republicans fail the ron paul test
Politics is a chorus of dog whistles. Can’t say segregation, say states rights. Can’t say you hate immigrants, you just want them to “self-deport” and obey laws designed to keep them out.
That’s why I find Ron Paul to be a very telling politician. His candidacy reveals the true intentions of many Republican voters. Many voters say they want smaller government and Paul has voted in this way. He’s anti-tax, votes for program cuts, and against war, which grows government by leaps and bounds. How does he do among Tea Party, who claim they want less government? A telling summary of recent primary polling data from the New Yorker:
Polls have shown that voters who support the Tea Party are actually less likely to support Paul—some have gone for Newt Gingrich, whose denunciations of Obama are pithier, or for Rick Santorum, who is more forthright in his defense of “traditional American values.” In South Carolina, where Paul received thirteen per cent of the vote, behind Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Santorum, he did his best among voters opposed to the Tea Party. [my italics]
Maybe. Or maybe it says that other issues — Paul’s past racist newsletters, support for drug legalization, laissez-faire attitude towards most social issues, support of the gold standard — are also salient.
I actually think it’s some of both. But notice the ideological/rhetorical loops that Romney’s had to go through to stay competitive in this race and that McCain had to go through in 2008. It’s the same: small government on distributional issues, big government on social issues. Paul only checks one of those boxes, while other candidates are trying to tick both.
The Republican Party is not the same as the Libertarian Party. They don’t *just* want smaller government.
W. K. Winecoff
February 28, 2012 at 12:51 am
Wanting smaller government and bigger government. http://i.imgur.com/swZpy.jpg
undergrad
February 28, 2012 at 2:14 am
Libertarians are to Republicans as Greens are to Democrats. How green are Pres. Obama, VP Biden or Secy State Clinton? The White House advisors all have globalist corporation and corporate lobbyist experience. They are not the doorbell and street corner folk of ACORN.
“Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.” (Wikipedia on Saul Alinsky quoting Williamson, Elizabeth (January 23, 2012). “Two Ways to Play the ‘Alinsky’ Card”. The Wall Street Journal.) The symmetries are compelling.
It may well be that the distinction between the Republicans who do not support Ron Paul and the small- libertarians that Ron Paul sounds like is that Republicans actually vote, whereas libertarians feel that voting for anyone merely encourages all of them. Over half of the eligible voters do not register and over half of those registered do not vote. Basically, overwhelmingly, most Americans are truly “libertarian” in that they mind their own business…. whatever else they may believe (as is their right).
Just a note, also, as this comes up repeatedly: racism on the right has its mirror-image on the left. (If we are all comrades, why do you care if I am a Latino?) Only Ayn Rand’s essay “Racism” reprinted for the anthology The Virtue of Selfishness stands apart in denouncing racism as being illogical and irrational and therefore immoral. This was also the analogous argument from the Marxists, that race and nation are tools of imperialist ideology to separate workers to prevent them from acting in their class interest. Since those hoary old days, though, the left has found political capital in race. The right simply refuses to walk away from the chips on the table: getting people to fear that the other folk control the state plays into their strategies, also.
Michael Marotta
February 28, 2012 at 6:57 am
Fabio,
Like others have pointed out, I think many of the tensions you highlight have existed on the Right for a long time. I have always loved Sara Diamond’s book Roads to Dominion highlighting the history of the emergence of the New Right through Goldwater’s landslide defeat, Reagan’s election and the Clinton years. In particular, I think she does a good job highlighting the Right Turn in American politics through a coalition of conservatives working through the Republican Party: anticommunists and neoconservatives militarily, libertarians/neoliberals on issues dealing with the relationship of state and economy, the supremely nationalist/racist Right, and the Christian Right. While they have been pretty successful over the last thirty years coalescing within the Republican Party, they have often been strange bedfellows.
I think understanding the varying levels of support for a conservative agenda is important when thinking about the emergence of the Tea Party or support for a candidate like Ron Paul. What may look like contradictions really may just be an artifact of using aggregated polling and survey data to get at why individuals hold certain political beliefs or vote for specific candidates.
Scott Dolan
February 28, 2012 at 4:44 pm
If segregation were on the ballot, what percent do you think would vote for it?
Wonks Anonymous
February 28, 2012 at 9:28 pm