by
Lucas Mafaldo I just finished reading a very interesting book on the history of the modern conservative movement which gave me a few insights on the 2008 presidential race. I’ll summarize a few of its points, before getting to my own. The book’s tale starts after World War II, when the Old Right started to fade away and a New Right started to rise. In the beginning, according to Nash, this New Right didn’t have a fixed ideology; it was more of a loose band of different intellectuals who were discontent with the path history was heading to. Albeit the individual differences of those intellectuals, there were three main sources for the conservative movement: libertarians, traditionalists and anti-communists. Each of those three groups had their different point of view and different goals. However, for a while, many thought that they had a common agenda that could have been put together. That was basically the case of fusionism, a proposal by Frank Meyer of making a synthesis of the different aspects of the conservative movement. Fusionism didn’t last very long, but it stuck long enough to push Barry Goldwater to run for the presidential election. Although he eventually lost the race, it is largely acknowledged that his campaign paved the way for Reagan’s victory – maybe the major conservative victory of the second half of the twentieth century. But then, the fusionist alliance was completely broken off. Anti-communism, of course, lost most of its raison d’être with the fall of the Soviet Union and stopped being a cohesive force amongst conservatives. Libertarians were especially dissatisfied after finding out that after years of talking the cut-government-talk, Reagan wouldn’t walk the cut-government-walk; at least, not in the amount it was expected. Traditionalists, like Russell Kirk, would still see in Ronald Reagan one of them, but they wouldn’t last much longer as an influential movement. After leaving office, Reagan was replaced by George H.W. Bush, the first neoconservative president. Now, it is necessary to make it clear that neoconservativism is no conservatism at all. Russell Kirk and his fellow traditional conservatives would never defend the neocon’s interventionist foreign policy. Actually, in the Politics of Prudence, Kirk directly spoke against the idea of spreading democracy all over the globe – specifically addressing the blowback problem. Anyhow, neoconservatives managed to hijack the right-wing movement and became the major intellectual force behind President George W. Bush, whose government would certainly not be approved by old traditional conservatives. Bush’s idea of world democracy is not a conservative idea; it is, in fact, a Woodrow Wilson idea; that is, a liberal and a Democratic idea. Neoconservatives, therefore, distorted true conservatism by inserting alien ideas inside it. Where does it leave us? The libertarians managed to keep a growing and independent intellectual influence, but didn’t manage to have a strong national political influence – until now, that is, with Ron Paul's candidacy. The traditional wing of the conservative movement, on the other side, didn’t stick together as one cohesive group; instead, it was divided into different offspring. On one hand, we have paleoconservatives, like Pat Buchanan, who opposes neoconservative policies – especially international policy – without giving up his right-wing credentials. On the other hand, the defense of traditional values was sustained by the social conservatives; like Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily. Here comes the tricky part: President Bush was highly skilled in keeping social conservatives supporting him. Even without actually following their agenda (like in the immigration issue, for instance), Bush still kept the social conservative base by his side. But the alliance is getting weaker and weaker. What social conservatives have come to find out, is that the neoconservatives aren’t really their good friends. They may agree on the war issue, but neoconservatives aren’t that much motivated to end abortion, neither to cut spending, neither to reform immigration, neither to protect second-amendment rights… and the list could go on forever. And now, let’s get back to the 2008 election. Amongst the democrats, we’ll obviously have Hillary Clinton nominated – and her statist-socialists ideas aren’t even worth discussing. But in the republican field, we aren’t that much better: amongst the so-called front-runners, we have either neoconservative types – like Giuliani and McCain – or flip-floppers like Romney. The presidential race is down to the point where neither traditional conservatives neither social conservatives have a clear realistic choice. We all know that neither Huckabee nor Brownback will have enough money to go all the way through. Traditional conservatives seem to be in a hard position: they will either sit this one out or vote for someone who doesn’t really share the same values as them. However – and hopefully! – they do have a third alternative: they can always back Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not only the libertarian candidate, but he is also the most original old-style conservative. First of all, he is no flip-flopper: the man has principles and actually sticks to them – not a common feature nowadays. Second, he is truly committed to cut back government; we can trust by his record that he’ll never flip-flop on this. The man really believes in small government. Third, Ron Paul is a true fiscal conservative when fiscal conservatism is most needed. The whole world is flooded with fiat money and national debts keep going up and up like there is no limit. That’s a point very important for conservatives – and no candidate is more reliable on this than Ron Paul. Fourth, he is the one candidate who both understands and follows the Constitution. They don’t call him the "Champion of the Constitution" for nothing. Again, the Constitution is very important for