The Volokh Conspiracy

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.

GV_:
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.

Paul is polling like 5% nationally. That's a victory?
11.29.2007 10:03am
Jeff Raymond (mail):
GV: it's 5% among likely Republican voters at this point - Paul gets some decent crossover support as well as independent/unenrolled support. I never expected him to do this well, I now expect him to get 12-15% in the NH primary.
11.29.2007 10:06am
Justin (mail):
I'm just amused that RP's support is coming mostly on the war, and GR generally agrees with him when hes NOT talking about the war. There's gotta be a joke there, or at least some commentary on libertarianism and GR's faux-libertarianism.
11.29.2007 10:11am
Xmas (mail) (www):
And that's why I love Dr. Paul. Last night, they had questions about tax policy, and reducing the size of government, gun rights, and the validity of non-interventionist foreign policy.

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.
11.29.2007 10:16am
EH (mail):
I think Dr. Paul's "weaknesses" as a pitchman could be turned into strengths if he tied them somehow to Bush's skills as an orator and intellect. To highlight that the President is somewhat of a figurehead when their policy is largely determined by the cabinet might be a fatal gambit, but there's a grain of truth to it that could be used to defuse the typical criticisms of Dr. Paul.
11.29.2007 10:32am
Thoughtful (mail):
I agree with GR that Paul is not the greatest vessel for libertarian ideas--he comes off as too shrill, and some of his ideas (NOT his views of war, which are plumbline libertarian, and prior to Nixon typical 20th century Republicanism) come off as kooky. Further, like many candidates, 30 second soundbites are not his strong suit.

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.
11.29.2007 10:35am
Redman:
Its very likely that the democrats will flood Iowa and NH and vote for Paul in those states' "alls fair" caucus and primary. Paul will probably finish 3rd.

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.
11.29.2007 10:36am
Salixquercus (mail):
This quote is worthy of excerpting why exactly? If it has any insight whatsoever, I'm missing it.

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."
11.29.2007 10:40am
John425:
Ron Paul is a vapid moron who is giving Republicans an even worse reputation while he parodies libertarianism.
11.29.2007 10:42am
Steve:
My dad was watching the debate last night. "Who's this Ron Paul person?" he asked me. I don't think I did a very good job of explaining what he was about.

"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.
11.29.2007 10:43am
TGGP (mail) (www):
LaRouche always talks about going back to the F.D.R-Lincoln legacy. There's no way LewRockwellites would get along with LaRouchies.
11.29.2007 10:48am
Steve:
That's why Ron Paul is an amazing candidate. He has built a true Coalition of the Wackos.
11.29.2007 10:49am
GV_:
How do you libertarians feel about Paul's fierce opposition to free trade and his opposition to a more liberal immigration policy, typically important issues to fiscal conservatives?

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?
11.29.2007 10:50am
GV_:
I mean to add, I wasn't looking for a debate on abortion, but looking for an explaination of Paul's position.
11.29.2007 10:52am
rbj:
If the Ron Paul supporters were all there because of his anti-war stance, they could just have easily chosen any of the Democrats. What's more likely is they are supporting Paul because of his "less government" stance + anti-war.

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.
11.29.2007 10:58am
U.Va. 3L:
Paul isn't opposed to free trade. He rightly sees NAFTA, etc. not as free trade agreements but as "managed trade" agreements. There's little "free" about them. Now, it's worth asking him why he's willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good--after all, NAFTA is better than nothing--but if Paul had his druthers, trade would actually be free.

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.
11.29.2007 10:59am
Matty G:

I mean to add, I wasn't looking for a debate on abortion, but looking for an explaination of Paul's position.


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
11.29.2007 11:03am
Milhouse (www):
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. Perhaps Dr Paul subscribes to that approach, and would like to make this the rule for anyone who induces another to commit a crime.
11.29.2007 11:09am
frankcross (mail):
I think the free trade issue is telling. He is for free trade. He is against the agreements that make it possible. I see someone who has no connection with reality here. He thinks in the abstract without any consideration of real world facts and the likely actual consequences of his abstract policies.

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.
11.29.2007 11:13am
GV_:
Earlier, I should have said Paul's opposition to free trade agreements, not free trade.

