He's just terrible, even when -- which is often, once he's off the subject of the war -- I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.
But that's good news, in a way. Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't. Paul's flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas' appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.
Heh.
Paul is polling like 5% nationally. That's a victory?
Without Dr. Paul, we would only have questions about immigration policy, abortion and how are the candidates going to save the housing market.
God bless him.
I mean, the Democrats are arguing about who is going to spend more on medical care. There's not much vigor in their policy arguments.
Having said this, I *am* hopeful that he will do better than expected in NH. His fund raising indicates that GR is correct in saying that Paul has hit a strong chord among the American public. It also seems fairly obvious that MSM is making some effort to smear him (a reporter arranged for a brothel owner, the reporter's friend, to come out and support Paul; Luntz includes in a FOX "focus group" a known operative for Bush/Cheney who attacks Paul on air, a major TV reporter is accidentally taped on an inadvertently open mike saying to be sure to arrange the TV camera on him so that it doesn't include a large crowd of Paul supporters, etc.).
But Justin is also right. It is obvious that much of Paul's support is his non-interventionalist anti-war rhetoric, the very thing that alleged VC libertarians hate about him. I'd go further: Politicians have long realized (likely prior even to Machiavelli) that one way to drum up domestic support is too scare the hell out of their constituents about "foreign threats". The Republican worldview of safety through bombing, safety through war, safety through empire requires constantly playing to American fears. I think part of Paul's support comes from Americans who have wearied of this, who find Paul's view of safety through not intervening into other countries' affairs a breath of fresh air.
The lasting result will have nothing to do with Ron Paul's candidacy; it will instead permanently marginalize the role those 2 states heretofore played in presidential politics.
All you alleged VC/Reynolds "libertarians"need to quit hiding behind the label since all you really mean is "we're Republicans embarrassed that a large percentage of the party is bible-thumping morons."
"Well, what does the North American Union mean?" he asked. I told him it was this crazy theory that the US, Canada and Mexico are all going to get together and form one big government. He still seemed confused.
"Dad, remember the LaRouchies?" I said. "This is the guy they all support now." That, he understood.
He also gave a perplexing answer on abortion. He wants the issue returned to the states. Okay, fine. And he thinks abortion should be a crime. Okay, I follow him so far. But he doesn’t think that the woman obtaining the abortion should be punished because she isn’t the one committing the crime. Besides begging the question, I don’t understand his response. If abortion is immoral and should be made criminal, why shouldn’t the woman be punished as well?
Of course, since the other Republicans are for "not as big a government as the Democrats, just not less government", then the "less government" crowd really has no one else to turn to.
As for immigration, though I disagree with his position, there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about it. It depends on how large-scale your libertarianism is. If you're a "global libertarian," then it is unlibertarian. But if your version of libertarianism sees the US as the political unit, then there's nothing unlibertarian about keeping people out--even going so far as to build a 10-mile high wall and not let anyone in whatsoever. In Nozick's development of Utopia in ASU, the only freedom of movement across borders a libertarian state has to provide is the freedom to leave.
I would assume that he means there are two models for criminalizing abortion: the drug war model and the illegal gambling model. In the former, we lock up every person we can find who violates possession laws; in the latter, we only lock up people who organize the gambling rings, not the participants in the activity. Paul would apparently prefer the latter model for ciminalizing abortion. And I think that's more consistent with libertarian views (at least in comparison to the drug war model), at least to the extent that Milton Friedman et al. would endorse it.
mg
On immigration, the difference between national and global libertarian is artificial. There's no intrinsic logical reason for this distinction (any more than there is for an economic vs. noneconomic libertarian). It simply privileges nativism over libertarianism. Much like others might privilege national security over libertarianism. You can do that, but it's not libertarian.
GV_, it's a matter of moral agency. If you hire a hit man, who kills someone at your request, are you a murderer? The answer isn't so obvious. The common law does consider you guilty of murder, or at least of conspiracy to commit murder; but for instance Jewish law does not, because the hit man is a moral agent, and it was ultimately his decision, not yours, to commit the crime.
But the women is not a bystander; she "participates" in the doctor's crime. He couldn't do it without her. In any event, has Paul ever tethered his approach to criminalizing abortion to this view of moral agency?
After all, any nation-state can simply unilaterally drop all its tariffs and other barriers to trade without conditioning its actions on a treaty.
