Conflicted Libertarian

This article by David Wolfford in the National Review Online pained me deeply.  I cannot tell you the importance of NR to my development as an anti-communist conservative.  It was the magazine I’d find in the Wright State library on the sly and read furtively like a underground freedom fighter.  (My views were hardly underground however!)  William F. Buckley was a huge icon for me.  So to see NR turn against the libertarian conservatism I now espouse is not easy. 

Wolfford has this criticism of Ron Paul:

Many conservatives reject Ron Paul’s celebrity, fringe positions, and irritation to the party over the years. He has advocated the legalization of drugs and blamed U.S. foreign policy for bringing about the 9/11 attacks. Some haven’t forgotten his 1988 run against Bush 41.

Conservatives should reject a person because he is a “celebrity”?  Oh if we had had a qualified celebrity in the last Presidential election!   Celebrity status did not bother the conservative supporters of Sarah Palin. 

And let’s discuss fringe positions:  Cong. Paul calls for balanced budgets, severe reductions in the federal government, and no wars without a declaration (and the consensus that such a declaration would require).  Is it gold and silver as legal tender?  I agree that is radical.  But the Constitution does indeed forbid the states from accepting any thing other than those two precious metals as currency.  I certainly cannot call for that today.  We need paper money.  Is it renouncing goody-goody wars against nations that did not attack us?  When I was a boy I was proud to say the USA never attacked another nation without a compelling reason.  Today that is not true anymore. 

The 9/11 is caused by our foreign policy canard is a misunderstanding of Dr. Paul’s position.  Paul is using 9/11 as a danger of an interventionist foreign policy.  He in fact voted for the authority to root out Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.  Today, as it evident by the way the US treats Karzai for daring to stand up to us, we are in fact nation-building.  This is not what the US should be doing. 

Legalization of drugs?  Many call for that to some extent.  William F. Buckley, Jr., famously went beyond the three mile limit in his yacht to legally smoke pot!  The 1988 campaign?  I have not heard anyone angry about the over 400,000 votes Paul got as if it cost Bush the election. 

Here’s the issues framed well:

Conservatives have a legitimate concern over Paul’s national-security credentials. He’s questioned Iran’s status as a potential nuclear threat and expressed worrisome views about how to handle captured terrorists. Some of his comments, whether off-the-cuff or not, have brought leading Washington national-security Republicans to his opponent’s side. Dick Cheney recently endorsed Grayson, calling him the “real conservative.” Paul has called for nixing the federal Energy and Education Departments to loud cheers; this is impressive to tea-party Jeffersonians, but won’t necessarily play well in a general election.

If it is conservative to play to the mob on procedural rights for terror suspects, count me out.  I do not want such rights as trial by jury decided by politicians!  Cheney cited the USA Patriot Act as a reason to support Grayson.  The excesses of the Patriot Act are manifest; we need to repeal that law before we do health care. 

Has NR conceded that we should have a department of education or energy on the federal level?  Not me.  NR may have strayed.  I’ll stick with Rand Paul.

Rand Paul has the passion on his side, but Kentucky Republicans who want to hold the Senate seat should give him a good, hard look before they vote in the primary on May 18.

I’ll still respect the NR of old.  But today’s not your father’s NR.  Thanks for the memories.

Tags: David Wolfford, National Review, NR, Rand-Paul, Ron Paul, William F Buckley, Wright State