A Southern Strategy?

[Bonnieblue]

Southern conservatives, usually unique among conservatives, should embrace Dr. Paul with passion; however, most do not. There are several issues associated with Dr. Paul which do not resonate among Southern conservatives. If they do resonate, they resonate against him and not far him. Most of the problem lies with us Southern conservatives ourselves. We embrace false dichotomys which hinder our ability to appreciate and to support Dr. Paul. I do not pretend to understand all of these false assumptions, nor do I assert that I can even recognize them all; but I would like to outline the one's which I have recognized and articulate my understandings of them, so that the campaign, i.e. those with the official strategies and the money, might consider them as the campaign moves into the South.

We Southern conservatives do not distinguish between the honorable service of our soldiers and the dishonorable wars into which the empire has hurled them. If one criticizes the wars as immoral, unconstitutional and unnecessary, as they are, then, so we Southern conservatives wrongly conclude, one is criticizing and demeaning the service members and our Southern heritage of loyalty and things martial. Our sense of loyalty and our love of things martial have been usurped by the empire. We are disproportionally represented in combat arms and form, regrettably, the bleeding edge of the empire's spear as it is thrust into the lives of peoples across the world. The very empire which "drove Ol' Dixie down" is using us as its willing Janissary.

I have seen some videos on this site which could, if properly deployed, drive a wedge into the false dichotomy and separate the healthy respect for our men and our traditions of loyalty and things martial from the evil machinations of the elites within the Beltway and their allies in other places. The late Flannery O'Connor said that although the South was no longer Christ centered but was still Christ haunted. If that is so, then the Christian Just War Theory, originally articulated by St. Augustine, should be rolled out in the campaign. This needs to be dealt with; otherwise, many who would vote for Dr. Paul will not vote for him because of our Southern misconception.

The second issue is support of Israel. Evangelicals and fundamentalists, who would support Dr. Paul on most issue, break with him on Israel because of the influence of dipensationalism in their communities. Dipensationalists are not going to change their theology for this election. One does not expect Dr. Paul to change his position of Israel, with which I agree 100%. What must, therefore, happen is a well-articulated position paper/video which shows that Dr. Paul's position on support for Israel is not a threat to Israel. Unless this issue is addressed, Dr. Paul will lose votes in the South which he would otherwise get.

A third issue which is not fully understood by us Southerners is Dr. Paul's position on illegal drugs. Dr. Paul's deeply libertarian position runs withershins to the position of most conservative Southerns. Again, like with the "war on terror," we have bought into the "war on drugs." I have heard Dr. Paul's nuanced answers to this issue, and I am perfectly fine with them; however, his enemies within the "conservative" movement, able to ignore his nuances, present him as an aged hippy who wants to allow us all to become drug-crazed zombies. From my perspective, Dr. Paul needs to ratchet up the rhetoric against the unconstitutional coercion used by the federal government on this issue, citing Prohibition as a failed example, but stress that the states have every authority to regulate according to their own constitutions. I know that this is difficult for Dr. Paul given his passionate liberation stance on this issue, i.e. that sovereignty lies with the individual. I do not as a paleo-conservative agree with the notion of individual sovereignty; however, that does not diminish my support for Dr. Paul. Surely Dr. Paul could succinctly say that the general government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs and would need a constitutional amendment to do so and that any authority to so regulate would, if it existed at all, lie with the states within the parameters of their respective constitutions.

We do not know how this is all going to turn out; however, I believe that Dr. Paul, if he has momentum coming into the South, can win most of the South if the issues outlined supra are addressed.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

As far as tailoring his message for conservative southerners, the fact that he's a veteran helps.

The illegal drugs issue is also better explained with a utilitarian justification than a personal liberty justification. Everybody wishes to reduce the harm that drugs have on people and society (even illegal drug users). The question is, how can we best do this? Does throwing people into the gears of our justice (legal) system help produce more productive members of society? Does driving up the price of contraband so much that people have to steal to feed their addictions help society? Does disproportionately jailing minorities help preserve families? Does preventing people from getting access to clean needles and uncontaminated dope help prevent overdoses or the spread of HIV?

Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car is illegal. Getting high and watching Futurama in your basement is illegal. When we devote police resources to stopping the latter, it diverts attention away from the former. If we want to mitigate the harm to society, keeping drunks off our roads is more important.

I will also refer you to another post I wrote earlier titled Legalize Heroin.

 

[Bonnieblue]

As far as tailoring his message for conservative southerners, the fact that he's a veteran helps.

The illegal drugs issue is also better explained with a utilitarian justification than a personal liberty justification. Everybody wishes to reduce the harm that drugs have on people and society (even illegal drug users). The question is, how can we best do this? Does throwing people into the gears of our justice (legal) system help produce more productive members of society? Does driving up the price of contraband so much that people have to steal to feed their addictions help society? Does disproportionately jailing minorities help preserve families? Does preventing people from getting access to clean needles and uncontaminated dope help prevent overdoses or the spread of HIV?

Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car is illegal. Getting high and watching Futurama in your basement is illegal. When we devote police resources to stopping the latter, it diverts attention away from the former. If we want to mitigate the harm to society, keeping drunks off our roads is more important.

I will also refer you to another post I wrote earlier titled Legalize Heroin.

Your arguments are excellent; how is the message, however, transmitted in a campaign?

 

[jay_dub]

I think RP could stress respecting the 10th Amendment, which has a LOT of support in the South. It's not that RP wants drugs legalized, but rather to properly make it a state issue. States rights can still have bad connotation, but the 10th Amendment puts the issue in a Constitutional perspective. The same argument could be used for a variety of other issues.

 

[georgiaboy]

I also think Ron could use the 2nd amendment as a touchstone for the 'war on drugs' discussion. We Southerners love our guns and understand it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people's ability to safely manage their guns that's the issue. Same with alcohol, cars, and yes, even drugs.

 

[Paulitics 2011]

Great post, and these points should be very easy to defeat.

Military - Troop donation numbers.
Drug War - States' rights. This is the state that flies the confederate flag over it's capitol.

All easy talking points.

Now Israel, on the other hand, Ron needs to find a way to express his answer in a short talking point form that clearly articulates what he means. I understand his answer, and you probably do too, but he needs to transmit that to the average Joe.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

Your arguments are excellent; how is the message, however, transmitted in a campaign?

Whenever Ron gets an interview and they start off with "well, we know you're a long shot for Iowa/the nomination/the Presidency but you've been doing well in the polls. How do you explain some of your more controversial opinions, like legalizing all drugs?" and then Ron Paul drops a truth bomb on the interviewer.