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5656
Both so true.
Modern American politics is a circle, the nuts on both sides hold similar views.
I'm curious: what makes this obvious?
But the women is not a bystander; she "participates" in the doctor's crime. He couldn't do it without her.
True. A better legal analogue might be dealing or prostitution. Under US law both the party offering the service and the party soliciting the service can be charged with varying forms of criminal wrongdoing. The situation only changes when one party attempts to force some sort of transaction against the other party's will.
Nobody stood up and said, "It should be the same as any other premeditated homicide."
This raises an interesting question: did anyone accurately prdeict in 2002 the results that we now see in 2007? Ron Paul certainly did not.
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5656
"Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result."
"More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best."
Maybe they expect some women to show up at the polls next November.
Huh?
Here's the thing about abortion: the baby doesn't get born.
The problem that's not addressed by this whole "moral agency" thing is that there's not always a doctor involved. Can you believe abortion is the murder of a human life, yet not want to hold criminally responsible a woman who performs an abortion on herself? This is particularly important because, if you start putting doctors in jail, there's going to be a lot more abortions that fit this description.
It is to me -- it's "yes."
But I'm intrigued that other systems draw a distinction. Do any other legal systems totally fail to criminalize murder for hire, or is it punished as something less than murder?
Right, of course if the abortion is actually performed there is no baby born; but presumably there would be lots of arrests and sting operations for "attempted" abortions and "conspiracy to commit" abortions, no?
Because once you introduce a bureaucracy, it is very hard to then later dislodge it, and in the meantime, it GROWS.
[Shudder] When I read this I had a vision of a Paul/Kocinich ticket....
On the issue of Iraq causing WW3 and nukes. Have y'all been hiding under the rock? Have you not heard every other GOP nominee endorse preemptive nuclear bombing of Iran?
A sting operation? Do you seriously intend to start setting up fake abortion clinics? Among other comments I could offer, that wouldn't be too bright if you're then going to decline to prosecute the women who come through the door on the grounds that you don't want to imprison expectant mothers.
Anyway, using this line of logic to justify a refusal to prosecute women following an actually completed abortion is just a dodge.
...So if the country wakes up on January 21st 2009 and see's his tiny shadow, how long before he's impeached and convicted by a Congress that has no affiliation with him whatsoever ? Pliny, the Elder, and Jay D have it exactly right. It's crazy. Americans have gone crazy before, but it doesn't last. So dream on, you odd assortment of lost causers and Truthers, Nazi's and sophomores. If you do get Dr. Paul elected...........Then the miracle happens !
I'm curious: what makes this obvious?
-----
Years of dedicated political thought and analysis? :-)
For one thing, most of the other positions RP takes are, to a degree, not unique to him. There are other Republican candidates who want to deal with Soc. Sec., offer Health Savings Accounts, "do something" about illegal immigration, favor trade, promote capitalism, support the second amendment, etc. One does not have to choose Paul to support these positions.
Granted, he is also against the Drug War. But I think the Drug War, sadly, is more popular among the Republican faithful than the Iraq War. In addition, there is a clear historical wing of the Republican party to which Paul can harken in defense of his position on foreign interventions, but his opposition to the Drug War is based on abstract issues of liberty alone. While it is perfectly defensible (dare I say obviously correct?), it does not resonate with Americans (or Republicans) the way opposition to the Iraq War does.
Now maybe some of his support is from racist, conspiracist "anti-North-American-Union" crazies. But 10% in New Hampshire? $10M in fund raising? I didn't realize crazies were so numerous and successful.
These are some reasons why it is obvious (to me) that "much" of Paul's support involves opposition to the Iraq War in the Republican heartlands.
------
Well, there are over 100,000 doctors in the USA, several of them regular posters on VC, all of whom, I suspect, would be happy to hear that everyone who refers to them as "Dr." belongs to a personality-cult devoted to him or her. :-)
There are only 100 Senators in the USA, so I'll tell you what bothers me:
One interesting thing I've noticed about Hillary Clinton is that her supporters consistently refer to her as "Senator Clinton." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something a little weird about that. I know she's a Senator and all, but it just rubs me the wrong way...something cult-of-personality-ish about it.
The only way Paul would get elected would be with an accompanying political earthquake, or "miracle." If there ever was such a thing as a President with mandate from the electorate, it would be Ron Paul. Congress would, I think, be too shell-shocked to consider impeachment for a certain length of time. Ron Paul might even be able to get some things done.
