"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -- President Ronald Reagan

Have Republicans forgotten the definition of the word "conservative?"

Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement and mentor to Ronald Reagan stated that "being a conservative in America traditionally meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects." He went on to say "I have little interest in streamlining government in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that will impose an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."

The US has $9 trillion of debt and Ron Paul is the only candidate seriously talking about significantly reducing the size of the federal government. Both Goldwater and Reagan, like Ron Paul, believed in small government, reduced taxes and protection of liberty. In 10 terms in Congress Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never approved an unbalanced budget, never voted for a restriction on gun ownership, he is pro-life, wants to return authority back to the states, protect our borders, protect US Sovereignty, get the US troops from under UN Command and back under the authority of Congress, eliminate entitlement programs, and wants to get the IRS out of Americans' lives and the federal government out of regulating and taxing businesses into extinction. We would all be well served to pull out our primer The Conscience of the Conservative by Goldwater and refresh ourselves on the meaning of the word "conservative." Remarkably, the definition is Ron Paul and his campaign is the Hope to Restore the Republic.- Will Pitts

He obviously is newly exposed - this movement began with the Libertarian candidate for President Michael Badnarik in 2004 and if he had been paying attention he would not be so amazed at the power of this message.
Badnarik said exactly the same thing while running for President 2004, albeit into the controlled media Black Hole.
That Ron Paul has been saying this for years comes as no surprise to those of us who have been in the trenches for many more years than Kinsley has been writing.
After all, Badnarik readily acknowledged at the time the senior nature of what Ron Paul had been saying for decades.

Smart loners? Lord almighty, one must be a loner to support Ron Paul? 2,000 people listened to him in Michigan a couple weeks back after the debate? More than in the deabte? Where these people loners. If society is spreading an empire you are correct, I do not need it.

I highly doubt Kinsley has watched much in the way of youtube videos documenting the "smart loners" actually - gasp - meeting in person to support their candidate of choice.

I am one of those supporters - I don't particularly see myself as a "smart loner."

As to the Darwinian argument that "they don't need society," I can certainly attest to the fact that I don't "personally" need a vast majority of society in my daily life. There's a careful choice of wording there - I, as do others, need the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons of this world; I just wish they would understand that they're Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons :)

Question 2 poses a good point. Take this question further by changing the end of it to "... because of his stance on [insert here]." Unlike nearly 100% of remaining presidential candidates, Paul, in spite of constant media effort, has remained a multi-issue candidate and appeals to a wide array of supporters due to his non-interventionalist stance to individual liberties rather than attempting to dictate a marginally useful 80/20 approach to any individual issue.

On to question 3: In my opinion, if any first-tier candidate expressed many, or any, of Ron Paul's views (those for which he is differentiating himself), they would be biting the proverbial hand. No corporate leviathan would ever support the reinstatement of state's rights (too much differing legislation), the notion that the U.S. military won't be available for hire in the latest foreign country they're attempting to expand into (ahem, Bechtel, United Fruit, Shell, etc), or that, as it was in history of not-so-old, the notion that they would lose government subsidies, corporate welfare, and have to actually pay their taxes relative to their share of wealth, based on their assets and property.

Plus, no one would believe them. Well, at least not the Alphas and Betas. The rest just think what they're told.

Cory

Kinsley is obviously clueless. I am a conservative Republican and find Ron Paul to be the perfect candidate for me. I was "shocked" when I learned that I agree with every single one of Ron Paul's positions after I visited his web site after the first Republican debate I watched. By the way, I voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 and feel completed betrayed and now, I even feel threatened by the Patriot Act and his Executive Orders. These new "laws" need to be repealed ASAP... they are oppressive and anti-freedom. Make up your own mind: www.ronpaul2008.com.

I'm 47, a Christian, married to the same woman for 15 years with six great kids. I'm sold out to get Ron Paul elected. There is no better man for the job. "Ron Paul, the Thomas Jefferson of our day" says former judge and Fox News commentator, Andrew Napolitano. Wake up American. Google Ron Paul and watch his YOUTUBE videos. Read his positions and you'll likely be pleasantly surprised!

