The Other McCain at The American Spectator is worried about the future of the Republican Party. Why? Ron Paul.
There are many mysteries to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul. How is it, for example, that a 76-year-old with a reedy voice – his appearance and manner not remotely “presidential” by the usual standards of the TV age – is an idol to so many youth? Polls in Iowa showed that Paul got 48 percent among caucus voters under 30, which might suggest that his libertarian-tinged anti-war message represents the future of the Republican Party. But that youth vote was only good enough for 21.4 percent of the total, because fully 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers were 50 or older. So the oldest candidate in the race, dismissed as a crackpot by most mainstream Republicans, is almost uniquely capable of attracting young voters to a party dominated by the gray-hair-and-bifocals set. However one attempts to explain this situation, it does not bode well for the GOP. And perhaps it doesn’t bode well for America, either.
And then Stacy (The Other…) goes on to lay out the Paul foreign policy problem. Which I have blogged on at length. Suppose America no longer volunteers to man bases around the world? Because we can be asked to leave with one year notice. And we have. The Philippines and Saudi Arabia come to mind. OK. Who fills the power vacuum when America leaves? And if the vacuum fillers go to war to determine who takes over from America? Well that is the very thing those bases were designed to prevent. It has been American policy since George Keenan articulated it in 1948.
But that is not the question at hand. Why do the kids love Ron Paul? Let me start with a few words (revised some) I left at The Other McCain.
Why do the kids like Ron Paul? I see two reasons –
1. The War On Drugs is a war on youth. Why wouldn’t they rally behind a candidate who has been against it like forever?
2. The Debt – which they will be paying. Ron is the only candidate who is serious about that.
On the Drug War it is almost as if the Rs had a death wish – driving the youth towards the Democrats and libertarians.
And the same thing on Debt. The mainstream Rs will wreck the country with debt. Just slower than the Democrats. We hope.
The current likely Republican field is not a very good advertisement for either Economic or Social Liberty. Which is why the unlikely Paul is so popular among the youth who seem to value liberty above social conservatism (you know, the social conservatism which has the right attitude on abortion and drugs which then gives it/them a license to spend like drunken sailors). It is good to remember that social conservatives were a very important part of the Progressive Coalition until Johnson drove them to the anti-slavery party over desegregation. They are now an important block on the right but the tendency to like strong centralized government is still there. Or to put it another way. We have two Progressive Parties. One is socially liberal the other is socially conservative. Neither believes in liberty. Which is why we have the Ron Paul kids.
BTW I’m planning to vote for Ron in the Illinois primary in March. Just to tweak the establishment Rs. And besides – at my age it is very good to be a kid. Again. Or as the First Mate would say, “As usual.”
Comments
15 responses to “The Future Of The Republican Party”
I also think Paul’s laissez-faire attitude towards gay people and gay marriage has something to do with it (this plays into the “not-social-conservative” argument). Nowadays, most younger people know and care about a gay person, and it’s hard for them to support someone who is seen as oppressing their friend or family member.
it’s hard for them to support someone who is seen as oppressing their friend or family member.
Yes. And that goes squared for Drug Prohibition.
It all comes back to weed.
The country can go bankrupt, tyrants and thugs can rampage abroad, millions here and around the world sink into poverty and misery, but if American stoners can get weed, that’s all that matters.
…if American stoners can get weed, that’s all that matters.
That’s a cheap shot, and you know it. The Drug War is just one indication of loss of freedom. That, and the million or so people locked up for use, transportation, and distribution of products often less addicting and harmful than legal substances like alcohol.
It’s not a cheap shot, it’s sadly all too true. The Paul fans don’t seem to care that his economic ideas are crankish and his foreign policy ideas are delusional. They focus laser-like on his opposition to the Drug War. In other words, free weed.
T,
You got something against sound money? I’m not sure a strictly metallic currency is the way to go. But what we have now is not working. The system is for sale. That has to stop.
And yes. His foreign policy is stupid.
That said – if it is the weed as you say why not help end prohibition? You might even lure away some squish Democrats with that tactic.
Don’t anyone know how to play the game?
I’m also probably going to vote for Paul as a statement for civil liberties (and against unfair marginalization by a corrupt party) despite not agreeing 100% on foreign policy, but I’m not as worried about the “power vacuum” as you are (this isn’t the first time you have written about this). My reasoning is too long for a blog comment, but I think we could have a civil discussion about it, and I’m open to learning more about a position I’m admittedly not extremely familiar with. Simon, I was wondering, if I wrote a response to this post, would you be interested in writing a response to that? I would be explaining why I am not worried about a power vacuum from pulling our troops home from military bases around the world, which if I understand you correctly is not a discussion about Iraq or Afghanistan per se but more about our global military presence.
joshua,
If it is well written or can be reasonably edited into shape I’d be into having you do a guest post and then reply.
To strengthen your arguments you might want to study intensively the political situation of that era and the thinking on the strategic causes of WW2. i.e. the power vacuum.
You might also note that very frequently when the US has said (or was thought to have said) “not interested” we got a war. Korea and the first Gulf War started that way. That is what a power vacuum does. In some circumstances at least.
You can find my e-mail on the sidebar at:
Power and Control
simon,
thanks, I will plan to email you a guest post unless I simply cannot find time within the next week or so. I will make an honest attempt to study some history but I think my main premise would be that the historical reasons no longer apply in today’s world, at least not for the vast majority of democratic countries we still have bases in, and that the multiple costs of those bases outweigh their benefits. But I am also willing to learn more about the benefits. Thanks again.
my main premise would be that the historical reasons no longer apply in today’s world, at least not for the vast majority of democratic countries we still have bases in
Classic mistake. You confuse where the bases are located for their purpose. The bases in Japan are not for Japan. They are for China. The bases in Germany are not for Germany. They are for Russia.
Also keep in mind that the Democratic world is less than half the world. You have to look at the whole picture. Not just the half you like.
[…] meta news, I’ve been chatting with Simon over on Classical Values about the possibility of doing a guest post responding to his position that closing our military […]
The bases in Japan are not for Japan. They are for China. The bases in Germany are not for Germany. They are for Russia…
Good points. I will be sure to address them. I guess the main question I would posit is.. what does our base in Japan allow us to do to China and/or deter China from doing, compared to what Japan could do and deter from running their own bases and what we can do or deter from home with modern military technology.
Fortunately for me, Gary Johnson will be on the Michigan GOP primary ballot. So I’m planning to waste my vote in protest by voting for him.
joshua,
A unipolar world (assuming that the uni is at least moderately nice) is safer than a muliti-polar world. You can plot the alignments easier.
The US has built its “empire” based on willing alliances. So it must be that quite a few countries think they are better off under the American “thumb”.
For Germany – it reduces the fear of resurgent German militarism. The same for Japan. And Germany feels protected from Russia and Japan from China. South Korea from Japan and China. etc.
A unipolar world reduces complexity and probably the chance of a world war as well. At least it has worked that way since 1948 with relatively minor skirmishes only in a 60+ year period. The wars in Europe have ceased. And since China has joined the “imperial” system it has changed its interests re: war vs peace.
Half the world down. Half to go.
I look forward to the day when the US is not needed to perform this service. We are not there yet.
[…] couple weeks ago Simon said he was planning to vote for Ron Paul to “tweak the establishment Rs” even though he believed Paul’s foreign policy […]