Driving back today from picking up my twin sons at college — today was the last day of final exams in their first semester — I heard my American Spectator colleague Jeffrey Lord on Sean Hannity’s radio show talking about his war against Ron Paul’s supporters.
It makes my head hurt to think about it, stirring unfortunate memories of internecine feuds between paleocons and neocons stretching back at least 30 years.
My own nuanced take on the situation: Beginning with the Bush 41 administration, the neocons began insisting not merely on their own dominance within the Republican Party, but started demanding that their paleocon adversaries be utterly purged from the ranks. (David Frum, among others, so insisted.) And so it was that, by the time of the Bush 43 administration, there was no one inside the “Big Tent” disposed to say a discouraging word about the prospects for a bloodless conquest of Mesopotamia while also, incidentally, using U.S. armed forces as the necessary means to introduce Pashtun tribesmen to the wonders of Western democracy, including women’s suffrage.
“Hey, Chief, can we have a brief discussion about the concept of ‘imperial overreach’ here?”
You don’t have to think Ron Paul is The Only Hope of the Republic, or be a devout disciple of Lew Rockwell, to say that maybe it would have been helpful if, circa 2002-03, some non-interventionists had been in a position to influence the decision-making process at the White House.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all in favor of kicking jihadi butt. And I’m not one of these kooks who sits around brooding about the “military-industrial complex,” “international bankers,” et cetera. But isn’t it fair to ask, three years into the Obama Age, if GOP foreign policy got a wee bit hubristic during Bush 43’s presidency?
Mine is a modest criticism, then, of neoconservative influence in U.S. foreign policy, as distinct from the all-out crusade that Jeffrey Lord seems to be pursuing against Ron Paul and the Paulistas. I’m not sure how this started, but here are some recent items by Lord at the Spectator:
- Daniel Larison’s Make Believe History December 7, 2011
- Daniel Larison, Ron Paul and the Monroe Doctrine: Part II December 7, 2011
- Larison Stumbles Again December 8, 2011
- Neo-Con Historians Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman? December 12, 2011
- The Neocons in the Western Hemisphere December 13, 2011
Sean Hannity’s interview with Jeffrey Lord — and I only heard a few minutes of it — reminded me of all the reasons why I sometimes hate Sean Hannity, who has a tendency toward a Manichean worldview in which there are always exactly two sides to any argument:
- Hannity’s side, and
- UN-AMERICAN LEFT-WING RADICAL EVIL!
Having been occasionally accused of “simplistic” politics, I would assert that I am an enigmatic tapestry of layered complexity by comparison to Hanntiy’s accustomed mode of discourse.
Stipulate that Ron Paul’s supporters include legions of monomaniacal fanatics and a certain number of outright Jew-haters. Is it not possible to engage the more decent and rational Paulistas in a discourse leading toward a principled and honorable compromise, so that their energy (and profound opposition to the Welfare State) can be harnessed within a broad-based coalition aimed at defeating the common enemy, Democratic PartyLiberalism?
UPDATE: Speaking of Manichean worldviews — MSNBC compares Mitt Romney to the Ku Klux Klan.
Of course, the KKK never flip-flopped but . . . Never mind.
Regarding Hannity, you’re dead on. His radio show becomes unbearable when he’s interviewing anyone who even hints at not marching in lockstep with Seanie’s position. He boils everything down to “Yes/No” even if the topic is one that Sean himself knows is not something that is that clean cut.
I think we can stipulate that ANY group of supporters for ANY politician will contain some unsavory characters: whether its the occasional off the wall TEA Party member, psychotic race hustlers for Obama, gay haters who support Bachmann, or jew-haters who support Paul. I’m not a huge Ron Paul fan, actually, but I think a lot of his policies line up with what a large number of Americans think. There are lots of off the cuff comments thrown out to dismiss Ron Paul by a lot of establishment people, but he isn’t near as loony as they make him sound. Plus you have to admire his tenacity.
BTW I have the same problems with Talk radio in general and Hannity in particular.
Glad to know it’s not just me, the “enigmatic tapestry of layered complexity.”
They exist? ::stunned silence::
And Sean is a rocket scientist compared to Beck and the Big Mick.