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?
11.29.2007 11:26am
Marco:
He is for free trade. He is against the agreements that make it politically possible in the current congressional alignment.

After all, any nation-state can simply unilaterally drop all its tariffs and other barriers to trade without conditioning its actions on a treaty.
11.29.2007 11:27am
PLR:
I'm reluctant to give Glenn Reynolds the tacit honor of a rational rebuttal, but I can't resist. Paul wrong on the war? He has NEVER been wrong on the war. Here's what he wrote in November 2002:
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.

More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. ...

The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. ...

Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further. ...

This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily usher in a "regime change" here in the United States. The conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire economy.

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5656
11.29.2007 11:35am
Bob from Ohio (mail):

crazy old man in a bus station.


That's why Ron Paul is an amazing candidate. He has built a true Coalition of the Wackos.


Both so true.

Modern American politics is a circle, the nuts on both sides hold similar views.
11.29.2007 11:43am
anym_avey (mail):
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'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.
11.29.2007 11:46am
anym_avey (mail):
That should have been "drug dealing" in my second paragraph, of course.
11.29.2007 11:48am
rlb:
The answers to the abortion punishment question really bugged me.

Nobody stood up and said, "It should be the same as any other premeditated homicide."
11.29.2007 12:02pm
Preferred Customer:
The obvious, practical reason not to criminalize the participation of the mother is that if you make abortion illegal, *someone* is going to have to look after the baby once it is born. Putting expectant mothers in jail (or even fining them, or saddling them with a criminal conviction that makes it harder for them to get a job) ultimately is going to do a great deal of (indirect) harm to the newborns that pro-lifers are ostensibly interested in protecting.
11.29.2007 12:04pm
Annon6:
The quotation from Ron Paul's 2002 article is incomplete. He also said there was a 50% chance the Iraq war would lead to World War III. He presented a parade of horribles, most of which did not happen.

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."
11.29.2007 12:05pm
PLR:
The answers to the abortion punishment question really bugged me.

Nobody stood up and said, "It should be the same as any other premeditated homicide."

Maybe they expect some women to show up at the polls next November.
11.29.2007 12:07pm
PLR:
Minor correction to 1:05 -
The quotation from Ron Paul's 2002 article is incomplete. He also said there was a 50% chance the Iraq war would lead to World War III. He presented a parade of horribles, most of which did not happen have not yet happened.
11.29.2007 12:10pm
anonthu:
The obvious, practical reason not to criminalize the participation of the mother is that if you make abortion illegal, *someone* is going to have to look after the baby once it is born.

Huh?
11.29.2007 12:18pm
Steve:
The obvious, practical reason not to criminalize the participation of the mother is that if you make abortion illegal, *someone* is going to have to look after the baby once it is born.

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.
11.29.2007 12:34pm
Waldensian (mail):

If you hire a hit man, who kills someone at your request, are you a murderer? The answer isn't so obvious.

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?
11.29.2007 12:37pm
Pliny, the Elder (mail):
I intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primary (as I voted for him for Pres in 1988). I must confess, however, that if I really believed he had a shot at winning I doubt that I would vote for him. Paul getting 20% in the primaries says let's do some re-thinking. Pres. Paul seems to say let's go crazy.
11.29.2007 12:46pm
Preferred Customer:
@Steve and @anonthu

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?
11.29.2007 12:54pm
Jay D:
Now, it's worth asking him why he's willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good--after all, NAFTA is better than nothing

Because once you introduce a bureaucracy, it is very hard to then later dislodge it, and in the meantime, it GROWS.
11.29.2007 12:59pm
Jay D:
Let's go crazy.
11.29.2007 1:00pm
Buckland (mail):

Modern American politics is a circle, the nuts on both sides hold similar views.


[Shudder] When I read this I had a vision of a Paul/Kocinich ticket....
11.29.2007 1:07pm
Jam:
I do not think that, overall, this was Dr. Paul's best. I watched a video of an very brief interview with Dr. Paul, after the debate. He stated that he was frustrated and it showed.

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?
11.29.2007 1:09pm
Steve:
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?