The original post included the answer to your complaint: people have not tended to do this with other politicians who are doctors, such as Dean (and Frist). They do commonly tend to refer to senators as "Senator X." Any other maddeningly obvious things you need pointed out today?
I don't intend to do anything, nor am I advocating outlawing abortion.
But, yeah, I think it is quite likely that if abortion were to be outlawed, there would be plenty of very, very zealous prosecutors and other LEOs who would go after doctors and women that they believed were trying to come to arrangement to perform/have an abortion. After all, if fetus = baby, you'd be remiss in your duties if you didn't try and stamp out what you view as premeditated murder for hire before the purported murder took place.
Without some sort of guarantee that pregnant women would not be prosecuted for attempted abortion, I can very easily imagine sting operations designed to tag women for "attempted abortion," which would result in the problem I noted above--pregnant women in jail. After all, police set up plenty of fake drug dealing operations now. If women could be prosecuted for seeking abortions, why wouldn't they set up fake abortion providers?
I'm attentive to these things-- after all I'm the MDJD(2B).
And Dr. Dean was referred to as such. As was Sen. Frist called Dr. Frist. It's a courtesy generally accorded to health professionals with a doctoral level degree (even chiropractors).
And no, it's not cultish.
But for some reason, most minsiters in politics drop the Rev. I am thinking of John Ashcroft, Mike Huckabee and Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton is an exception, but is he really a politician?
And I wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul over any other candidate in either party, even though I don't mind his being called "Dr." His political stands are virtually diametrically opposed to mine. Of interest is that he had a fine residency in OB/GYN (my specialty)-- his brain is of high quality, or at least was when he was a resident.
As anyone who has read his speeches knows, Paul is very well informed about the Middle East and understands better than most of the candidates the differnences between Kurds, Shia, etc. He is the best thing to libertarianism to happen in generations.
As anyone who has read his speeches knows, Paul is very well informed about the Middle East and understands better than most of the candidates the differnences between Kurds, Shia, etc. He is the best thing to libertarianism to happen in generations.
Kucinich already announced that he would consider Paul as a VP.
But most importantly, those of us who oppose abortion must understand that we are waging a moral war, and our success depends upon the having popular support for our position. Prosecuting women might work only to provoke opposition, as many see women as already having been victimized. For pragmatic reasons, I would not be opposed to (after Roe is overturned) prosecuting only abortionists for such a period until support for the protecting the unborn is somewhat cemented. After that, I might be receptive to prosecuting women, since they are moral agents (although, I would also prosecute any who pressured or coerced her as co-conspirators), but only if it would serve to further deter abortion. If prosecuting only abortionists would do the trick, then I see no reason to add fuel to the opposition by prosecuting the mothers.
So, I don't think Ron Paul's stance on prosecution is antithetical to a genuine anti-abortion stance.
Fair enough. But I guess it's just the unanimity with which his supporters use the honorific that I find a little creepy, not the honorific itself. It's as though they've been commanded from on high. For self-identifying libertarians, they sure are a uniform bunch.
"Clinton" is ambiguous, as others have noted.
"Hillary" is diminutive, even though it's the term she uses on her campaign signs. Anyone who has been around the block a few times knows not to open themselves up to the accusation that they are being disrepectful in referring to her by her first name because she's a woman.
"Senator" accurately describes her position and distinguishes her from her husband. "Senator Clinton" is accurate, identifying, and gender-neutral..
Soren's comments make no sense to me as a legal matter. The woman isn't the agent at all. Since when do we impose criminal liability on a real agent acting without discretion (the doctor), and not on the principal (the woman)?
If women are the "victims" of abortions, why have they demanded them for centuries? Self-destructive tendencies? How can that part of the argument stand without condescension toward the faculties of a woman?
I have nothing against the pro-life position as a matter of ethics, it's perfectly fine. We don't allow random people to destroy a fetus at any stage of development in the womb. But as a legal matter, we begrudgingly give the woman the right to do so because (1) it's her body, (2) our criminal justice system is poorly equipped to enforce an outright prohibition, and (3) an outright prohibition carries with it some serious social consequences that the majority of us would rather not suffer.
I've never heard Frist referred to as "Dr. Frist" in a casual context. "Dr. Dean", I do recall, although not nearly with the frequency of "Dr. Paul", and I agree that trend seems to be correlated with the degree of cultishness around the candidate.
