Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Ron Paul - Neoliberal?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Neoliberal is a term I don't remember having heard before. When Jeffrey Lord was quoted by Doug Ross as saying...
The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present. resonated with something I had been contemplating for the last week or so, namely, how fervent Paul supporters are nearly indistinguishable from liberals when they visit conservative websites. Liberals and Paulbots are about the only two groups in the nation that lump all conservatives indiscriminately under the same label, as "Neocons", a term which they use (inaccurately) with great derision. Aside from the fact that I doubt more than a mere fraction of them actually know what a "neoconservative" is, they think using it makes them sound more intelligent. It doesn't.

Secondly, liberals and Paulbots, after they have insulted us liberally (pun intended), go on to tell us how crappy all of our candidates are. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And in the marketplace of ideas, if some people choose to insult their opponents in lieu of actual arguments, that's their choice.

And third, they all seem to cling to the same cookie cutter Conservative caricatures rather than address the substance of what is being discussed.

I have long thought it odd, however, just how insulting Paul supporters have been towards conservatives, rather than trying to convince them to join their cause. More flies with honey than vinegar, don'tcha know?

But, divide and conquer is as old as mankind. If say, a George Soros type wanted to fund a fringe candidate, and encourage him to run whether or not he received the nomination of his party. And let's say you send out your followers to attempt to split the conservative vote, but not by supporting anyone who actually has a prayer of a chance of beating your liberal candidate next November,how exactly would that look any different from the campaign Paul is running now?

Now, I'll throw in the following disclaimer. I am in no way saying that there is a conspiracy or that the Ron Paul campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, I'm just asking if it was, how would you tell the difference?

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.


  1. The difference? A golden light shines from Ron Paul's divine butthole and it showers his followers with intellectual seriousness and snappy slogans to boot. We don't deserve him. He's too good for mere mortals. Just like Brakabama.

    I've always called BS that whole circular political model (the one they teach in poli-sci classes) that described the supposed "far left" and the "far right" merging at some point in the circle, but when it comes to supporters of individual candidates, I'm beginning to wonder. The people devoted to Paul seem every bit as daft as Brakabama's legions. This isn't to say I find any similarities in the character of the two. Paul is an upright man while Brak is a greasy animal. That said, the knee-jerk nature of their respective approaches is probably worth examining. Brak believes government is the answer to every question. In an odd way, so does Ron Paul. He has no policy positions that aren't completely focused on the wholesale elimination of government action.

    They both lack intellectual depth in that regard.

    (Cross posted at LCR in anticipation of deletion by some courageous Paultard.)

  2. Well, Chuck, you won't get deleted here. (But, then, I'm not a Paultard of any stripe!)

    The "golden light" remark cracked me up!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.