American Conservative's Feb. cover story: Ron Paul and His Enemies (UPDATED W/ LINK)

[Peace&Freedom]

Even if we hadn't been attacked by Japan, military action would've been justified due to the fact that Hitler was invading country after country, trying to take over the world, and trying to exterminate the entire Jewish population. I think there has to be an exception to every ideology. While I believe in non intervention in general, I think exceptions have to be made in extraordinary situations. I believe that we should have far less government intervention in foreign affairs and far less government intervention in the economy, but having 100% non intervention in both areas at all times is unrealistic in my opinion. I think issues like Hitlers' attempt to take over the world in WWII is why a lot of Republicans won't support Ron. They think that some of his non interventionist views just go too far, because he won't make an exception to his views in extraordinary situations.

But EVERY new situation that comes along is always talked up frenetically as being an "extraordinary situation" that requires the US to make exception to the Constitution, 1600 years of established just war principles, decades' worth of established Geneva conventions, the non-aggression principle and so on in order to launch attacks. Then this "extraordinary" context is used to codify the emergency actions into permanent law and policy, so that it's not even debated as being exceptional anymore. As Buchanan argued in Day of Reckoning, the notion that Hitler was intent on world domination can be disputed, yet the dogma is not only drearily repeated, it has been used as a universal template to justify going after every other despot we wish to deem "a new Hitler." As elsewhere put, "it's always 1938."

Ron Paul isn't attacked because his non-interventionism goes too far---he's attacked because he brings it up at all. The war party wants us all to accept launching aggression being deemed legitimate as the default position of our policy, not as the last resort in reaction to aggression as just war protocol requires. "Self defense" has been stretched to mean helping Israel or other countries launch attacks, or starting up a war on any other occasion we want, with the presumption being whenever we attack, we're always justified and somehow acting in self-defense. This is not making "exceptions," this is the complete obliteration of the non-interventionist principle. That is exactly the nonsense we're getting away from, starting with getting Ron Paul elected President.

 

[Lucille]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ron-paul-and-his-enemies/

 

[randomname]

Excellent article and great pinpointing of why neocons have attacked Paul so vehemently... Excerpt:

Paul’s skepticism about American military interventionism—the Iraq War, the Afghan War, the war Israel and the neocons are trying get America to fight with Iran—resonates far more among foreign-affairs specialists, the military, the intelligence community, and the Republican rank and file. Paul’s campaign has the potential to begin bringing that skepticism into the inner reaches of the GOP—where the interlocking web of big donors and neoconservative-run think tanks and media have managed to keep the doves, realists, and other skeptics at bay.

This may be recorded as neoconservatism’s most singular achievement: to have their disastrous strategies enacted in Iraq, see them thoroughly discredited, and yet nonetheless retain their spots as the Beltway arbiters of “responsible” conservative opinion, with the power to exclude those who dissent. But the neoconservatives understand better than anyone how tenuous is this hold on the Washington discourse, how necessary it is to crush dissident movements before they can grow beyond the cradle. Thus a septuagenarian congressman who is an outlier in his own party must be treated as a mortal threat, his ideas not debated or refuted, but obliterated, presented as so far beyond the pale that no sane person could entertain them.

 

[GraniteHills]

Bump...this is a fantastic article. Excellent analysis of the race up to the NH primary, especially pertaining to the hidden media agendas - anyone looking to point out media bias and scripting in this election should refer readers to this piece.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You can reject a pacifist ideology without being a "neo-con." Like many others here, you have absolutely no idea what that term actually means.

I agree.

To the others who are arguing that he is "anti-war", the issue is what this term means to a great many Republicans. To conservatives it's the same as saying the person is a pacifist who will not go to war under any circumstances. That's not who Ron Paul is.

It really concerns me to see this term being used to describe Ron Paul, because I know how it is being interpreted.

 

[georgiaboy]

good read.

Yeah, the "anti-war" description sadly hearkens many rank & file GOP back to the draft-dodging hippy culture of the 60's & 70's.

I"RON"ically, Ron Paul is the only candidate on the stage who actually served during that exact time period, so could actually be put in the "pro-war" category during that time period. His service was pro-duty, pro-oathkeeping, rather than bloodlust.