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.
11.29.2007 1:09pm
Jam:
I am a supporter of Dr. Paul and I will tell one and all that if Dr. Paul chooses Kucinich as VP will not not vote for him. But Dr. Paul has pointed out that he has other differences with Kucinich. Kucinich is not going to be Dr. Paul's VP choice.
11.29.2007 1:14pm
Dave D. (mail):
....Lets pretend Dr. Paul gets ( ..and then the miracle happens...) nominated AND elected. He's the only libertarian in Congress. He has no party apparatus. He's voted 'no' in almost every vote he's cast. He has a legislative record of 20 years and NO accomplishments.
...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 !
11.29.2007 1:21pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):
One interesting thing I've noticed about Ron Paul is that his supporters consistently refer to him as "Dr. Paul." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something a little weird about that. I know he's a medical doctor and all, but it just rubs me the wrong way...something cult-of-personality-ish about it. (Did Howard Dean's supporters routinely/universally refer to him as "Dr. Dean"? If so, I don't remember it.)
11.29.2007 1:23pm
Thoughtful (mail):
anym)__avey: [Thoughtful]: 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'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.
11.29.2007 1:29pm
Thoughtful (mail):
ronnie-dobbs: "One interesting thing I've noticed about Ron Paul is that his supporters consistently refer to him as "Dr. Paul." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something a little weird about that. I know he's a medical doctor and all, but it just rubs me the wrong way...something cult-of-personality-ish about it.
------
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.
11.29.2007 1:37pm
Jay D:
Dave D. Lets pretend Dr. Paul gets ( ..and then the miracle happens...) nominated AND elected

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.
11.29.2007 1:54pm
Wugong:
"Thoughtful"

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?
11.29.2007 1:54pm
GV_:
It can be confusing if you just refer to Hillary as "Clinton" because of her husband.
11.29.2007 2:08pm
Anonymouseducator (mail) (www):
If abortion is murder, is heavy drinking during pregnancy child abuse? I imagine drug use must be. Smoking probably should be.
11.29.2007 2:08pm
Preferred Customer:
@Steve


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.


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?
11.29.2007 2:09pm
Jay D:
We'll be calling her "Clinton 44" soon enough.
11.29.2007 2:10pm
MDJD2B (mail):

One interesting thing I've noticed about Ron Paul is that his supporters consistently refer to him as "Dr. Paul." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something a little weird about that. I know he's a medical doctor and all, but it just rubs me the wrong way...something cult-of-personality-ish about it. (Did Howard Dean's supporters routinely/universally refer to him as "Dr. Dean"? If so, I don't remember it.)


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.
11.29.2007 2:13pm
Dodsworth:
As to the Kurds, it was a brief slip. He clearly won the exchange with McCain (which Reynolds doesn't report) by not only noting that he has gotten more money from soldiers than any other GOP candidate but also by correcting the claim that he is an isolationist. Game, set, and match.

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.
11.29.2007 2:19pm
Dodsworth:
As to the Kurds, it was a brief slip. He clearly won the exchange with McCain (which Reynolds doesn't report) by not only noting that he has gotten more money from soldiers than any other GOP candidate but also by correcting the claim that he is an isolationist. Game, set, and match.

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.
11.29.2007 2:20pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

When I read this I had a vision of a Paul/Kocinich ticket....


Kucinich already announced that he would consider Paul as a VP.
11.29.2007 2:29pm
Kendall:
What I've found interesting is that some die hard neoconservatives are so opposed, so disturbed, so frightened by Paul's campaign that they say if it was a choice between Clinton and Paul they'd hold their nose, hate it, and vote for Clinton. I just don't understand the visceral reaction people have towards him. Since when did adopting Wilson's foreign policy become so crucial to so many people's psyche?
11.29.2007 2:33pm
Dodsworth:
P.S. I actually found Paul's knowing, grandfatherly smile as he listened to McCain's obviously opportunistic screed about isolationism to be rather charming and benign.
11.29.2007 2:35pm
Soren:
As one who believes that abortion is premeditated murder, I am nonetheless sympathetic to a regime that punishes only the doctors. Doctors (or abortionists; they don't deserve the title of a healer), unlike many women, are fully aware of what they are doing. As they pull out the baby limb by limb, they are aware that the baby is not simply "tissue." Yet, many women buy into this (or allow themselves to be convinced to assuage their guilt). Moreover, doctors profit (immensely) from this slaughter; women not so (if we distinguish between avoided future child-related expenses and "profit," which I do). Also, far from being a woman's "choice," many women are coerced to abort against their will by their boyfriends or fathers. Granted, the woman is still a moral agent, but it's easy also to see women as the victims of abortion.

