The first and second editions to this series having posed what we've now come to know as the 'big question' still under our investigation, the second of which having concerned itself with what we might learn of Paul's character, his integrity, and how those match up against what the man is saying publicly about himself. You will recall that in the first and second entries we uncovered that Ron Paul thinks of himself as 'the champion of the Constitution,' and I think our investigation thus far has called more into question whether this can truly be said of the man than it has served to answer it either in the affirmative, or in the negative. Therefore, let us keep the question in mind as we continue to uncover who this Ron Paul character truly is.
In this edition, once more keeping in mind this question of whether Ron Paul may rightfully claim to himself the appellation 'champion of the Constitution,' let us take our investigation to yet another level. Let us lay a foundation to begin to open more to exposure what would appear to be Paul's underlying principles; that which governs the man in the way he conducts himself in his public life, and most probably in his private life as well. And let me say for the record that I'm interested in Ron's private life no more or no less than I am any other serious presidential contender's private life. Which is to say that a person's private conduct will generally teach us something about how he/she will conduct himself publicly. But Ron Paul has an extensive record of public service that we may appeal to, and it is there that we shall continue to concentrate our efforts within this series...
All of you know by now that Ron Paul is the Congressman representing the 14th district of the great State of Texas. And of course we're all well aware by now of the fact that Congressman Paul thinks of himself as the 'champion of the Constitution,' as has been restated numerous times. As far as the latter goes it seems to me that anyone serving in his capacity might (justly to their own minds) claim to themselves that distinction. And on that note I'd bet that many who serve in that capacity or at that level of government tend to think of themselves to some extent or the other in that way.
It seems to me natural, therefore, to question further whether this distinguishing characteristic is itself as worthy or as noble as it sounds? Certainly at first blush the appelation 'champion of the Constitution' seems to be a pretty laudable distinction reserved as it were for those select few having marked themselves worthy of the high thoughts which its mere mention naturally brings to mind. But on a closer inspection is the descriptive truly as noble and as worthy an appellation as it seems on the surface? Does the question here posed not depend on what one considers to be the 'core principles' and 'values' which the Constitution itself is founded on? What if one believes that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document,' subject itself to the rapid changes of society? Would the person believing that about the Constitution not think of a 'champion' thereof as someone who recognized this quality inherent to the document; someone whose public life is marked more or less by a recognition of this principle as well as a voting record to support and perpetuate it? These are the kinds of questions we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts whenever we entertain the notion that one may rightly be described as 'the champion of the Constitution.'
Now, if it appears to some that I'm being a little obsessive about this idea of championing the Constitution, I can only say that it appears to me that this is a very important question which needs to be answered to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, I think that everything about the man under our investigation more or less centers around this idea about him. The concept itself extends to the furthest reaches of who this man Ron Paul really is. And since our series is itself intended to answer this most fundamental of questions, then it follows that to answer that question of who the man truly is, we must concern ourselves as particularly as possible with this attribution he notably claims to himself. Therefore we may expect that the remainder of this series will in one way or the other revert back to this fundamental question of whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be 'the champion of the Constitution.'
At the site "On the Issues" you may have noted at the bottom of Paul's page that he ranks as a 'moderate libertarian' on the VoteMatch chart. There is also a quiz provided for you to take to see where on that chart your political philosophy falls. Most of you can probably guess pretty accurately as to where you'd wind up on the chart, but I would still encourage you to take the quiz as a way of matching your position up against Paul's as well as some of the other candidates. And yes, in case you were wondering, I did take the quiz, and I wound up (not at all surprisingly to myself) way to the right of Paul being myself denominated a 'hard-core Conservative.' I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul. And this is what I mean about the accuracy of the appellation being more or less 'relative to' one's political philosophy. While I believe strongly in the idea of there being 'absolute truth,' as opposed to there being 'relative truth,' still I understand that one's 'truth,' whatever it may be, is measured against some standard for determining it.
But to get on with our investigation now that we've hopefully managed to establish some guidelines that will be helpful to us in discovering who the man truly is, let us narrow our scope to yet another of Paul's apparently guiding philosophical approaches to government...
While I can't say that one's 'moderation' ranks high with me on certain things, particularly on political matters, I will admit that Paul's brand of moderation does have a certain appeal to it. And while Paul's brand of 'moderation' is in some ways intriguing, we must not fail to acknowledge that the term 'moderate' in his case is a qualifier of his 'libertarianism.' Irregardless of where one searches, Paul's underlying libertarian philosophy is everywhere notable, at least insofar as I've independently conducted my own investigation of the man.
John Savage and I recently had a discussion about the differences between a traditionalist's idea of 'self-government,' and that of a libertarian. And while I may have gone too far in stating somewhat emphatically that libertarians generally concern themselves not with how one's exercise of 'self-determination' affects others, nonetheless I believe that the common libertarian refrain on this subject - no one has the right to harm another in the exercise of self-determination - falls pretty short of an actual commitment to the idea. (Notable here as well is the oft repeated libertarian refrain that they seek 'the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary.' We've had that discussion before at the AFB, but I'll repeat here that the refrain itself seems to me to be somewhat overly vague. Not to mention that as stated it would seem to apply to libertarians in no particularly exclusive way, for I too seek the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you who would not denominate yourselves 'libertarians' believe nonetheless in the concept.).
But that's only relevant here as pertains to Mr. Paul and how strictly he holds to the libertarian idea of 'self-government,' as I said, to be distinguished from the Conservative idea of same. In this sense is Paul rightly denominated a 'moderate libertarian?' That is, can it be said of Paul that his idea of 'self-government' is less extreme than the more 'radical' elements of the libertarian philosophy? Further to the point, can Paul's idea of self-government be said to be closer to a traditionalist conservative's idea of same than that of a strong libertarian? His position on the chart seems to indicate that his idea of 'self-government' would fall virtually in the center of a triangular shaped chart consisting of points liberal, conservative, and libertarian. But what does this mean within the context of our investigation?I should like to cover that ground more particularly in the next installment of this interesting series. And while I know that I'm raising more questions than I am providing answers for, I trust that you'll agree that these are worthy questions which a proper investigation into the depth of our subject does indeed warrant.
