Ron Paul: Goldwater Republicanism

You are not authorized to post comments.

There's a long article in the NY Times on Ron Paul.

Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine.

I'd say that the lack of exuberance is only for appearances. He's running as a Constitutionalist because it's politically viable. Someone who ate dinner with him a long time ago told me that Paul's true views as conveyed to him by the man himself are extremely exuberant. Overflowing, one might say.

Share this

But his is a less exuberant

But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine. Outside of immigration, is this really true? Reason and Ron Paul often talk about different facets of libertarianism, but I see no difference in enthusiasm. - Josh

You calling Ron Paul a liar?

"He's running as a Constitutionalist because it's politically viable."