conservatives. Actually, the Constitution is even more praised by conservatives than by libertarians – who sometimes view it as already too much centralization. Anyhow, even for those who feel that way, they can all agree that getting back to the Constitution is a huge advance toward small government – an advancement that Ron Paul will bring. Fifth, Ron Paul's opposition to the war is very different than the regular liberal opposition to the war. Some liberals are against the war because, deep down, they just don’t like America that much – and this is what drives conservatives crazy. Ron Paul, however, is no liberal; actually, he is a true American Patriot, and his opposition to the war is driven by nothing less than concern for his own country. Therefore, Ron Paul gives Americans a new alternative: a pro-peace true-conservative patriot. He doesn’t oppose the war because he doesn’t love America; he opposes the war because he doesn’t think it is in America’s best interests. He also opposes the war based in the Old Right tradition, a Republican and a conservative tradition. It is also worth noting, that Russell Kirk, one of the greatest modern conservative writers, was against an interventionist foreign policy. He actually called for a "prudential foreign policy," which is definitely closer to Paul’s position then any other candidate. The list of things that Ron Paul’s position overlaps with traditional conservatives could go on for much longer. Ron Paul is, after all, a pro-gun, pro-life candidate – and a faithful Christian as well. How much more conservative could he get? The simply fact is that conservatives don’t have a better choice in this election. First of all, he truly is in the conservative side in the most important issues. Second of all, he is clearly the best candidate to beat Hillary. Third of all, he is the only front-runner (and he is definitely a front-runner) whom conservatives can trust; he is a man who has principles and who sticks to them. Can we say the same of the other so-called front-runners? The last fund-raising numbers proved that Ron Paul's campaign is for real. He has the money and he has the supporters to go all the way through. Conservatives will be tempted to support a Huckabee or a Tancredo type. They shouldn’t. Although some of those might truly stick to conservative principles, none of them has a real shot of winning. Soon or later, they will all drop out. This is going to be a five-man race – and Ron Paul is the only reliable conservative running till the finishing line. At the end of the primaries, conservatives will realize that Ron Paul is the only front-runner who is their friend. They shouldn’t wait till then. Conservatives should back Ron Paul right now, to maximize their power to influence the election outcome, and to make sure they will a have a true conservative in office. If conservatives drop the second-tier candidates and start campaigning for Ron Paul, they will avert a new Clinton administration. They also will avert a false-conservative administration; who would not only betray conservative’s principles, but – worst of all – would give conservatism a bad name. If conservatives want to restore the republic, pass conservative reform, and advance their principles, they should back Ron Paul right now. A broad-base grassroots effort combining Paul’s supporters plus traditional conservatives would be unstoppable. No multi-million dollar RINO campaign could stop it. Neither could Clinton. Ron Paul already has a dedicated army of supporters. No other candidate has so many committed followers. Certainly, no second-tier conservative has anything close to it. Ron Paul is the one grassroots candidate in that election, and grassroots conservatives should join him. This would be the tipping point which would overthrow all false conservatives in Washington and would restore the true conservative movement. Think about: a true pro-life, small-government, pro-gun, pro-market president? How does it sound? This is the true conservative message. Ron Paul is the man to restore the true conservative movement – not the false neocon variety. If I’m right on this, there are two very important things that must be done as quickly as possible. 1) Conservatives must start paying attention to Ron Paul. They have to start writing about him. They have to discuss his ideas. They must debate him until they find a common ground to oppose the RINO-socialist alternatives. Once they do, they must immediately support him and help him get elected. If he wins the primaries, it’s done: he will have no problem beating Hillary in the final election. 2) Ron Paul’s supporters must reach out to the conservative base. They must inform them who Ron Paul is and why he is so important to the conservative movement. They must make it clear that Ron Paul is their best chance of having a conservative president. Second-tier candidates don’t have a chance; Ron Paul does. Ron Paul has the most amazing grassroots supporters. They have shown real strength so far. If I may give them some advice (and you can be sure it is with my best intentions) it is this: reach out to traditional conservatives. With a broad base of support, Ron Paul will be unstoppable. Yes, there are a few serious differences between libertarians and conservatives, but those can be worked out. Especially when conservatives have so much to gain; they just have to realize that supporting Ron Paul is in their best interest – and it’s your job to show it to them. Remember what Ron Paul has been saying: "Freedom brings us together." It’s time that the Ron Paul freedom message unites all the grassroots conservatives to put a man of real principle in the White House. October 10, 2007 Lucas Mafaldo [send him mail] is a Brazilian writer who blogs about philosophy, politics and economy. He is also one of the creators of Ron Paul Brazil, dedicated to introducing Brazilians to Ron Paul’s ideas. Here's his website. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com |