But O’Reilly has the most ginormous egos in all the universe. If we could tap into it as a powersource, we could be energy independent!
Ron Paul supporters sort of remind me of Lyndon LaRouche supporters…it is almost plausible until they start going off on the conspiracy between the Pope and the Queen of England.
Come to think of it, they both sort of remind me of Glenn Beck when he is starting to get manic.
I prefer “ineffably brutal.”
But I agree with you, some fiscal restraint in the Bush administrion and some back bone in telling Dodd and Frank to go fuck themselves would have avoided a lot of the problems we are currently facing.
There are different grades of Ron Paul supporters. If you think of voting for Ron Paul as a “none of the above” choice, you’re not endorsing every position just demanding the Republican Party do better.
I asked my Iowa father what he thought of Ron Paul. “It’s OK for Texas to have a Congressman like that,” was his reply.
Thank you. This pretty much summed up how my family and I have been thinking.
4 years ago (heck, even a year ago) if the topic of Ron Paul had been brought up to me I would have dismissed it with the typical “some good points on the Fed and the Constitution, but he’s crazy and his followers are crazier still”. Now, especially with who the GOP seems to desire as their frontrunners, I can honestly say I don’t think Ron Paul is all that crazy (which is more a statement on where I think the GOP and its canidates are standing now than anything else).
I’m tired of the neocons; I’m sick of the way they wrap themselves in the flag and talk about the brave troops — all the while they seem to have no restraint on what they will ask the brave troops to go and do (all the while the DoD has its budget cut — which usually does not involve trimming the fat), and while they roll over on their backs and let the leftists denigrate the troops and insist on suicidal ROEs. I also notice that many don’t send their little Timmy’s and Mary’s to the military (I notice many like to brag about sending their little snowflakes to private school or homeschooling…so they can go to the best colleges — this is all well and good, but then they tend to mock those who cannot afford such luxuries…and they are luxuries…do not mock the poor; that’s something the lefties are overly fond of doing as well, word to the wise).
They also don’t have a problem carrying on about cutting this program and that program…as long as it doesn’t touch any of the perks and bennies they might be collecting. And they really don’t seem to have a problem with bending and twisting (or just discarding) the Constitution when they believe they will not be affected by it.
In many ways they have been just as bad as the left (see above).
Wiser people might have realized that power corrupts and that it’s good to have at least some people whispering words of restraint in your ear. Wiser people might have realized that pride and arrogance go before a huge fall (which they are presently dealing with now — here’s hoping they don’t take the country along for the ride).
To turn a worn out cliche: I don’t have much hope that they will change…and that is how I went from a mocker of Ron Paul, to someone who at least can see where he might have some good points. If the neocons had shown some restraint, some wisdom, this would not have happened.
At least it should also be noted: the left in this country has made the very same mistake. They’ve overstepped massively due to their own conceit; let’s hope they don’t tear the country down in their fall as well.
Just about all the so-called “neo-cons” I know have military or other service in their background. I’m glad Bush lead the fight to Iraq and Afghan. I wish he had gone further.
[…] Jeffrey Lord vs. the Paulistas : The Other McCain. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
Ditto Pathfinder’s Wife – Same experience here. Woke up from the long neocon coma and decided I wasn’t buying what they were selling any longer.
I’m old enough to remember being po’d at Reagan at times when he wasn’t conservative enough. I was on the street supporting Bush back during the 2000 recount fiasco so I think I have earned a stripe or too as a Conservative. Ha! I still have the sign I carried.
I’ve listened to Rush since the early 90’s and have rarely missed a day since. Up until four months ago, I noticed Rush, Levin, Hannity, Ingrahm et al were actually supportive of Ron Paul, mainly on econ issues. RP hits double digits in a few polls and blamo! Not any more! What started out as general words of agreement has turned into a full blown purge. Name calling is the worst: “Anti-Semite, Isolationist, McGovern, Blame America first!!!” Callers to the shows were attacked and dismissed as crazy Paulbots. WTF? Take the hammers to the one guy (not to mention his supporters) who comes closer to their stated positions than anyone else running?
For years, Rush has been harping on “we need to take the Party back from the beltway elitists” but now it is clear Rush and the gang are going to end up protecting the very club they have been griping about!