Hopefully to this point in our investigation we've at least managed to raise important questions about who this man really is which will ultimately lead us to a more thorough pursuit and investigation into the matter. One thing that I think cannot be said is that we've wasted any efforts thus far. So, until the posting of the next edition, I bid you all a happy and an affectionate: good hunting!...
-DW
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -Daniel Webster
You wrote, “I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul.” Well, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Constitution Party is going to endorse Ron Paul as its nominee in ‘08, despite my vote for Tancredo (not that I belong to that party, but anyone could vote, though it looks like the voting is closed now). I think I saw that Paul had slightly over 50% of the votes, with Tancredo second at a bit under 20%. The CP doesn’t seem all that concerned about Paul’s libertarian leanings, because they’ve always been basically ideologically non-interventionist. Thus to most of their membership, purity on opposition to war is essential, so they tend to like Paul better than a guy like Tancredo, who’s more of a realist on the war.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Paul’s libertarianism, I’ll be interested to see if the Libertarian Party endorses him. They don’t have a history of endorsing “moderate libertarians”, though Paul ran on their ticket in 1988. If they endorse him again, I’ll probably be that much more wary of him.
I like the way you pose the question about “the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary” – I imagine that Lenin would have been all for this, even though he believed that “the least amount of government necessary” was totalitarianism!
Did you notice any of my old posts on Ron Paul? I haven’t posted on him in a while, but I’d enjoy hearing your reactions to some of what I’ve said, because I think it relates. Here’s my most recent post.
John, thank you for the comments. And thanks as well for embedding the links, particularly those to your posts on the subject, due to which I can now claim that indeed I have read them all, albeit rather quickly (more on that in a sec...). I had actually read a couple of them, btw.
ReplyDeleteI went to the CP page you provided the link for, and as you say, it looks like the Constitution Party has its man. I guess it just goes to show how much I keep up with the goings on over at the Constitution Party that I was unaware of their 'unofficial' endorsement of the Paul campaign.
But given this information I went back and took the quiz over again at "On the Issues," and now my answers are being matched against Hunter first, and Tancredo second. Which is to say that of the candidates still in the running (or 'not yet officially out of it' is perhaps the better way to express it) my answers matched most closely to those gentlemen, and in that order. In fact, I took the quiz several more times, and as the questions changed a bit each time, so my spot on the chart, though always in the same block within it, shifted slightly on a couple of occasions. Hunter and Tancredo were my closest matches each time of the aforementioned candidates, and every time in that order.
I generally don't keep track of what's going on at the Libertarian Party either, but I think I may be as interested as you are on whether they'll endorse Paul at length. I'm obviously intrigued by the fact that Paul's libertarianism is modified by the term 'moderate.' I'm not quite sure why it intrigues me so much, but without putting much reflection to it I might speculate that even Paul's 'moderate' brand of libertarianism seems a little radical to me, probably due to the fact, as I said in the post, that you find it everywhere in his speeches and writings and interviews, and so on and so forth.
I've encountered the 'maximum liberty-least government' libertarian retort (which may be found interspersed throughout Paul's stuff, btw) on several occasions while having discussions with libertarians. And it always seems to me like one of those responses that they keep in reserve to be thrown out there when they feel pinned down on a particular point. The same goes for the other reply about how no-one has the right to violate another's rights in his exercise of self-determination. Both seem to me to be sort of 'one-size-fits-all-kept-in-reserve' responses that I have a hard time buying. And I guess you could say, as an extreme example, that Lenin would have embraced this idea, though I wouldn't equate someone like Paul with Lenin. But it's a good point.
Now that I think I've covered everything, I wanted to mention something that intrigued me in one of your posts: "Frustration on the Campaign Front." But let me put that in another comment...
John (and all), in Frustration on the Campaign Front you state the following:
ReplyDelete"And yet somehow we delude ourselves into thinking that people will listen to Ron Paul’s message, which though once mainstream, is now widely viewed as radical."
I'd like to focus on the 'once mainstream' part, and to ask you whether your opinion is that this 'once mainstream' aspect of Paul's message is one of those 'transitional' phases that the American People have gone through in their politics, or whether you believe the 'transition' to have occured between that 'once mainstream' view and the 'radicalism' which the mainstream attaches to Paul's brand of politics now?
Perhaps you would consider doing a post on that topic?
-TM
Terry, I'd like to answer your question, but I don't much understand what you're asking. Can you clarify? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteOK, John, now that I've re-read the question, I ain't real sure I understand it, to be honest. Let's see if I can restate it to make more sense...
ReplyDeleteWhere I quoted you earlier you're saying that Paul's message was once mainstream, whereas now it is considered to be more radical. How do you think Paul's message would have been received during different periods of our nation's hitory? And I'll give you several examples to ponder on: 1. The founding period; 2. the 'westward expansion' period; 3. the 'civil war/reconstruction' period; 4. the 'WWII/industrial' period; 5. the 'cold war' period...
Granted that scholars would break it down differently, and these periods overlap to one degree or another. But during which period/periods do you think Paul's message to have been the 'mainstream' message; to have resonated with mainstream America? Relatedly, do you believe his message to have been the mainstream one during one of these 'transitional' periods in our history, or do you rather believe that one or more of these periods represent the actual 'transition' period between the resonance of his message with majority America and the period we're in now where his message is considered more radical?
-Terry