I don't disagree that "Senator Clinton" is a fine moniker, but Gender-neutral? Why is that important?
But this is politics.
I haven't seen this for several years, but for at least a couple of decades since he came to power in Cuba the BBC and the London Times always called Fidel "Dr. Castro" ... apparently for his Doctor of Laws degree.
For example, no one refers to Bill Clinton as "former Governor Clinton" nor will anyone ever refer to the incumbent as "former Governor Bush." Nor will Bush41 ever be referred to as "former UN Ambassador Bush" or even "former Vice President Bush."
For that matter, most people will refer to John Ashcroft as "former Attorney General Ashcroft" because they are more familiar with him in that role than as "former Senator Ashcroft" or "former Governor Ashcroft," even though he held both those offices as well. However, no one will ever refer to John Ashcroft as "Reverend Ashcroft" because he is not an ordained clergyman. John Danforth, also a former U.S. Senator from Missouri, IS an ordained Episcopal priest--perhaps that was the confusion in listing Ashcroft's name in the previous post.
Which "die hard neoconservatives" are you referring to?
Possibly because "Senator" or "Majority Leader" are higher level social honorifics. Meanwhile Representatives are generally slightly more transient in nature and are usually not referred to casually as "Representative so and so," most people in the media use "Mr." for them. Since Ron Paul also is a doctor, and most of the time people will use that honorific if someone is qualified I can understand why ex-Senator Frist would be less likely to be referred to as "Dr."
Well, no one in this post particularly, though I've encountered that attitude among people at other forums I frequent. I do wonder, if it was a choice between Paul and Hillary who would YOU vote for? (I assume for the moment that you generally vote Republican)
I didn't say the woman was the "agent," as in the term of art "agent/principal" distinction. I said she was a "moral agent" - i.e., she is morally responsible for her actions.
Yes, it is unorthodox in law to impose liability on the agent and not the principle, but abortion is an unusual issue. I suppose it's no more unorthodox than the argument that women should be allowed to kill innocent third parties (i.e., babies) because otherwise they might hurt themselves (i.e., through illegal back alley abortions).
(Of course, anyone who has seriously consulted the statistics/evidence/admissions knows that the whole "thousands of deaths from back alley abortions" was completely false - but that is getting even further off topic [I mention it only so as not to perpetuate the myth in my use of it for purposes of argument], so I won't address the "victim" argument)
In sum: (1) Ron Paul is a dweeb, (2) glad he is stirring up libertarianism, but (3) hope he's not elected, but (4) no chance in hell, and (5) his position on abortion prosecution is not inconsistent with either libertarianism or anti-abortion sincerity.
"Reverend" Jackson also helps to distinguish him from his Congressman son Jesse Jackson Jr. I'm guessing the elder Jesse doesn't prefer to be called Jesse Jackson Sr.
The most appalling use of an honorific I've heard lately was on the radio last week when the sociopathic recess appointee John Bolton was interviewed about the upcoming Middle East
photo opconference. The radio host repeatedly called him "Ambassador Bolton."Of all the candidates, only Hillary and Rudy don't have their surnames in their campaign logos.
"Hillary" is also the label she uses almost EXCLUSIVELY on her campaign website. Aside from the URL, the name of her campaign committee, and quotations from others, the site seems to actively avoid the use of the word "Clinton" in favor of calling her simply "Hillary."
Perhaps the best example of this is in her biography section. In 5 pages, it uses the word "Clinton" just once (p.3), when it refers to when she wed Bill. The whole page on her Senate career never says "Clinton." Nor is it mentioned on the page about her time as First Lady.
And I don't think "Rodham" appears anywhere on the site at all. To wit, the very first line of her bio is "Hillary was raised in a middle-class family in the middle of America."
If I am aware that someone is a medical doctor I, probably better that 90% of the time, will use the title doctor.
Maybe it is because good manners and civility is still importatnt to me. Blame my parents, I guess. And my uncle, who attended the Citadel for a couple of years, who made a strong point that I use Ma'am when when speaking to a lady and Sir with a gentleman before me shipping out to Miss. State U.
I refer to my wife and daughter (10 yrs old) with yes ma'am.
Good manners, that's all.