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.
11.29.2007 2:54pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):

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.


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.
11.29.2007 3:02pm
Dan Weber (www):
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.
Lots of her critics do it, too. McCain responded to the "how do we stop the bitch?" comment by saying that he respects Senator Clinton.

"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..
11.29.2007 3:04pm
PLR:
We're way off topic, but what the heck.

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.
11.29.2007 3:09pm
JSinger (mail):

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.


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.
11.29.2007 3:10pm
Jay D:
"Senator" accurately describes her position and distinguishes her from her husband. "Senator Clinton" is accurate, identifying, and gender-neutral..

I don't disagree that "Senator Clinton" is a fine moniker, but Gender-neutral? Why is that important?
11.29.2007 3:12pm
Dan Weber (www):
I don't disagree that "Senator Clinton" is a fine moniker, but Gender-neutral? Why is that important?
It shouldn't be important.

But this is politics.
11.29.2007 3:19pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
One interesting thing I've noticed about Ron Paul is that his supporters consistently refer to him as "Dr. Paul."


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.
11.29.2007 3:21pm
Dave N (mail):
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?
Um, I think Jesse Jackson frequently has "Reverend" used in front of his name as a point of reference. I am guessing most politicians don't have a religious title used because they are usually referred to by either the most "prestigious" political title they held or the most recent. This is true for all politicians, not just clergymen politicians.

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.
11.29.2007 3:21pm
Pip (mail):
Hey KENDALL,

Which "die hard neoconservatives" are you referring to?
11.29.2007 3:24pm
Kendall:
I've never heard Frist referred to as "Dr. Frist" in a casual context.


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."
11.29.2007 3:25pm
Kendall:
Which "die hard neoconservatives" are you referring to?


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)
11.29.2007 3:26pm
Soren:
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)?

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.
11.29.2007 3:29pm
PLR:
Um, I think Jesse Jackson frequently has "Reverend" used in front of his name as a point of reference. I am guessing most politicians don't have a religious title used because they are usually referred to by either the most "prestigious" political title they held or the most recent. This is true for all politicians, not just clergymen politicians.

"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 op conference. The radio host repeatedly called him "Ambassador Bolton."
11.29.2007 3:34pm
Loren (mail) (www):

"Hillary" is diminutive, even though it's the term she uses on her campaign signs.


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."
11.29.2007 3:37pm
Jam:
We have a family doctor and she is also a friend. I still call her Dr. first_name. Sometimes I slip up and call her Dr. last_name.

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.
11.29.2007 3:38pm
PLR:
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).

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.
11.29.2007 3:39pm
Malvolio:
Since when did adopting Wilson's foreign policy become so crucial to so many people's psyche?
1917 I'm guessing, when it started getting a lot of people killed.
11.29.2007 3:39pm
MDJD2B (mail):

What I've found interesting is that some die hard neoconservatives are so opposed, so disturbed, so frightened by Paul's campaign that they say if it was a choice between Clinton and Paul they'd hold their nose, hate it, and vote for Clinton.


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.
11.29.2007 3:48pm
MDJD2B (mail):
Oops-- I meant Rev. John Danforth, an ordained Episcopalian priest. I got the wrong Missouri politician.
11.29.2007 3:53pm
vaduz (mail):
For an ostensibly educated group of people, the name calling of Ron Paul undermines any credibility you may have. Ad hominem attacks, and not very good ones at that, prove the merits of Paul's positions. That he rejects the "invade the world, invite the world" orthodoxy that has become the shibboleths of both parties reveals he is his own man. Calling him a "kook" "dweeb" "crazy" or mocking the zealousness of his supporters is nice misdirection, but fails to address his platform. If wanting balanced budgets, smaller government, secure borders, and humble foriegn policy is what qualifies as insane, then we are indeed living in strange times. This country needs Ron Paul, but we deserve Hillary Clinton.
11.29.2007 3:53pm
Loren (mail) (www):
With all the talk about abortion laws, I'm compelled to ask: was there ever a time in American history when it was a crime on the woman's part to have an abortion?