Ultimately, though, Ron is pro-defense, pro-avoidance, pro-prevention, and pro-just and declared war. He's anti-aggravation.

 

[EBounding]

Pacifists won't go to war under any circumstances. Paul would go to war as a very last resort, per the Constitution. I think real pacifists also want to surrender sovereignty to a higher "global government". Paul rejects this of course.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

good read.

Yeah, the "anti-war" description sadly hearkens many rank & file GOP back to the draft-dodging hippy culture of the 60's & 70's.

I"RON"ically, Ron Paul is the only candidate on the stage who actually served during that exact time period, so could actually be put in the "pro-war" category during that time period. His service was pro-duty, pro-oathkeeping, rather than bloodlust.

Ultimately, though, Ron is pro-defense, pro-avoidance, pro-prevention, and pro-just and declared war. He's anti-aggravation.

I have to take exception to a draft being your duty, your oath, or anything other than it being described as one of the most heinous violations of individual liberty that exists -- SLAVERY. To denigrate the folks who refused to be slaves and to voice objection to an immoral war that killed hundreds of thousands and millions, destroyed billions in capital, and impoverished millions and led directly to the inflation of the 70s and 80s is lunacy.

We can all agree it's probably not best to go to a Neo-Con GOP Central Committee right now and express Ron Paul as anti-war as that label alienates the Wilsonian's who hold the GOP hostage in foreign affairs, but that doesn't change the fact that Dr. Paul is in fact anti-war. There is a long tradition of anti-war doves in conservative thought. The Anti-Imperialist League and the American First Committee had a great many influential and intellectual conservative heavy-weights opposing wars such as Spanish American, the invasion, subjugation, and annexation of the Philippines (what a horrendous and despicable war that was...), WWI, WWII, and the Korean War.

Pro-prevention? I would be careful....with that wording. An honest assessment would be that Ron is anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-aggression, pro-liberty. Foreign Policy is not just a case of whether or not we should go to war, but what effects such policies have on the ethics and morals of the people (ingratiates socialism), property rights, wealth & prosperity, thievery, enslavement, and liberties of the people. War is the antithesis of everything a libertarian holds dear.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Pacifists won't go to war under any circumstances. Paul would go to war as a very last resort, per the Constitution. I think real pacifists also want to surrender sovereignty to a higher "global government". Paul rejects this of course.

Lol. Care to back that statement up with any facts, or definitions? I don't see the Quakers urging the UN to take over US jurisdiction, do you? There is no other organization and society more principled in defense of pacifism and practice of pacifism than Quakers. You honestly have no idea what you speak of.

There is nothing ugly about pacifism. It neither coerces you, nor forces you to act in a certain way. It would be contradictory to pacifism to do so. Live and let others live.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm changing the headline to include that the article is now in this, and am putting the article link in the OP.

edit:

Why would they take an actual photo and mutate it into a caricature?

 

[ATXRevolutionary]

Does anyone know where I can buy this individual issue? Is it a magazine that is widely circulated?

 

[sailingaway]

Is this too weighty a piece to drudge?

 

[sailingaway]

Does anyone know where I can buy this individual issue? Is it a magazine that is widely circulated?

Yes.

I've never had a hard copy but here is a subscriber link to get the pdf and there is a 'contact' link where you can ask about a hard copy. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/login.html?referer=&Id=AmConservative-2012feb01&page=3#p

I'm not sure if I've seen it on newstands, but to be honest, I don't much patronize newsstands. It does exist in hard copy, I've seen it around, but not lately.

It is pretty popular, at least on the internet.

Also, welcome to the forums!

 

[mpdsapuser]

I wish there was a Kindle Fire version. I guess the PDF is good enough.

 

[sailingaway]

I wish there was a Kindle Fire version. I guess the PDF is good enough.

You can read it at the link I've added to the OP, without subscribing, it just won't be hard copy and permanent. It might disappear.

 

[mpdsapuser]

You can read it at the link I've added to the OP, without subscribing, it just won't be hard copy and permanent. It might disappear.

True. But if it's a solid conservative magazine, I wouldn't mind subscribing to it. I only get digital subscriptions now thanks to the Kindle Fire. Saves paper. But if it has any Weekly Standard tinge to it, count me out.