Comments on: It’s Time for Wilsonianism to Go! http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:15:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Patrick Mulligan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/comment-page-1/#comment-61522 Patrick Mulligan Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:00:29 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/#comment-61522 I believe Mr. Woodford is referring to Ron Paul's language regarding many issues, namely the Iraq war, being completely indistinguishable from those of the very very far left. A libertarian and a liberal may both oppose the war, but it is usually for very different reasons. That's not the case with Ron Paul, who routinely relies on the "Bush lied, people died" conspiracy rhetoric shared nearly universally by those on the very very far left. I already told you why Ron Paul is not my ideal POTUS and why I think he's better suited to the position he already holds. It's got nothing to do with being power hungry, or "one of the boys". It's got everything to do with the fact that many of his ideas simply aren't very good. Like I said before, in regards to the topic of your piece, there is a big difference between being anti- Wilsoniam interventionism and being ignorant and passive on national security. Conservatism and libertarianism are defined by the principles of small, minimal government and free markets. There are many small government conservatives and libertarian people for whom I would happily cast a vote. Ron Paul just isn't one of them. I believe Mr. Woodford is referring to Ron Paul's language regarding many issues, namely the Iraq war, being completely indistinguishable from those of the very very far left. A libertarian and a liberal may both oppose the war, but it is usually for very different reasons. That's not the case with Ron Paul, who routinely relies on the "Bush lied, people died" conspiracy rhetoric shared nearly universally by those on the very very far left.

I already told you why Ron Paul is not my ideal POTUS and why I think he's better suited to the position he already holds. It's got nothing to do with being power hungry, or "one of the boys". It's got everything to do with the fact that many of his ideas simply aren't very good. Like I said before, in regards to the topic of your piece, there is a big difference between being anti- Wilsoniam interventionism and being ignorant and passive on national security. Conservatism and libertarianism are defined by the principles of small, minimal government and free markets. There are many small government conservatives and libertarian people for whom I would happily cast a vote. Ron Paul just isn't one of them.

]]> By: J.K. Baltzersen http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/comment-page-1/#comment-61412 J.K. Baltzersen Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:12:08 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/#comment-61412 Mr. Mulligan: No, 7.4 % will neither get the nomination nor the election. What 7.4 % is is a sign that things may be changing when it comes to the opinion polls. Is it your opinion, sir, that small government advocates are fine in think tanks and quite lonely Senators or Congressmen, but the POTUS has to be one of the normal power hungry politicians? Politicians who -- whatever they say -- either give business as usual or more government expansion? If not, what is your ideal POTUS? Mr. Woodford: Would you please let us know what exactly you are referring to? Mr. Mulligan:

No, 7.4 % will neither get the nomination nor the election. What 7.4 % is is a sign that things may be changing when it comes to the opinion polls.

Is it your opinion, sir, that small government advocates are fine in think tanks and quite lonely Senators or Congressmen, but the POTUS has to be one of the normal power hungry politicians? Politicians who — whatever they say — either give business as usual or more government expansion? If not, what is your ideal POTUS?

Mr. Woodford:

Would you please let us know what exactly you are referring to?

]]> By: William Woodford http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/comment-page-1/#comment-61154 William Woodford Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:47:43 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/#comment-61154 Real libertarians shouldn’t use the same language as those arch-statists, unreprentant sixties radicals. Real libertarians shouldn’t use the same language as those arch-statists, unreprentant sixties radicals.

]]> By: Patrick Mulligan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/comment-page-1/#comment-60945 Patrick Mulligan Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:10:21 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/30/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-wilsonianism-to-go/#comment-60945 Ron Paul is a fine person to have in the House of Representatives. He's an agitator who stirs the pot and expresses ideas that many do not agree with. He would be a terrible person to have as President. A lot of his ideas would have been impracticable a hundred years ago, and are even more so today. He is an ideologue. He's an idea generator. He's not a president. Wilsonian or not, we live in a global world with global threats, global security issues, global economic issues. You can not be a Wilsonian nation-builder and still be aware of and proactive about your national security, global threats, and international issues that affect your country. Ron Paul is an isolationist who naively believes that the United States can detach from those issues if we only close our eyes tightly enough and sit quietly enough in our corner. That's a fine knee-jerk reaction to Wilsonian interventionism, but not a practicable real-world solution from the chief executive of the United States. Ron Paul for Congress, yes. Ron Paul for President , no. Since it's kind of difficult to get elected with 7.5% of the votes among your own party, let alone the other party and undecided voters, it really doesn't matter anyway. As impressive at 7.5% is, he still has a long way to go before he starts drafting his inaugural address. Ron Paul is a fine person to have in the House of Representatives. He's an agitator who stirs the pot and expresses ideas that many do not agree with. He would be a terrible person to have as President. A lot of his ideas would have been impracticable a hundred years ago, and are even more so today. He is an ideologue. He's an idea generator. He's not a president. Wilsonian or not, we live in a global world with global threats, global security issues, global economic issues. You can not be a Wilsonian nation-builder and still be aware of and proactive about your national security, global threats, and international issues that affect your country. Ron Paul is an isolationist who naively believes that the United States can detach from those issues if we only close our eyes tightly enough and sit quietly enough in our corner. That's a fine knee-jerk reaction to Wilsonian interventionism, but not a practicable real-world solution from the chief executive of the United States. Ron Paul for Congress, yes. Ron Paul for President , no. Since it's kind of difficult to get elected with 7.5% of the votes among your own party, let alone the other party and undecided voters, it really doesn't matter anyway. As impressive at 7.5% is, he still has a long way to go before he starts drafting his inaugural address.

]]>