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?
11.29.2007 3:57pm
MDJD2B (mail):

Of all the candidates, only Hillary and Rudy don't have their surnames in their campaign logos.


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.
11.29.2007 3:57pm
Kendall:
A policy of isolationism combined with disarmament wouencourage 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.


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."
11.29.2007 4:10pm
Anonymous Coward #39841:

A policy of isolationism combined with disarmament would encourage our enemies.


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.


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.

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.
11.29.2007 4:14pm
Dave N (mail):
A bit off topic, I was at a hearing once where a physician was testifying. Opposing counsel referred to a testifying physician as "Mr. Smith."

"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.
11.29.2007 4:17pm
abu hamza:
well I love Ron Paul and I don't ever call him "doctor."

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.
11.29.2007 4:17pm
MDJD2B (mail):
Ron Paul and Reality (quotes taken from Google searches like "Ron Paul Israel " and "Ron Paul foreign aid":

<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.
11.29.2007 4:20pm
KeithK (mail):

I believe "babies" in the English language is predominantly used as a term for newborns and infants, not for fetuses.


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.
11.29.2007 4:20pm
MDJD2B (mail):

What happened to "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."


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.
11.29.2007 4:26pm
Waldensian (mail):

I feel like the pro-choicers stressing "what about prosecuting the women?" is a canard. No serious pro lifers support that.

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?
11.29.2007 4:39pm
Kendall:
MDJD2B - Do you honestly think the blanket semi-random bombings we used in Kosovo helped 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the 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.


he also mentions:

Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.


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...
11.29.2007 4:40pm
Kendall:
also, in fact, the specific quote I used was from Jefferson's First Inaugural address. It's true that some Isolationists have tried to use that quote as a basis for their policy, but again, an Isolationist is against any foreign contact. If anything someone like Tancredo is closer to an isolationist than is Ron Paul.
11.29.2007 4:42pm
kpf (mail):
MDJD2B-

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.
11.29.2007 4:47pm
kpf (mail):
Wow...

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.
11.29.2007 4:50pm
Kendall:
I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.


Jefferson, not Washington.
11.29.2007 4:52pm
Kendall:
Not a problem kpf, I greatly admire Jefferson (at least during his first term) but it's a relatively simple mistake, particularly when MDJD2B first misidentified the quote.
11.29.2007 4:54pm
samuil (mail):
well,GR is an idiot and fake "libertarian" as well.
But he does shill for GWB better then many....
11.29.2007 5:08pm
PLR:
Regarding prosecuting women for abortions. Thoughtful comments. I would never support prosecuting the woman. This makes me inconsistent, hypocritical, etc., but so what?

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.
With all the talk about abortion laws, I'm compelled to ask: was there ever a time in American history when it was a crime on the woman's part to have an abortion?

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?

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.
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.

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.
11.29.2007 5:10pm
Soren:
[W]as there ever a time in American history when it was a crime on the woman's part to have an abortion? 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.

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.
11.29.2007 5:12pm
jdh (mail) (www):
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.

That change being the political consensus that an American Empire would be a splendid idea.
11.29.2007 5:14pm
PLR:
Soren at 6:12: I think that's a generally fair summary of what I recall about the history of abortion as a legal matter. I still believe prosecutions were rare. With smaller local populations involved, too much dirt would wind up in the public record, and an elected prosecutor had every incentive to look the other way.
11.29.2007 5:42pm
Rolly:

Abortion has always been a crime in U.S. common law.


It was a common law crime only after "quickeninq", or so says Wikipedia (not the best source in the world, I know).
11.29.2007 5:50pm
Soren:
Soren at 6:12: I think that's a generally fair summary of what I recall about the history of abortion as a legal matter. I still believe prosecutions were rare. With smaller local populations involved, too much dirt would wind up in the public record, and an elected prosecutor had every incentive to look the other way.

