we write or say, regardless of how cautious we are, how measured our words, patient and accomodating, they are coming for us and for our candidate and it will be as bad as anything you can imagine. We will be called every name, accused of every crime and it will only get worse, day by day. The greater the appeal of the RP message, the more vehement the attacks.

There is only one cure.

You must learn to ignore them completely. Stop fawning on their every story, stop watching television and reading newspapers and focus on telling one person at a time. Face to face, asymmetrical campaigning that they cannot influence or control.

HTH

Ozwest
11-14-2007, 07:58 AM
I admire your style rockwell, as I recall a post from you many hours ago regarding funding towards a mosaic advertisement... Unfortunately, not everyone has your hoodspah, including the drones who receive their information from MSM. In the future, a Ron Paul government may begin to change this...

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 08:07 AM
hey, why do people compare Ron Paul to Barry Goldwater when Goldwater was pro war? Why was he pro war?

And, if Barry was anti war, you think he would've won?

rockwell
11-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Could you provide some of Goldwater's "pro-war" writing, because I'm just not familiar with it. I do know he was vehemently anti-communist and one of McCarthy's staunchest defenders which has proved to have been prescient- McCarthy was right. I also know he was a big fan of Kennedy and opposed the warmongerers like LBJ and RMN.

So help me out and post some of this pro war stuff you're talking about.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 09:27 AM
Could you provide some of Goldwater's "pro-war" writing, because I'm just not familiar with it. I do know he was vehemently anti-communist and one of McCarthy's staunchest defenders which has proved to have been prescient- McCarthy was right. I also know he was a big fan of Kennedy and opposed the warmongerers like LBJ and RMN.

So help me out and post some of this pro war stuff you're talking about.

Wasn't he a supporter of intervention in Vietnam?

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 09:33 AM
ohh and I don't know why we should be ANTI COMMUNISTS. I just know that socialism does not work, but I think we should still be friends with nations like Cuba, no reason to not trade with a degenerated workers' state

PaleoForPaul
11-14-2007, 09:49 AM
why was Goldwater pro war? I just don't understand WHY

Because there was an actual threat. Say what you will about the soviets and socialism, but it was a real threat to "The American way of life".

Really, Russia still is the biggest threat as far as military might to the US. Putin seems to have figured this out, but Bush hasn't.

On a personal note, I don't consider myself anti-war. I'm anti-dumb war.

As for 'Nam, that should have been a good lesson in why not to get involved in an inconsequential contries politics to the point where you have to put US troops in harms way. I can excuse that at the time, because the domino theory might at least have had some merit.

The current practice of calling third world dictators the "Next Hitler" does not.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 09:59 AM
Because there was an actual threat. Say what you will about the soviets and socialism, but it was a real threat to "The American way of life".

Really, Russia still is the biggest threat as far as military might to the US. Putin seems to have figured this out, but Bush hasn't.

On a personal note, I don't consider myself anti-war. I'm anti-dumb war.

As for 'Nam, that should have been a good lesson in why not to get involved in an inconsequential contries politics to the point where you have to put US troops in harms way. I can excuse that at the time, because the domino theory might at least have had some merit.

The current practice of calling third world dictators the "Next Hitler" does not.

We could have been their friends.. ah well.

My only "beef" with the SU was the practice of sending KGB over here to fuck with people's minds and create political strife on college campuses. The KGB did a whole lot of that.

Goldwater Conservative
11-14-2007, 10:15 AM
why was Goldwater pro war? I just don't understand WHY

He was from the "hit 'em hard and get it over with" school of thought. Not into nation-building. He warned that we were being dragged into this by Johnson and some of his predecessors. If Goldwater had been around and supported the war in Iraq, he definitely would have expected and demanded that we be out already.

Anyway, I think Paul's biggest advantages over Goldwater are that he's just a more likable guy and people will trust him more. We need to counter LBJ-style distortions, however, since I think that's what sunk Barry more than anything.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-14-2007, 10:18 AM
He was from the "hit 'em hard and get it over with" school of thought. Not into nation-building. He warned that we were being dragged into this by Johnson and some of his predecessors. If Goldwater had been around and supported the war in Iraq, he definitely would have expected and demanded that we be out already.

Anyway, I think Paul's biggest advantages over Goldwater are that he's just a more likable guy and people will trust him more. We need to counter LBJ-style distortions, however, since I think that's what sunk Barry more than anything.

Yes, I used to be a more interventionist-libertarian. I used to advocate nuking Vietnam.. but not anymore lol

Brutus
11-14-2007, 01:29 PM
You can't plan the rest of the world and have liberty at home. That took me a while to learn as well.

apropos
11-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Because there was an actual threat. Say what you will about the soviets and socialism, but it was a real threat to "The American way of life".

Really, Russia still is the biggest threat as far as military might to the US. Putin seems to have figured this out, but Bush hasn't.

On a personal note, I don't consider myself anti-war. I'm anti-dumb war.

As for 'Nam, that should have been a good lesson in why not to get involved in an inconsequential contries politics to the point where you have to put US troops in harms way. I can excuse that at the time, because the domino theory might at least have had some merit.

The current practice of calling third world dictators the "Next Hitler" does not.

Agree.

rockwell
11-14-2007, 02:07 PM
I still don't see any Goldwater/Pro-War material. Seems like people think he was, they just can't source any up.

Link?

Anyone?

axiomata
11-14-2007, 02:34 PM
This article had poignant observations, but offered no solutions.

rockwell
11-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Poignant, huh?

I didn't get that.

PaleoForPaul
11-15-2007, 09:25 AM
We could have been their friends.. ah well.

Too bad, we're both from Jersey too.


My only "beef" with the SU was the practice of sending KGB over here to fuck with people's minds and create political strife on college campuses. The KGB did a whole lot of that.

There is little doubt in my mind that the SU was expansionist, and at some point we had to do something along with the free world to contain their expansion. That doesn't mean you've got to pull a vietnam, but things like NATO weren't all that bad in their time...in my opinion. ;)

Primbs
11-15-2007, 10:39 AM
Even Reagan followed that policy for the most part. Reagan could have sent American troops everywhere in the world battling Soviet proxies. Reagan could have had Vietnams and Iraqs everywhere in the world.

Instead, he relied more on indirect confrontation supporting other groups to do the fighting.