Yup. Vacation blogging. And in this post, I reach back to an op-ed Jonah Goldberg wrote before Thanksgiving. "I would not vote for Paul," says Jonah, "because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous."
But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
And right there, in his first sentence, we find an explanation for the supposedly "weird" Paul v. Huckabee phenomenon. At the same time, though, we avail ourselves of an even weirder one: the phenomenon of Jonah Goldberg as an elite political pundit and author.
If Ron Paul proves anything it's that one can, in an eccentric way, be both socially conservative and libertarian at the same time. He has views about immigration and abortion that fall comfortably within the party's antediluvian mainstream, and views about taxation and bureaucracy that make John Edwards look like a socialist, and George Bush look like more of a fascist. But while Paul has crazy views about the economy and crazy views about the border, he has drastically more sensible views about foreign policy (and specifically Iraq) than any of his peers do, and as such he is an absolute scourge to conservative elites.
Huckabee, by contrast, is something more like a smiling, hawkish mullah, and were it not for his compassionate rhetoric he'd probably be the favorite. As it is, though, he cares--or pretends to care--about poor people and so for now he's being treated like a a star student whose parents have grounded him for spending too much time volunteering at the expense of his grades. He's not the favorite, but he's also not seen as an out-of-the-mainstream quack. Which, I suppose, is all to say that, deep, down, elite conservatives really want another George W. Bush to present himself in the GOP pool. But of course, they can't say that. And, also of course, as long as their foreign policy mindset looks anything like Jonah Goldberg's, they'll keep "inexplicably" heaping opprobrium upon Ron Paul--lashing out at him for the very reason he's so enduringly popular in the real world.
Comments
Which, I suppose, is all to say that, deep, down, elite conservatives really want another George W. Bush to present himself in the GOP pool.
Exactly! It's the Reagan worship again - in both cases more because 'they showed those liberals (whatever)', than for any tangible reason that holds up under the weight of the facts - even conservative 'facts'.
BUT, this worship of Bush (and Reagan) has its dangers. I actually can imagine a reality where Bush/Cheney manufacturers or takes advantage of a crisis to proclaim that the elections are to be 'postponed' and he continues to rule - with the active support of millions of so-called conservatives.
If Ron Paul proves anything it's that one can, in an eccentric way, be both socially conservative and libertarian at the same time.
You know, I take the point here, but you see this kind of "a politician can be both X and Y at the same time!" construction a lot, and I find it baffling. A politician can have whatever combination of issues/traits/etc. he or she thinks will be most appealing to the electorate. Voters care almost zero about Converse-ian ideological constraints.
Post A Comment