Ron Paul's Antagonism and Anti-Conservatism

Ron Paul put out anti-PC newsletters back in the 90's that made "offensive" statements about blacks. Yawn. As I said recently:

If something is true, it's racist.

The center-right and liberaltarians have largely come out against Dr. Paul, their implicit acceptance of leftism quite transparent. Additionally, the establishment Right who profit from their position as "respectable" conservatives, the kind of milquetoasts invited to high society dinner parties but then softly chided for their backwards viewpoints, seeks to undermine Paul's candidacy with this controversy. I have nothing to say on this matter really; it's just boring and predictable.

However, even with this recent problem, Dr. Paul continues his surprisingly strong candidacy. He has a good chance of taking Iowa, though perhaps Mike Huckabee will caution against putting too much weight on that result. Nonetheless, Paul's latest bid for Presidency may be his best shot yet or at least allows him an impact outside wide-eyed readers of Lew Rockwell and von Mises.

Paul's popularity rests on two primary ideas: his anti-establishment rhetoric and his non-interventionism. The former appeals to perhaps everyone, as the 99/1% frame finds favor amongst almost all groups, the masses eager to lament inequality if it gives them a larger piece of the pie. The notion that a shady cabal runs our society finds little favor outside Internet kooks, but enmity towards an insulated elite with too much concentrated power exists amongst liberals, conservatives, and every racial group. While Paul's almost 40 year on and off run as a politician makes him an odd figurehead for this cause, his criticism of the Federal Reserve and a war-mongering government has put him at the forefront.

Paul does seem to be very popular amongst the reactionary Right, though I do not share this enthusiasm. While I have decidedly anti-PC positions on race, gender, and society, I also support a corresponding cultural conservatism that seems wholly absent from Dr. Paul's paradigm. Take perhaps the central theme of his politics - non-interventionism. For comparison, history's most famous non-interventionist Charles Lindbergh (unfairly smeared as a Jew-hater) was spokesman for the anti-war outfit America First Committee. Note the title of the organization - "American First." Can you imagine Paul and his fellow libertarians couching their foreign policy ideas in such a framework? Instead, we get Paul inveighing against "Islamophobia":

When asked about conservative opposition to the “Ground Zero mosque,” Paul suggested Islamophobia was at the root of the controversy: “They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. . . . This is all about hate and Islamophobia.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul responded to a question about Michele Bachmann by saying, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get ’em.” This wasn’t the first time Paul has accused another conservative of Islamophobia — over the years he has repeatedly maligned Republicans for their views on Muslims, suggesting that bigotry is either a natural motivation or a necessary justification for the U.S.’s interventionist foreign policy.

Perhaps the foremost reason I dislike Paul is his soft-exoneration of Muslims. He has also blamed American foreign policy for the unbridled and historically persistent hatred of Islamic terrorists:

“But, very clearly — it was so tragic — but I just point out that a different foreign policy might have diminished the incentive. I don’t believe people are going to come over here and commit suicide to prove that we’re rich and free. They don’t do that. They come because they’re angry at us.”

He then explicitly references the reflexive nature of his foreign policy:

He added that America should have the “golden rule of foreign policy." "When we do something to someone else we should stop and think would we like it if they did it to us?”

I don't begrudge Paul's non-interventionist stance. I don't speak on foreign policy because I don't follow it very closely; but I surely reject our violent exportation of American ideals. Nonetheless, Dr. Paul adopts a wholly un-conservative frame in championing non-interventionism. He rarely if ever says something like, "I oppose intervention because America is more important than other countries. And we can not go around policing the world because it will cost America too much." Perhaps he makes occasional appeals to this idea, but his reflexive antipathy towards neocons is the primary motivation of his foreign policy.

This reticence in actually formulating a conservative perspective coincides with libertarian philosophy. As one notes when reading sites like Lew Rockwell, the vague promise of "freedom" and the aggressive, angry histrionics regarding government intervention dominate libertarian discourse. Never do we see something positive about protecting culture, heritage, or traditionalism from Paul and his ilk. Note that a curmudgeonly, paleo-libertarian ideology can incorporate traditionalism (roughly defined as traditional gender roles, race consciousness, and nationalism), as illustrated by Pat Buchanan's infamous "Culture War" speech from 1992:

In addition to criticizing "environmental extremists" and "radical feminism," he said public morality was a defining issue:

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat — that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

Why then does Dr. Paul rarely ever speak fondly of American tradition? Because libertarians, given their indiscriminate hatred of the state, refuse to intellectually acknowledge a nation and the attendant cultural trends within them. To libertarians, collective social movements do not exist as such a conception would undermine the notion of the radically autonomous individual. I support the free individual, but the libertarian ignores how individuals comprise society and believe that personal actions manifest in a vacuum. Paul can not support his political positions by appeal to national heritage because to do so would imply that a national, cohesive unit even exists in the first place. And if a nation and national community exist, then one would presume top-down political policies would at least occasionally be justified, a concession at odds with anti-state libertarianism.

But if Paul ultimately supports the same ideas I do, then who cares? Well I'd argue he does not, as Paul has some interesting positions on illegals and immigration. But Paul also cares nothing for traditional America. He only cares about antagonizing the elite. When I turn on the TV in Paul-run America, I'll still see the same dumb white male commercials. When I go to a college classroom, I'll still hear how women are trapped in the home. And when I look up over the football stadium prior to a game, I'll see an advertisement for Brawndo instead of an ostentatious display of national strength. Paul's America is that of the free individual, whatever that means, not the satisfied individual living amongst his cultural peers.

Related post: A Central Failing of Ron Paul and Libertarianism