I believe "babies" in the English language is predominantly used as a term for newborns and infants, not for fetuses. I gave three reasons why abortion is tolerated, and none of those three reasons would apply with respect to actual babies.
Conservatives who see government as a useful institution— people in the tradition of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt— believe that Dr. Paul's policies would be disastrous.
A policy of isolationism combined with disarmament would encourage our enemies. An abandonment of monetary controls afforded by central banking and dismantling of regulatory agencies will lead to the boom and bust cycle people came to know and love during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The country can survive Hillary Clinton better than it can survive Ron Paul.
Purple prose like Kendall's aside, conservatism (whether neo- paleo- or whatever) is not a sports team, but rather a descriptor of a collection of beliefs. If Dr. Paul calls himself a conservative, and so does William Kristol or John Neuhaus, it is still possible that Kristol or Neuhaus would find the views of Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Clinton closer to their own (though they do not call themselves conservatives) than those of Dr. Paul. This no more makes them traitors to conservatism than would a decision by Dr. Paul to support Kucinich over President Bush.
Even if a conservative's views were generally congruent with Paul's, Paul might espouse a single view that is a total deal-breaker for that conservative. Just as there are are people for whom abortion or gun rights is a litmust test, there are others for whom defense policy is a litmus test. they would oppose Paul even if they were otherwise in complete agreement.
BTW, the comments accusing various VC bloggers of insufficient fidelity to libertarian principles is odd, and sounds like the ideological battles within the Communist movement during the 20-'s through 40's. Libertarianism is a descriptor,and not a movement. People decide what policies should be espoused using a variety of criteria, and then the labels follow. Say someone who generally believes in economic and political libertarianism happens to think that civilized countries should intervene to stop genocide in Darfur, or that the government should aggressivley act to prevent industrial contamination of common resources like are or water. This can perhaps be criticized as incorrect, but it sounds cultish to criticize it as deviating from a libertarian party line.
My understanding has always been that every anti-abortion law (or, at least, every American anti-abortion law) was directed exclusively toward banning the performance of an abortion, not the reception of one. It was a crime only on the physician's part, and not the pregnant woman's.
Am I mistaken on this? If I am, could someone provide a counter-example?
I suspect there are two reasons.
First, the NY tabloids ujniversally use first names to identify them, and they are used to it.
Second, they have relatively unusual first names. Try "Mike for President" or :John for President" on for size. And "Mitt for President" sounds like you are trying to elect an article of clothing.
Exactly how is Ron Paul an isolationist? Ron Paul doesn't believe in nation building, nor does he believe we should attempt to maintain 30 thousand troops in Korea or 120 thousand in Iraq, and because of that he's suddenly isolationist?
What happened to "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
Ron Paul supports neither. He favors non-interventionalism, not isolationism.
Non-Interventionalism: Free trade with other nations. No unprovoked preemptive wars.
Isolationism: High tariffs on imported goods to protect American industries from foriegn competitors.
Even if by some miracle Paul got elected, I really doubt Congress would let him abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard.
"That's DOCTOR Smith," the witness snapped. Whereupon counsel took great sport at getting under this physician's skin once he realized how thin it was.
That said, I do think that if a person has a preferred (and earned) honoriphic, whether it be "Doctor" or "Governor" or "Reverend" or whatever, then common courtesy suggests the preferred honoriphic be used. It doesn't cost anything.
If Ron Paul prefers to be "Dr. Paul" rather than "Congressman Paul" or "Representative Paul," that is fine by me and I will call him whatever he prefers. That doesn't mean I support him. It just means I am being polite.
I guess when I discovered a candidate who was against both abortion and the drug war (not to mention against the Iraq war from the start), I felt a Eureka! moment because I never thought such a politician existed.
Regarding prosecuting women for abortions. Thoughtful comments. I would never support prosecuting the woman. This makes me inconsistent, hypocritical, etc., but so what?
I feel like the pro-choicers stressing "what about prosecuting the women?" is a canard. No serious pro lifers support that. Kind of like when pro choicers stress the rape/incest/life of the mother topic, which [I think?]represents a small percentage of the total abortions.
I guess the tough part of being pro life is, yeah, the state will compel the woman to carry the fetus to term. And that's harsh because pregnancy and childbirth are very difficult, and raising the kid is hard (so is giving it up for adoption too). But isn't the tough part about being pro-choice a lot worse? -- that you are allowing the destruction of a human life? An honest pro choicer admits that an abortion does take a human being's life in a way that is violent and painful (no anesthesia in abortions, correct?) This "fetus isn't a person" line is so lame it's not worthy of a response. Well, if it ISN'T a person, then what is it?