I think I’ve been played by the neocons long enough. Screw those clowns. They stick me with the TSA, Patriot act etc while sending my family’s men all over the world to fight with one arm tied behind their back. PC war with no end.
They accuse Ron Paul of having a McGovernite foreign policy? Wrong but I’ll take that any day over what is offered by the other guys – MacNamara’s foreign policy!
You and Diane Sawyer seem to have that imperious urge to “stipulate” (as in can we PLEASE stipulate that the border shall be closed so we can now focus on my pet peeve, the immigrant who has already been here 25 years?). Meanwhile, Ron Paul tries to describe his oh so nuanced stance on 911 and the almost truther joy he thinks he saw in the Bush administration, the patriot act and GWOT.
Diane just really just wants little Ronnie to thrive for the benefit of Barry, but Stacy? I think you and Glenn Beck just like the sound of your own voice or seeing your words in print. Please write “nuance” 500 times and see if that changes the Jihad against the west. See if that raises the ashes at ground zero.
Did he though? Did his father when the opportunity presented itself? No, he/they did not (and what did it cost our military and our treasury?)
I’m glad Bush was leading, but that is due to the alternatives being so horribly bad (as we presently see now).
Most of the neocons I know are not in military service — or they are officers. The rank and file are still largely apolitical other than they do not trust neo- liberals (with good reason). Neo-cons are starting to lose some of their allure now as well (because they appear nearly as unserious about prosecuting war as the leftists, and just as eager to jump into them [wars]).
And I do make a distinction between a true, classical liberal and these leftists who have taken over the term — really, there’s nothing truly liberal about them.
I agree with your take on Hannity, but you’re kind of dipping into a bit of Manicheanism yourself with this neocon-paleocon debate. One can think Ron Paul a fringe kook without necessarily also being a cheerleader for American imperialism.
I will grant that my geographic location may have had something to do with how I arrived at this point.
One thing about Illinoisians of the average stripe (outside of some in Cook and the collars, and some fools who’ll believe anything): we’ve been well disabused of the notion that either political party is worth two ____, and no politician is ever really anything but a corrupt, vote panderer out for his or her own interests. Worse yet, that the citizen’s vote really counts for all that much (it’s been the experience here that it really doesn’t).
The people in my state are a jaded lot, for good reason; experience has taught them well.
And how is that GWOT going by the way? Especially when the neocons keep nattering about the ROP and tying our troops into knots with ridiculous and wasteful ROE’s (along with throwing them to the leftist wolves who have been just dying to recreate ’68)?
Now, RP’s stance on the GWOT is woefully naive and stupidly ideological, and his comments about 9/11 are where he loses me completely — but the canidates saying the “right things” don’t seem to be too keen on doing the right things, and in the end actions are more important than words.
And at least RP gives some lip service to the Constitution, which the frontrunners don’t even seem to bother with anymore (heh, rather like you know who — I’m crying underneath the bitter laughter on this, believe me).
Except, of course, you all are creating your own history out of whole cloth.
1. The TSA in particular and DHS in general were not neocon or W creations. In both cases, new Federal agencies stuffed with Democrat bureaucrats were insisted on by Democrats like Kennedy and Biden (“To professionalize, you must Federalize!” Wasn’t W who said that) as the price for allowing any action after 9/11.
2. Invading Iraq made absolute sense for prosecuting a long term war against jihadis. We were already at war with them (Gulf War I hadn’t actually ended via treaty). It offered an extensive land base with invasion routes to every country a long-term war (a la WWII) needed: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. In addition, there are three major oil producers in the ME: Iran, Iraq, and Saudi. Take Iraq, bring its’ oil back on line, and use it to replace the oil supplies of Iran while we take them, and then use Iran and Iraq to replace Saudi.
Unfortunately, the Republicans thought they were dealing with a Loyal Opposition. They weren’t. Copperheads in Congress combined with the ones in the bureaucracy (how many State Department / CIA classified programs have been leaked to the NYT under Obama vs Bush by “insiders”?) meant that we couldn’t prosecute the war to victory like we did in WWII. Even if Bush had wanted to govern as the kind of Executive bypassing the law Obama has shown he is, he couldn’t. The bureaucracy wouldn’t have allowed it.