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.
11.29.2007 6:06pm
SIG357:
How do you libertarians feel about Paul's fierce opposition to free trade and his opposition to a more liberal immigration policy, typically important issues to fiscal conservatives?



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.
11.29.2007 6:10pm
Gaius Marius:
The debate questions were some of the dumbest questions that could have been asked. Our national debt is $9 Trillion and growing; the Medicare program is on course to insolvency within a few years; Social Security is also on course to insolvency; our military is overstretched like the British Empire before its decline; we are doing absolutely nothing to mitigate our overdependence on foreign oil; the AMT is set to ensnare 20 or 40 Million more middle class tax filers; etc. Nevertheless, instead of asking the presidential nominees to address the foregoing concerns, they are asked about 1) what would Jesus do" about the death penalty, 2) whether they believe every word in the Bible, or 3) their position on gun control - after their questioner cocks his weapon, etc. I mean, WTF!!! No wonder people are cynical about our politicians when they allow themselves to be dumbed down the way they were at last night's CNN/Youtube debate (which was full of Democrat plants asking the questions, BTW).
11.29.2007 6:35pm
A Law Unto Himself:
So Sig:

Hauer you doing?

(sorry, couldn't resist)
11.29.2007 6:37pm
MDJD2B (mail):
I have always seen isolationism used to denote a poicy of avoiding alliances and keeping major powers out of the Western Hemisphere, not a policy of shutting in the country and autarky.

See for example:

Wikipedia:


Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).


From u-s-history.com:


Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.


American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
11.29.2007 6:40pm
MDJD2B (mail):
And, by the way, even our big isolationists often transgressed their principles, like Jefferson with the Barbary pirates, Madison with the War of 1812, and the Democrats in the Mexican war. After the US civil war, the US supplied the republicans in Mexico against Maximilian.
11.29.2007 6:44pm
Al Maviva (mail):
Man... it's just not a debate about libertarian ideas, until every libertarian in the room declares himself Libertarian Pope, and excommunicates all the other libertarians for heresy.
11.29.2007 6:52pm
Kendall:
MDJD2B - Since you seem to think Wikipedia is a legitimate source, I'll direct you to their article on Non-intervention and specifically the opening line which reads:

Non-intervention is the norm in international relations that one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination


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.
11.29.2007 6:54pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Man... it's just not a debate about libertarian ideas, until every libertarian in the room declares himself Libertarian Pope, and excommunicates all the other libertarians for heresy.

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.
11.29.2007 7:09pm
Rich Rostrom (mail):
Ron Paul appeals to some frustrated and very angry blocs: the paleocon Right, including the outright neo-Nazis, and elements of the nutty Left. (They aren't happy with the Democrats, because the visible Democrats have been hedging on Iraq and claim to support Israel. Maybe not Kucinich, but he's been written off, I think. Paul has energy.) Paul's already in trouble for his more dubious associations. Incidentally, the LaRouche organization now cheers for Ron Paul. Check their website. Their business has always been pandering to the frustrated and angry, with whatever stance would draw donations.
11.29.2007 7:20pm
egn (mail):

2) whether they believe every word in the Bible


The guy who asked that question was a horror movie waiting to happen. So creepy.
11.29.2007 7:27pm
MDJD2B (mail):

Non-intervention is the norm in international relations that one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination


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.
11.29.2007 7:45pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

Ad hominem attacks, and not very good ones at that, prove the merits of Paul's positions.


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.
11.29.2007 7:58pm
anym_avey (mail):
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?

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.
11.29.2007 8:04pm
Enoch:
Do you honestly think the blanket semi-random bombings we used in Kosovo helped the civilian population?

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.
11.29.2007 8:19pm
anym_avey (mail):
well,GR is an idiot and fake "libertarian" as well.
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?
11.29.2007 8:35pm
MDJD2B (mail):

Do you honestly think the blanket semi-random bombings we used in Kosovo helped the civilian population?


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.
11.29.2007 8:38pm
Kendall:
Yes, and furthermore the Korean War clearly benefitted the people of South Korea.


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.
11.29.2007 8:55pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
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.

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).
11.29.2007 8:58pm
Kendall:
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.
11.29.2007 9:09pm
rlb:
anym_avey:

I'm re