The fall of 'St.' Paul?

Another reason I admire the American political system is the long - and, boy, do I mean long! - system of choosing a presidential candidate.  Of course, it's a colossal bore if you are anything other than a political 'anorak' but the advantage, for the health of the Republic, is that it gives sufficient time for even the idlest political scribbler to dig into the backgrounds of the candidates and thereby do their duty by informing the people.  Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator is anything but idle and he has done us all a service by taking a long, hard look at Rep. Ron Paul, one of the leading GOP pretenders to the throne.

Photo courtesy of Wiki

I must confess my ignorance concerning Rep. Ron Paul but I am, up to a point, always sympathetic towards those of a libertarian outlook.  My careful 'get out' clause was inserted because it must be admitted that the libertarian movement holds more than its fair share of loonies!  Like anything else libertarianism taken to extremes is both idiotic and dangerous.  I fear that Rep. Paul gives every appearance of not being anything other than totally wholehearted in his beliefs.  I admire his principled stance, and support his intentions to reduce the role of government but, even so, idealists tend to have me looking for the emergency exit!

Probably, in domestic terms, a good dose of what I might call 'Paulism' would do America the world of good, but it is with his foreign policy that I demur.  He follows a long line of American isolationists, none of whom ever did their nation any favours because they merely put off the evil day when, willy-nilly, the USA had to become involved.  Of course, it is not the duty of the USA to save the world from its follies but it is ridiculous nonsense verging on dereliction of duty to pretend that somehow America can just ignore what is going on elsewhere on this globe, this rapidly shrinking globe, that we all share.

However, Mr. Lord, in his long and interesting analysis of Ron Paul and his political antecedents, inspects in some detail what might be called the 'dark underbelly of his subject's political and social background.  He draws lines linking Rep. Paul, by association, to that deeply embedded thread of anti-Semitism which has always had its place in American society and politics.  He goes further and accuses Rep. Paul of being closer to the ultra Left than he is to the conservative Right.  As evidence he points us towards the consistent and virulent attacks of Paul's associates aimed at the neo-con movement in which there is a persistent emphasis on its supposed Jewish roots.

You don't have to accept everything that Mr. Lord writes but he's worth reading and his conclusions should be weighed in the balance as you consider the pros and cons of Rep. Ron Paul. 

 

Comments

[dearieme]

"it gives sufficient time for even the idlest political scribbler to dig into the backgrounds of the candidates and thereby do their duty by informing the people." You must be going mad, Duffers. Obama was utterly unscrutinised before his election, and pretty much unscrutinised since.

[David Duff]

Yes, but he's black so what else did you expect!

[dearieme]

Did the press tell the electorate that FDR was a cripple? That JFK's health was wrecked? The only usefully frank warning I can remember the US press giving the electorate was when they called W a "compassionate conservative".

[David Duff]

I take your point, DM, but it was a very different age back then, one of civility mixed with servility!