Glenn Reynolds sucks and Ron Paul rules.
<blockquote>
From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. <i>From anitwar.com</i>
</blockquote>
Korea? Kosovo?
<blockquote>
There are good reasons why the U.S. Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced "charity" is not charity at all, but theft. <i>From antiwar.com</i>
</blockquote>
I missed the Charity Clause in the Constitution.
And Ron Paul on immigration, from lewrockwell.com:
<blockquote>
Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires <b>cultural connections </b>and an allegiance to the United States.
</blockquote>
So the Amish and Hutterites aren't citizens. What about ethnic Mexicans from the Rio Grand valley? Or the Hindus and Sikhs I treat regularly in my practice?
Google "Ron Paul Gold Standard for this one:
<blockquote>
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.
</blockquote>
No, I won't call him "kook" or "crazy." His speech before the house speaks for itself.
This one also comes from lewrockwell.com, and can be found by Googling "Ron Paul Civil Rights:
blockquote><i><
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic <b>Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No.</b> Here is his statement. ~ Ed. </i>
....[T[he Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. <b>The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. </b></blockquote>
Yeah. So let's bring back child labor. Down with regulation of railroad, airplane and mine safety. If you don't have the time to investigate your airline's safety record you deserve to go down with the pilot.
Many, many people refer to their unborn children as "babies". You've probably heard someone ask a pregnant woman "when is the baby due?" but never "when is the fetus due?"
Anti-abortion folks will usually refer to the unborn as babies in the context of the abortion debate. Pro-abortion rights folks will often use fetuses. The difference is simply reflective of their different positions. Neither is wrong in terms of use of the English language.
This quote from George Washington, penned during the 18th century, became less relevant due to various changes that occurred in the world during the ensuing two centuries.
Just as "divine right of kings" lost its luster as a watchword during the two centuries leading up to Washington's Farewell Address.
And, BTW, your quote is generally taken as the defining statement of isolationism, and was when isolationism was popular both as a word and as a policy.
But why not? If abortion is really, truly the moral equivalent of premeditated murder, why on earth wouldn't you prosecute the woman that chooses to do it?
We're talking about premeditated murder of a human being, right?
Or are we?
As for Korea, what exactly was and remains our business there? Ok, we stopped South Korea's take over by the North. All well and good, but why should I care about the South Koreans? I'd much rather simply trade with them for goods rather than worrying about subsidizing their military with 30,000 of our troops to this day and tens of thousands of casualties during active hostilities.
Also, you left out several key sentences in your criticism of him regarding the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights act. He adds in the speech for example
he also mentions:
The full thing here, for some odd reason when you cherry picked that excerpt it almost seemed like you were trying to make him into a racist...
Isolation implies self-sufficiency, etc., by cutting a nation off from the rest of the world - militarily, diplomatically, and economically. Washington's quote suggests none of these three. Peace and friendship seem to indicate diplomatic ties, and commerce obviously indicates economic ties. It would be a severe mistake to read "entangling alliances with none" as an attack on military ties in all cases. Washington is clearly talking about something (alliances) that implies a level of permanence and lack of complete control over decision making. Obviously, Washington has no problem with temporary alliances based on national interests, because of France's support during the Revolutionary War. However, the colonial-French partnership during the war was not an entangling alliance, nor would either nation have desired such an outcome. The U.S. clearly did not want to be dragged into French continental or colonial wars, and vice versa. It was a temporary alliance rooted in each nation's narrow self interest at the time. The 19th and early 20th centuries were full of temporary and ever-changing alliances based on this principle.
In no way should Washington's quote be read as supportive of isolation. Nor should it be seen as isolationism to withdraw from a Cold War-era security agreement like NATO. I fail to see what direct U.S. interest is threatened if, say, Belgium was invaded by Argentina (didn't claim it was realistic). Under NATO, we must consider that an attack on the US, and come to Belgium's aid. Of course, without NATO, we could still do so if its in our interests (see WW2, obviously the most justified war since the Revolution). With NATO, that choice it taken away, in theory.
The relevance of a quote does not necessarily change due to its level of adherence.
