At one level, yesterday's Ron Paul event was a political sideshow. (This despite the fact it drew some big names: EMceed by none other than Tucker Carlson and addressed by Grover Norquist: more on him later). Jesse Ventura seemed to be doing his best to cement this impression, by pandering to the crowd about the ultimate perpetrators of 9/11.

But in the midst of an ideologically exhausted and downright moribund Republican party, the event at the very least had passion in spades. And most interestingly it served as a kind of ideological fossil: an stark reminder of what conservatism in this country once was and what it has become. Neither of them are particularly pretty pictures, but the journey from one to the other is worth contemplating.

I walked into yesterday's rally in the midst of a rip-roaring speech from Tom Woods, a hard-right Austrian economist who was laying into "McBama" but especially the Republican party, which he said was run by a "neo-con death cult," and full of "blood-thirsty savages." Strong stuff.

As a counterpoint to the conservatism of today, Woods held up the model of Robert Taft. Taft is to paleo-conservatives and libertarians what Ronald Reagan is to the regular conservatives. He was a unapologetic plutocrat, a vociferous opponent of the New Deal. suspicious of US involvement in World War II, deficit spending and farm subsidies, a life-long enemy of unions and a zealous advocate of "hard money." On domestic policy at least, this has been, more or less, the core genetic code of conservatism, stretching back over a hundred years. Today, paleo-conservatives and libertarians get together at seminars to discuss these ideas at the Robert Taft Club. When Ron Paul addressed the crowd in 2007 he offered an encomium to his political hero.

Paul, Tom Wood, and his fellow speaker, libertarian activist and writer Lew Rockwell, are correct to note that the Republican party has, (with the exception of union-busting) thrown off just about every last vestige of this tradition. The central conceit of post-Reagan Republicanism is that it represents "smaller government," but that's never been its record, or, arguably, its intent. Modern American capitalism, as Jamie Galbraith, author of the new book The Predator State, argues is simply about Big Government in the service of a small group of interests: "predation has become the dominant feature--a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class." (Tom Frank's new book is a tour of what this looks like up close.)

Of course, part of the reason the paleoconservative agenda has never been implemented is because its wildly unpopular. People like Big Government, hard as that might be to believe. But if the Ron Paul movement stands for a radical scaling back of the state, in its social welfare function, in its militarism, in its regulation of the currency, they at least stand for something. I vehemently disagree with a whole lot of it (though on the war, civil liberties and the war on drugs, they're better than either of the two major party candidates). It's not politically popular, but it's substantive, no question.

Of course, there's always an inverse relationship between the size of a movement and its ideological purity. But by the end of a few hours at the rally I was left, probably by design, asking myself just what the Republican party stands for. That turns out to be a surprisingly hard question to answer. I'll give it a shot in a post later.

Comments (20)

1. The more Palin is presented as a "darling of the Hard/Religious Right"....the more the old libertarian Repubs will slide away from McCain.

   His pandering this whole campaign shows that he's willing to sell out "maverick'ness" if it wins him guys like Rick Warren or John Hagee.

   "Miss Congeniality of the Moral Majority set" isn't going to help that image.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 1:26pm

2. Robert Taft supported a powerful World Court, public housing, federal aid for education and Social Security. I don't see any of these playing well in GOP or Paul camps.

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 1:51pm

3. That's what's funny when I hear people talk about small government. The Republicans don't want small government. The Republicans want a system of government that serves the rich. It's proven in what Bush did in the first place. If Bush wanted small government his tax cuts would have been across the board. Not JUST to the upper class. They want a government system that forces our Social Security money into the hands of stock brokers so they can make more money. That forces our money into the hands of Black Water, Insurance companies and many other groups who have a death lock on our system. They don't want small government, they want a big government that serves the upper class. What a joke.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 2:14pm

4. Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 1:51pm

   Prescott Bush supported Planned Parenthood and George HW was pro-choice upto becoming Reagan's Veep.

   Even in FAMILIES, the slide to the pander to the Hard Right has occurred!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 2:15pm

5. The problem with the Paul crowd is that they've got a coward for a leader. Exactly when this country could have benefited from an independent or Libertarian Paul candidacy, Paul wussed out, preferring the security of his congressional sinecure as a Republican to the risks involved in a Debs-like undertaking. I don't respect him for that, no matter how much his synchophants have since rationalized it.

   Ron Paul could have shaken things up in American politics in a way the Barr never will. For the very first time the best government money can buy would have been challenged in most of its premises. But Paul turns out to have been all talk and no action. Floor speeches in the House don't make "revolutions".

   Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 2:28pm

6. "McBama"

   hey!

   that's my line.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 2:32pm

7. post-Reagan Republicanism is that it represents "smaller government,"

   federal employees, thousands.

   1980 ......................................... 4,965

   1981 ......................................... 4,982

   1982 ........................................... 4,972

   1983 ........................................... 5,039

   1984 ........................................... 5,088

   1985 ........................................... 5,256

   1986 ........................................... 5,228

   1987 ........................................... 5,301

   1988 ........................................... 5,289

   1989 ........................................... 5,292

   1990 ......................................... 5,234

   1991 ......................................... 5,152

   1992 ........................................... 4,931

   1993 ........................................... 4,758

   1994 ........................................... 4,620

   take that, st. ronald!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 2:40pm

8. at least dr. paul wants REAL money.

   http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/5392392

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 2:45pm

9. Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 2:28pm

   Notice this about the nutty "Vote 3rd Party" JL?

