Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.”     Robert A. Heinlein,    Starship Troopers

February 7, 2008

Ron Paul @ CPAC a/k/a Ron Tilts To The Right

by Doug Mataconis

I’ve got to admit, I’m confused.

For the longest time, Ron Paul was campaigning as anything other than a conservative. He called himself a libertarian, heck he ran as a Libertarian for President 20 years ago, and, as the great F.A. Hayek reminded us more than 40 years ago, there is a big difference between between being a conservative and being someone who believes in individual liberty.

Nonetheless, Ron Paul, the supposed libertarian Republican candidate for President showed up today at CPAC and called himself a true conservative.

Here’s the video, you be the judge:

Introduction by Bob Barr:

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
• • •


  1. You can’t be serious Doug. Goldwater was a conservative and very much Libertarian. You can’t ignore the strong historical connection between these movements. Furthermore on all the debates, and on many other public speeches Ron Paul called himself the true conservative.
    There is enough to criticize why do you need to misrepresent?

    Comment by Rogel — February 7, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
  2. Misrepresent what ?

    Goldwater was a conservative in 1964, by the 1980s he was saying, correctly, that Jerry Falwell needed a good swift kick in the ass.

    Conservatism, by it’s very definition, is anti-libertarian. Pandering to these people accomplishes nothing for the cause.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 7, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
  3. Misrepresent Paul’s campaign – he presented himself throughout the campaign as the true conservative.
    Yet, Paul didn’t modify his message to the crowd today – So I don’t think he was pandering nor inconsistent in any way.

    Comment by Rogel — February 7, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
  4. Rogel,

    I take your point, and I think Doug’s off a bit on his assessment.

    “Conservative” isn’t actually an ideology…it’s a coalition of ideologies, generally a synonym for “Republican”, the definition of which has changed dramatically over time. A “conservative” now is almost nothing like a “conservative” of the 1960s. Libertarianism is more of an ideology, which means that libertarians of today are generally still similar to libertarians of that time period. Goldwater was certainly a conservative in his day (his book was entitled “Conscience of a Conservative”) but the ideals he followed were very much libertarian and the two weren’t in conflict because they were connected. Once “conservatism” became dominated by the religious right and distanced itself from its libertarian elements Goldwater very quickly walked away from conservatism.

    I think Doug’s argument is failing to make that distinction, between ideology and party affiliation which causes an apples-to-oranges comparison that undermines any accurate discussion. But Doug is also quite correct that “conservatism” and libertarianism are almost completely incompatible today and that Ron Paul’s trying to bridge a gap that I don’t think can be bridged.

    That’s not to say that this won’t change in the future and that conservatism won’t shift more towards libertarians down the road, but it won’t happen in this election. It’ll require that the chirpy Jesus freaks get their asses kicked in the voting booths first.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 7, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
  5. he presented himself throughout the campaign as the true conservative

    He’s not a “true” conservative though. Conservatism today is dominated by big-government statist candidates, who use religious overtones in their rhetoric…that’s what conservatives today are voting for. That’s not what Paul is preaching so he’s wasting his time trying to sell himself as a “true” conservative because he’s not, based on today’s standards of conservatism. He is a 1960s-era conservative and sadly that’s not in vogue with the current crop of losers.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 7, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
  6. Following up on Rogel…

    The problem with Doug’s statement is the implication that Paul has somehow flip-flopped and is now pandering to conservatives.

    Throughout this entire campaign, he has billed himself as a “traditional” and/or “true” conservative. By contrast, his opponents are “neo-conservatives” who have “hijacked the conservative movement”. Whether or not his characterization is historically accurate, he has been absolutely consistent about it; he’s seeking to return power to the libertarian wing of the party.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — February 7, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
  7. Jeff,

    I get what he’s doing, he’s trying to follow the strategy that Goldwater did when he wrested he GOP nomination from big-government conservative Nelson Rockefeller…but it’s a major miscalculation because the conservative base that he thinks he’s preaching to just doesn’t exist right now. They’re voting for neo-conservative candidates because that’s what the majority of today’s conservatives actually want, and Paul’s not a good enough candidate to convince them otherwise.

    I think that’ll change eventually but it just won’t be in this election or because of this candidate.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 7, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
  8. I agree.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — February 7, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
  9. The Ultimate Weapon for Funding The Ron Paul Revolution! It’s FREE and makes your Ron Paul Life better and more fun.

    Comment by chris lawton — February 7, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
  10. yeah, Ron is a republican. it’s about time you accept that.

    Comment by oilnwater — February 8, 2008 @ 8:13 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML