In politics, the crazies on either side tend to meet up *UPDATED*

There is a tendency to imagine politics as a straight line, going from Left to Right, or statist to individualist.  I think, though, that it would be more accurate to imagine it as a curve, with the two ends sometimes straining to meet each other.  Ron Paul’s libertarianism, which includes a Truther strain, deep hostility to Israel and Jews, support for Cynthia McKinney, and a healthy dollop of paranoia, is closer in tone to the far Left than it is to the Republican Party with which he’s allied himself.

There’s no doubt but that Ron Paul has good ideas.  Up to a certain point, his libertarianism is appealing, insofar as he talks about small government and greater individual freedom.  And then he veers into crazy land, and ends up sounding exactly like Van Jones or some other paranoid anti-American guy on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Nevertheless, crazy or not, he’s got fans in Iowa.  Before Paul starts congratulating himself on his compelling message and amazing traction, he might want to look at Iowa’s political legacy, which goes back to a radical Progressive who held views remarkably similar to those that Paul spouts now.  In other words, when it comes to Iowa, this ground’s already been fertilized.

UPDATE:  For a more detailed analysis about the myriad problems with Ron Paul, check out this Dorothy Rabinowitz article (which may or may not be behind a pay wall).  As I’ve said, Paul has some good ideas about small government and they shouldn’t be discounted.  Those ideas, however, are inextricably intertwined with an often amoral world view that must be considered in discounting Paul as a serious candidate.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Caped Crusader

    However, sometimes even the crazies have a good idea now and again, only verifying the old proverb — “even a broken clock is correct twice daily”.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Highly unlikely, I know, but the real problem will be if it is a choice between Ron Paul and Barack Hussein Obama.

  • Ymarsakar

    the real choice will be civil war this decade or the next.

  • Moose

    Y, that is an argument I hinted at a couple months ago. I seriously believe that if things continue down this path, there could be succession and perhaps civil unrest and up to armed conflict. I see where there are two countries being formed right now and the positions of each are getting farther apart, not closer together. This country was less than 100 years old when the first succession occurred, we may be due for a second.

    Another thought in how we got here is that Obama is the “Manchurian Candidate” that has been recruited by the far left and promoted by the main stream propagandists.

    A lot rides on this next election. The dominos have started to fall. We need to stop them very soon.

  • Ymarsakar

    Every nation in its history has had civil wars. America is long past due for another one, historically speaking. These kinds of things are inevitable, but usually statesmen can delay them or speed them up if necessary. A few Western Roman Emperors were very competent, but they only slowed Rome’s decay in 200 AD. They never did prevent it. Rome’s structure and political system had already become cancerous. They couldn’t kill it. Even if they wanted to. Even if they wanted to.

  • Ymarsakar

    One guess whether Obama has been speeding up or delaying America’s Final Fall. One guess.