Thanks, Kendall. Totally slipped my mind that it was Jefferson. As an amateur Jefferson scholar, I am ashamed of myself. Please forgive me though, I am a 1L so my mind is cluttered at the moment.
Jefferson, not Washington.
But he does shill for GWB better then many....
You're being unnecessarily hard on yourself. A woman who wants an abortion is not a menace to society at large, only to the fetus she is carrying. It's not a foregone conclusion that she's a target for criminal prosecution, if anything it's a stretch.
As I recall from a history I read a few years ago, abortion was a crime in many if not most places, and the woman could be prosecuted, but rarely was. But that's a bygone era when the term "bastard" was a term with legal significance. A lot of towns considered an abortion doctor a useful asset to have, because in the days before artificial birth control "accidents" were rather common. The practice of putting the woman on the first train out of town started to wane after women got the right to vote and started to assert themselves in political and social matters. The inflexible anti-abortion movement we have today didn't really exist until after World War II.
One could argue that by asking when the baby is due, the questioner tacitly acknowledges that the baby has not arrived yet. But yes, a woman who intends to bear the child will refer specifically to what she is carrying as her baby. A woman who has just learned that her boyfriend knocked her up before leaving town may or may not refer to what she is carrying as a baby. I think "babies" is a loaded and inapposite term when used to refer collectively to all human life that has been conceived but not yet born.
I know, we're all entitled to our opinions, and we may use loaded terms as an argumentative tactic. We do so at the risk that someone else will point out what we have done.
That is a common myth propagated by the pro-abortion folks. It goes like this: abortion was liberally accepted and practiced until in the 19th century, when the evil, male-dominated medical profession wanted to steal the business of the female-dominated midwifery profession, which was performing abortion services (not true). So they lobbied for laws against abortion. But the laws were directed only against the midwives (i.e., the physicians) because those were the economic target.
This was the argument proffered (and bought) in Roe. It was advanced by Cyril Means, Jr. and James Mohr in their books, both of which were relied upon by Jane Roe (via Sarah Weddington). Nevermind that Mohr was funded by NARAL (or was it Means? I can't remember). It has become orthodoxy by this point, but it is patently false. Abortion has always been a crime in U.S. common law. Mothers were also prosecuted for it, but I don't think universally so. True, it wasn't until the 19th century that there were statutes against abortion, but the common law proscribed it before that (which the pro-aborts conveniently ignore).
Anyway, Professor Joseph Dellapenna (who is not pro-life) detailed all of this in this 1600-page tome Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (2006). Please excuse any errors I may have made. This is all off the top of my head. If necessary, I can support this with accurate citations, but that would take a while.
That change being the political consensus that an American Empire would be a splendid idea.
It was a common law crime only after "quickeninq", or so says Wikipedia (not the best source in the world, I know).
I'm sure that's correct, PLR. I doubt there were many prosecutions for abortion. But that's also because there weren't nearly as many abortions before it became legal (and certainly not in small towns; it was far more prevalent in big cities in which traveling businessmen would seek the "comfort" of prostitutes). While reliable statistics are scarce, the reliable statistics we do have (even from Planned Parenthood's Guttenmacher Institute) show the rate of abortion skyrocketing after Roe.
And while it may have been practice to avoid exposing abortions in small towns, the same could not be said for large cities. I believe that when the New York Times was originally one (flailing) paper among many in NYC, it managed to distinguish itself by doing exposés of illegal abortion providers (ironic, huh?). Again, off the top of my head. I'll refrain from tracking down the source unless this is disputed.
But anyway, I appreciate your candor. This has been a civil abortion debate.
As a libertarian and fiscal conservative, I support his positions on those issues. The real question I think is how so many libertarians can support an immigration policy which is filling the country with welfare cases. People are policy.
Hauer you doing?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
See for example:
Wikipedia:
From u-s-history.com:
To me this seems like a better explanation of Ron Paul's foreign policy goals than isolationism. I would also point out that there is some middle ground between "isolationism" and deciding that you can invade and occupy a country without declaring war and it's ok.
Yup, but first there's the elimination round, where everyone competes at trying to be the MOST libertarian. Only after a few hours, when the field is winnowed down to 3-4 candidates, can one declare himself Pope and excommunicate all others.
The guy who asked that question was a horror movie waiting to happen. So creepy.
This has always been the exception to the rule of US foreign policy, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Check out the history of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, DR, Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Pananma (nee northern Colombia), etc.