Bottom line: this country will never win a war again.
Steve, your sample is quite atypical. Overwhelmingly, Neocons did not serve. There is a very good reason we that did serve called them Chicken Hawks.
Alas, that’s really the choice we have among the candidates. We take Paul, or some form of Wilsonian crusader. Frankly, give the state of the GOP it makes Paul look entirely sane.
By the way, Jeff Lord is a Neocon buffoon. is special pleading and straw men in his blog post really takes the cake. The sad thing is so many commenters can’t tell the difference between self defense and intervention to produce a regime favorable to us. Lincolnian crusading was bad enough. Wilsonianism was even worse, and is at the core of Neoconservatism.
Neoconservatism, like all forms of modem leftism has its roots deep in the French Revolution. It is neither new, or conservative.
Foreign policy, blah, blah, blah …
The problems you me and the people we know face, exist right here at home. They are products of rampant statism, and Gingrich, Romney, et. al., aren’t going to do a damn thing about it.
In my 43 years, conservatives have talked a good game about fighting Big Government, but have never even landed a decent jab against the growing Leviathan state. There’s always an excuse. I’ve heard them all. None of them impress me. Victims of the Democrats? Don’t make me laugh.
As long as there’s a war, oh glorious war, the state and its agents can usurp powers unimaginable to King George III himself, with the full approval of a cheering crowd of so-called conservatives to boot.
There’s a lot of things that I can blame Democrats for and the lefties who support them, but when my 69-year old, 98 lbs. soaking wet mother with artificial hips was (quite literally) sexually abused* at the airport last February by the TSA, I can only hold Republicans and the “limited-government” conservatives who support them accountable.
America is less free today than it was when I was born in 1968. Conservatives are as responsible for that loss of freedom as are the “liberals.” The “right” owns the modern police state. Medicare D paved the path for ObamaCare, so the “right” owns a piece of that too. The debt? Yeah, the “right” can’t disown that one either.
But as long as we can fight “war, oh glorious war,” domestic liberty be damned. Our “leaders” need power! As did the Old Testament Israelites, American conservatives have rejected God in the name of an earthly king.
Limited-government phooey. With just the right “leaders” and technocrats, we’ll finally immanentize that eschaton!
*We used to beat people’s ass for that type of conduct, now we bow to their authority and vote for the politicians who employ them. Pathetic.
It appears as though there are plenty within the GOP that do not seem to have much problem with things such as the TSA and some of the goings on and DHS (there are some that do, and thanks to them the GOP still has my support — but it is a reserved support now).
And how has that grand plan for Iraq turned out? While W had his very good points imho, one of the things he very much failed on was taking the post 9/11 support and momentum within the American electorate and capitalizing on it — he needed to address the left, and he did not. To be honest, there was every sign that there were WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was a danger — but the Bush adminstration let the opposition run roughshod over them…and here we all are now. And this bringing democracy/nation building…really? really? How about crushing the enemy first, then showing mercy and benevolence to the battle tamed?
“This country will never win a war again” — this may be true, but then it beggars the question: “then why are we so quick to engage in the same?”
Wars are for winning, nothing more and nothing less. If you are not fully committed to winning a war, then don’t engage in them.
I recall history well, thank you.
1) I remember the warnings that TSA would turn out to be exactly what it is. We warned that the Dems would take whatever passed and morph it into another jobs program with a built in Lib constituency. Most importantly, it would be inefficient and any percieved credit it could claim as a success would be merely a consequence of the fact the hijacker threat effectively ended with the brave souls who fought back on Flight 93. Feel up 90 year old ladies in wheelchairs while watching the Major Hassan’s infiltrate and kill our (unarmed) troops. Yeah its working about like we thought it would. And a Republican Congress along with Bush’s signature made it law. Thanks guys!
2) Re: Iraq – the good strategic war. It all looked so good on paper. Hopefully whatever gains we have there will stick in the long run. Unfortunately as you point out, the “loyal opposition” actively supported our defeat using the very channels you mention. How many people did Bush fire at State? Where was the kick ass and take names cleansing of the bureaucracies? And now we have President Loyal Opposition running things so yeah, sustaining those strategic gains are doubtful.
