From:
Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and Conservatism
(The New American) -- by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D --
...Reagan aside, judging from the policy prescriptions endorsed by Levin and all self-avowed “Reagan conservatives,” the verdict that “Reagan conservatism” is evidently synonymous with neoconservatism is inescapable. Levin, for example, expresses zero regrets for having lent his enthusiastic, unqualified support behind George W. Bush’s mission to transform the Middle East into a bastion of “democracy” via the Afghan and Iraq wars — a project that, few people can now seriously deny, was fatally flawed in both conception and design. For that matter, Levin had been a virtually uncritical supporter of Bush’s agenda generally, an agenda that no one remotely familiar with conservatism could honestly characterize in those terms.
Why does all of this matter? Well, Levin, you see, is not too terribly fond of Ron Paul, and he spares no occasion to dismiss the Texan congressman as a crank. Recently, he reiterated his claim that Paul is neither “a real conservative” of any kind nor “the Father of the Tea Party.” My objective here is to show that whether Levin’s remarks on Paul’s relationship to conservatism and the Tea Party are sound or not, given his commitment to precisely that vision of the world and concomitant style of governing against which traditional conservatives and Tea Partiers are now railing, he hasn’t the authority to pass these sorts of judgments.
To put it more simply, Levin is the one who is not a real conservative. And he certainly is not a Tea Partier. If Levin were a real conservative or Tea Partier, he would have been outraged over the foreign and domestic policies of George W. Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress. In the real world, though, Levin endorsed many of these policies. If Levin were a real conservative, he would have long ago recognized the irresolvable conflict between simultaneously championing “limited government,” on the one hand and, on the other, an interminable “War on Terror,” for the latter theoretically justifies every conceivable instance of government intervention both here and abroad.
Ron Paul, though, has steadfastly opposed the very same governmental activism that Levin has always supported — and he did so before opposition to it became popular among Republicans. Paul was a Tea Party of one before the Tea Party movement emerged.
As recently as 2008, many may recall the derision with which Ron Paul was met when he warned audiences and his colleagues about the impending economic crisis. He was roundly ridiculed when he sounded the alarm over the ruinous practices of the Federal Reserve, and mocked just as loudly when he remarked — repeatedly — upon our inability to sustain the stratospheric costs in treasure and blood exacted by our “War on Terror.”
The political tides have turned in just three years, and this is indeed a good thing. Yet in spite of the fact that time has vindicated Paul, and in spite of the fact that by every objective criteria — fund raising, poll results, influence with “independents” and “moderates” — Paul is a serious presidential candidate, his fellow Republicans and other “Reagan conservatives” like Levin haven’t so much as apologized for the unjust treatment to which they subjected him before circumstances proved that he was right and they were wrong.
Far from admitting the error of their ways, they continue to treat Paul disrespectfully by suspending their negligence of his accomplishments just long enough to insult him. Coverage of this year’s Ames Straw Poll is a classic instance of this tendency...MORE...LINK
No comments:
Post a Comment