But Paul is not just about isolationism. For example, he is also about abolition of central banking and the reimposition of a gold standard, so that our enemies and commodity manipulators can more easily attack our currency.
No, they don't. Most sensible people just don't want to waste their time. So, crude but accurate insults are the least time consuming way to engage the Paulbots, many of which are spamming this post.
His views are in the main not supported by either the Constitution or American history. Few political figures, not Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln or Jackson, would agree with more than a fraction of his views.
He is an extremist who attracks extremist supporters.
Paul's positions deserve only mocking, not serious consideration. Frankly, the same can be said of most of his supporters.
I think one will find that regardless of what most pro-lifers claim in regards to abortion, their approach is most consistent with manslaughter. If the woman said "Yeah, I'm killing this @#$%# nuisance baby, so @#$%#$ what?", they would be quite happy to see her indicted for first-degree murder. Most women, however, are under the impression -- fostered vigorously by the industry and its proponents -- that what they are dealing with is not a recognizable human life, and as such is ignorant in regards to the consequences of her actions. Which is a much different position than that of the practitioner, who is watching the fetus flinch and twist on the ultrasound during each procedure s/he performs, and taking a limb inventory afterward to make sure no tissue (which will quickly fester and infect) was left in the womb.
They were not blanket semi-random bombings, and yes they did help the civilian population.
Not only did it not particularly stop the slaughter and ethnic cleansing but it resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians.
Stuff and nonsense. Only a few hundred civilians were killed.
But he does shill for GWB better then many....
Glenn Reynolds sucks
It must frustrate you both no end that in spite of his obnoxious failings, of which you are so accutely aware, he nonetheless maintains a nice job, a hot car, a smart and pretty wife, a high website readership, a mainstream publications presence, and enduring celebrity. I mean, how can the whole world -- up to and including Volvo advertising execs -- be completely blind to what is so obvious to you? And why does he have all this stuff, mostly due to Internet presence, while you don't? Life must be really unfair, eh?
Fortunately, what the Internet taketh away, the Internet giveth. If you'll just supply me with a reliable email address, I'll pass it around and see to it that you have access to all of the lottery winnings and personal enhancements you'll ever need to overcome these obstacles. Any takers?
Yes, and furthermore the Korean War clearly benefitted the people of South Korea.
The Marshall Plan (RP believes that foreign aid is contrary to the Involuntary Charity Clause of the Constitution as well as to the Pragmatically Unsound Clause) clearly benefitted not only its recipients, but the United States, by preventing Soviet hegemony over much of Western Europe. Not all foreign assistance projects have been as successful, but this is a question of prudent selection and careful management of projects, not of foreign assistance as a concept.
And I should care about the people of South Korea because... see, I'm not as "kind" as you I suppose, not as "compassionate." I don't believe the role of the United States is to fight and die for other countries that are unwilling or unable to defend themselves from attack when our direct interests are not threatened. I fail to see how defending the South was in our interests, and I fail to see how it is still in our interest to maintain a presence of 30,000 troops in the region.
Also, I noticed you pulled the nice bait and switch, you still haven't established how Ron Paul is "about isolationism" at all. Ron Paul is a Non-interventionist, not an Isolationist, and your petty childish smears only show that you don't have any real basis to attack him so you seek to marginalize him with cheap and easy lies.
A decent point. And in parallel, there is a middle ground between "this guy means to kill you and really needs killin'" and "the world would be better off were this guy not in power." There are a lot of world leaders that fit the latter category, and few who fit the first (and even fewer if you play the brinksmanship cards just right, which requires that you make them believe that you subscribe to the latter approach, even tho you do not. Know when to hold them, know when to fold 'em).
Absolutely. But even if you concede that the world would be better off with someone like Saddam or Qaddafi (oops we gave Libya most favored nation trading status, didn't we?) or a Castro or a Chavez that does not mean the United States has the authority or is justified and going in and removing someone. After all, if one country is going around and deciding who should stay in power and who should not, what's going to stop other countries from doing the same? Do you really want Putin's Russia to decide that the Afghan government is going to be too unfriendly to their interests? Or, what if China decides the world would be better off if Taiwan was going to be best as a smoking blackened crater off their coast?
It sounds GREAT when you talk about it being "better" if someone is not in power, except that the United States would not be the only power deciding who should and should not be in power.
I'm re