I want a President that when the jihadis come again (and they will some day), he looks to Gen. Blackjack Pershing style of combat instead of the Barristers of Queensberry rules we suffer under now.
I think we can win any war as long as the country is united. But as you say, if we have to go into war with what we have, and what we have is a bunch of pansy ass Ivy League MBA’s defining ROE’s, we will be hosed. At least until we kick their asses out of command.
Paul’s supporters aren’t all bad, some are even reasonable and intelligent. The only problem is you have to wade through the Klansmen, the Nazis, and the Booger-Eaters before you can get through to the sane ones.
Alas, that’s really the choice we have among the candidates. We take Paul, or some form of Wilsonian crusader.
Umm, no, it’s really not. I know we conservatives like to be a pessimistic lot, but this is really a terrible exaggeration.
The GOP House and Senate chickened out on calling out the insanity with housing policy when threatened with the race card. Bush tried to get something done about Fannie and Freddie finance-wise at least six times in his two terms, but any idea of reform was DOA in Congress.
Now go ask him what he’s got against Texas.
Bush the Elder didn’t pursue Saddam’s regime because his coalition wouldn’t have stood for it. His mandate was to evict Iraq from Kuwait, not effect regime change.
However, Colin Powell could have waited two more days before giving the ceasefire order and we would have effectively destroyed the Republican Guard, crippling Saddam’s hold on power and ability to do some of the nasty things he did until we went back in.
The whole “neocon vs paleocon” argument is a contrived one. The original “neocons” were those who had been liberals and converted as the Democratic Party went moonbatship crazy beginning with McGovern. Later it was used to disparage Jewish conservatives.
Who are the “paleos” then? Not Buckley, certainly. The likes of Pat Buchanan, who neither Buckley nor Safire would defend against the public charge of antisemitism, and Paul Craig Roberts? They are closer to the modern conservative position than to the modern left, but closer still to the extremes.
The thing most of these fringe freaks have in common is a burning hatred of Israel and a more subtle resentment of Jews generally. When Paul no longer brags about the support of White Supremacist groups, but refuses to return their donations, and his supporters constantly complain about our Middle Eastern policy and bring up the USS Liberty incident, don’t complain if people begin to picture them with their soul-mates on the outer reaches.
As the person on this thread with probably the most experience with Paulistas (having been a part of his 2008 grassroots largely out of disgust with my other choices), let me agree with the stipulation of Stacy and some others that among them are certainly a disproportionate share of moonbats, Anti-Semites, conspiracists, etc.– but let me add there are also an even more disproportionate share of some of the most thoughtful, intelligent, and deeply *conservative* people on the right of the political spectrum. His grassroots army has 100X the energy of any of the other candidates, and let me heartily join Stacy’s suggestion that the conservative movement would be far better harnessing that energy than seeing it dissipate or go to a third-party effort now or in the future. Furthermore, Paul himself has been prescient on a number of matters, particularly in economic policy, in which the rest of the party was left badly behind.
If you use caucus goers as proxy for “voters who vaguely are paying attention and don’t just spit out what the media tells them”, its not an exaggeration to suggest the Paul commands the support of 15-20% of actively engaged Republican voters. I personally would like to harness that vote on our side of the ledger. And that’s despite his frequent dismissal in the media and the full-on hostility of the party establishment.
I don’t demand that conservatives toe any sort of Paulite line, but generally speaking, I find that the people who tend to be most hostile to Paul are often among the wost people in Republican politics. I have plenty of criticisms of Paul myself, but if I am told that I, and a substantial number of generally conservative voters like me, are to be treated like pariahs simply because we support Paul, as opposed to simply working together most of the time and being treated respectfully when we disagree, then I see absolutely no need to support the “conservative” movement at all.
True enough that there are far too many raging anti-semitic loons on the far right (in this regard, they are again, rather like their opposite on the left).
But I have this one question: how is what the neocons are doing vis a vis Israel all that much better? That entire country is saddled with an impossible ROE…and we appear to be very unconcerned with dangling them out like bait. For what? Political manuevers and voter pandering about “peace in the Middle East”? How well has that worked?