   He trashes Paul...trashes Barr...never actually compliments Chuck Baldwin...

   but CONSISTANTLY says "Progressives need to vote Nader!"

   and yet claims that he wants to boost third parties and not see Obama OR McCain win.

   Yet, the only candidate he truly backs...helps McCain to win.

   I realize he's a wacko, but I can't stand a dishonest wacko!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 2:57pm

10. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 2:57pm

    Ah, yes, the handicapped Maskedca-ca, Plato's perfect DNC robot. Do us a favor, Maskedca-ca, cross your legs, your breathe smells. And while you're freshening the air do something in the public interest for once. Give a Nader voter a ride to the polls on election day.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 3:31pm

11. Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 3:31pm

    Who are you voting for john?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:40pm

12. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:40pm

    He's not voting. Or that's what he said.

    Can't admit it anyway. Baldwin might screw up and say something REALLY wacky...he's dissed Paul and Barr....and if he ADMITS that he's voting for McCain, he undercuts his whole "plan"!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 3:55pm

13. Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 2:28pm

    Like the way Ron Paul "shook up" the Republican primaries? What makes you think he would have been more successful in the bigger game?

    Ron Paul is correct that the only way for him to be in a position to implement his policies is by winning the nomination of a major party - which basically leaves him with Republicans. Running as a third-party puts him in a position of spoiler and puts the Presidency in the hands of Democrats, who do not have a libertarian wing and to which he is not a part. Not a particularly smart move.

    I support third, fourth, and umpteenth parties. I think third parties have the potential to address systematic problems in our electoral process such as problems of ballot access. They facilitate greater political diversity and greater political expression - and force the major parties to adapt to those third parties that develop enough of a base to threaten them. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party are two great examples.

    But the power of third parties is in the suasion. It is not the kind of platform where Ron Paul gets to implement his agenda. Ron Paul knows this. I know this. Why don't you know it?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

14. Also, I sympathize with you about Bob Barr. Mr. War on Drugs, Defense of Marriage Act, Patriot Act, etc. doesn't seem like a particularly good standard bearer for the Libertarian Party - despite his name recognition.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 5:01pm

15. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:40pm

    And here I thought we'd cleared the air of foul odours. Apparently, not. Wearing your bedsheet today, slug?

    Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 5:04pm

16. Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

    "Success" by the standard you're proposing can't be a useful criteria for a movement like Paul's. Did Debs score big on his first try? No. Yet by 1912, he had upwards of a million votes in a electorate that was miniscule by today's standards. It was important that Paul show the flag somehow apart from a Republican context and he didn't have the guts to do that. Debs had the guts to do it, Robert La Follette had the guts to do it, Henry Wallace had the guts to do it, why not Ron Paul? Because Ron Paul lacks testosterone that why. He's a schmeggegie.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 5:01pm

    I worry about Barr not because of the war on drugs, or because he supports positions that trouble the sociopathic libertarian left, but because he holds himself out as pro-life yet refuses to answer legitimate questions about whether he wrote a check paying for an abortion his ex-wife says she had in 1993. The public is entitled to know if Bob Barr is pro-life period or only when his ox isn't being gored. I suspect that Bob Barr just might be as phoney as a $3 bill.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 5:36pm

17. Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 5:04pm

    Actually I'm black. I don't wear a bed sheet. I was asking a simple question. Who are you voting for?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 6:03pm

18. Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 5:36pm

    Debs, La Follette and Wallace accomplished what, exactly? I'd argue that Debs never "scored big" with his garnering 1 million votes or less than 7% of the population - particularly in view of the turmoil of the main race featuring Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft. And having guts doesn't mean one is being effective.

    Coming from a libertarian left perspective, I have to say that I don't much care whether he wrote the check or not - or whether she had an abortion or not. I do care that he seems to have reversed himself to fit the right libertarian mold which suggests more than enough hypocrisy for my tastes.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 7:03pm

19. The Republicans are not opposed to government; they just want it out of Business (with the exception of subsidies, tax breaks, labor issues, etc.) and into people's personal lives.

    Ronald Reagan was correct in his assessment that "government is the problem"; he was wrong, however, in his conclusions as to why government was/is the problem. The problem was/is that government has abdicated its responsibilities to and for the citizenry of the United States and instead became just another corporate tool (albeit a very powerful one).

    And when government is the biggest problem, is when it is in the control of the Republican Party.

    Posted by ron cypert at 09/03/2008 @ 9:12pm

20. John Lowell, As much as it's probably a waste of time to respond to the nonsense you posted about Ron Paul, my annoyance with your statements is just enough to illicit a response. First of all, if you're going to get fancy with your vocabulary, you might want to check your spelling. The word is sychophant, not synchopant, but maybe it was just a typo. To refer to Ron Paul as a coward is quite offensive. If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you'd know he's been fighting for liberty for the last 30 years. He's a hero who stood up to the establishment any time he had the chance. He's not the best looking guy. He's skinny and kind of old. He doesn't have a booming voice. He's not the smoothest speaker. But he's smarter than the competition, and he doesn't give up. Ever. The only possible explanation for your disdain for Ron Paul is your disdain for the principles of liberty.

    Posted by alexl at 09/04/2008 @ 02:08am