And the GOP has been nearly as guilty in this as the Democrats…and this is all very well for us when our civilians are not the tip of the spear.
Ron Paul gets *far* more in military donations than any other candidate. He’s also one of the only candidates who is a veteran. Something to keep in mind when you see some of the more wild-eyed attacks against his patriotism.
[…] Jeffrey Lord vs. the Paulistas (theothermccain.com) […]
The trouble with Mr. Paul – and I, too, agree with him on a good number of matters domestic – is that he refuses to distance himself from the Anti-Semites and 9/11 Truthers.
Well, its simply because people tend to lump all of you Paul supporters in with the booger-eaters. And Paul doesn’t help matters by refusing to disavow them, and the racists. And then there’s the dirty little secret of his newsletter, which is not a secret at all, the knowledge of it has just not been widely disseminated, but oh, it will be now.
Has he ever really espoused the views of the Truthers and Anti-semites though? That’s an honest question since so much of the discourse on Paul is in the form of platitudes (i.e. his “Isolationist foreign policy”) Can you point me to some quotes where he says anti-semitic things or supports the truthers? Like I said that’s not a hostile challenge just an honest question from someone who has pretty much ignored Paul until recently.
Eh. I read one of Hannity’s books and one of Coulter’s books one after the other. The level of wit and intelligence was vastly different. Hannity’s book was written for six-graders.
Beck is or was trying to teach people serious history.
But, I don’t dis Hannity for that. He’s a news anchor who got hired because he’s got great hair, and he’s handsome. News Anchor=Not the Sharpest Saw Around…..whether its Hannity or the librul nogoodniks. Hannity is a good guy, just not an intellectual of great genius.
WHat wild-eyed attacks against his patriotism?
People attack his sanity, or his judgment, but most everyone assumes Ron Paul loves America.
I did not claim that he agreed with them. To my knowledge, Mr. Paul never has said anything that could be seen as agreeing with the Truthers and Jew-haters. But he has not, as is his moral duty, condemned those who hold such beliefs. It seems that he is quite happy to take their monies.
TWJ – amen amigo. You nailed it.
Well, there was his “glee in the White House” speech…
TPT – I heard the same arguments about Reagan and he did an admittedly better job of handling it. I suspect if RP explicitly met all requests to disavow said issues, people who make this argument would find some another contrivance to hold against him and his supporters. It is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” tactic that doesn’t intend to seek an explanation. It is used to disparage and marginalize. Herman Cain is a recent example of how this tactic is deployed.
Yeah but if you actually see somebody beating his wife its a legitimate question. Ron Paul has had a newsletter going out under his name for years, and some of the things he says are boilerplate Klan style rhetoric.
I suggest that we already had a strong advocate of non-aggression in the Bush Term One administration. Namely, one Colon Powell, and those among his confreres.
What was missing, critically, was a group of Conservatives who believed firmly in the value of “Victory.”
It wasn’t the warriors, God bless their scaley hides, who blew it in Iraq, it was the politicians trying to have it both ways.
Ron Paul represents nothing but frustration. None of the mashup of poorly understood Libertarian and Trotskyite concepts that he pushes on people make any sense. Not to Libertarians, not to Conservatives, and not to the radical left.
It does pull in a lot of disenfranchised liberals, though.
“Neocons” aren’t doing anything, anywhere.
Conservatives support Israel. Period.
Your other complaints fall to Obama, not Conservatives.
I think the racially-challenged ones are a small percentage of Paul’s entranced supporters. The majority (that would be the “Booger Eaters” in your list) are likely modern-day “liberals” who felt mugged by reality on 9-11, and can’t support Obama. They still reflexively hate whatever it is that “Conservatives” are (they still don’t really know).
The Ronulans seem to hate a bunch of people they deride as “neocons,” so maybe they are a good place to camp when attempting to stop Obama. The quick, stupid thinking looks like:
Conservatives = Evil Plutocrats.
Hate the poor.
DO NOT WANT
Obama = Bumbling Massive
Government Advocate.
Hates Whole Foods and HP
DO NOT WANT
RonPaul!! = Not a conservative, not Obama
OK, I GUESS
Paul was against Reagan’s policy in Central America, in the waning days of the Cold War, little neocon about that