I'll admit that I might be smart, but I'm no loner. I'm an Army officer with 14 years' active service.

If Ron Paul can stop the misuse of our magnificent military abroad, then I can tell you plain that Ron Paul will become ever more popular with weary Soldiers.

That is, if the mainstream media will ever cover him fairly, without the sneering elitism of Kinsley and the D.C. intelligentsia.

Like the guy above me said, Kinsley is clueless.

I'm a Paul supporter. I'm a registered Republican and consider myself a paleoconservative, NOT a Libertarian or anarchist. I'm also an evangelical Christian who confesses Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I'll admit to having more cash in the bank than the average guy my age, but that's because I save and invest wisely, not because I earn more. As for being a loner, if he means I'm an independent thinker then yes, I'm a loner. If he means I'm anti-social, then all I can do is snort.

How silly and alarming is the idea that Ron Paul supporters are "lone rangers" of the internet? The internet is an open dialog where anyone can be heard. Mass Media is duct tapped and not being paid to think or do any hard reporting. If Ron Paul were to be given equal media access, then people could make up their own minds. Scary thought?

Kinsley, I'm not rich and I'm not a loner, and we aren't convinced that we or anyone else doesn't "need" society as you put it. We just need a lot less government than we have now and are wise enough to know that we will only get more with all the other candidates running.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate running that actually has tangible idea's. The rest of them (right or left) are just blowing the same old boring tired putrid air out of their facial orifices. Ron Paul is the real thing and always was going back when I first heard about him in the 80's. He is much better at articulating his Libertarian philosophy now though.

Kinsley doesn't just wander into (what he admits are) unjustified generalizations, he doesn't even bother to get his facts straight.

Libertarians are not "against government in all its manifestations," which would be anarchism. Nearly all libertarians praise and cherish the limited government principles specified in the Declaration and our Constitution.

It is impossible for a libertarian to be an "isolationist," since we welcome free and open communication, commerce, and civil relationships with people of all nations. There is disagreement among libertarians about the best methods of dealing with imminent threats to our country, but none favor imperialism.

Well-informed libertarians would never say that the opposite of our philosophy is fascism. The opposite of liberty is tyranny, in all it's forms, whether fascist, communist, autocratic, theocratic, or monarchic.
Nor are libertarians opposed to "communitarianism", if that word describes a civil, voluntary, robust, and free engagement with every other member of the human race. We just don't believe that any community of people can justifiably "trump" any individual's rights to life, liberty and property.

Kinsley may perceive libertarians as "impractical," but his perception must be very limited. We're realists, even political realists. Commonly, libs are entrepreneurs, creators, and inventors in a wide range of business, scientific, technical, and artistic fields. Earnest, yes; honest, yes; productive, yes; but those qualities are hardly "impractical".

Yes, Ron Paul is a libertarian. However, some of his positions are at odds with most libs, who are dominantly "pro-choice", favor free trade agreements, and open immigration policies. There is no libertarian "catechism", even if that impression is fostered by the Libertarian Party. We don't agree on all the facts, nor every application principles to the known facts. We welcome civil discourse on the best means and methods of achieving liberty.

Perhaps some libs are "complacently Darwinian." We recognize that society evolves and is slow to adopt new ideas. Some are patient and willing to move society one small step forward in the pursuit of liberty. Others crave freedom and a demand a prompt restoration and respect for individual rights. We each take our own course, based on our talents, knowledge, and dispositions.

In spite of his prolific errors, Kinsley gets on thing right: "They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics."

I always find it fascinating that people on the left so consistently mischaracterize Ron Paul supporters, and his views. I suppose they can't imagine any solutions to societies problems that aren't based in government. Even many conservatives have fallen into this trap.

One would think that journalists would try to actually talk to Ron Paul supporters, and get involved in the campaign before jumping to such prejudicial conclusions.

I don't know whether or not I'd vote for Paul, but I admire him and think he's a good man. Personally, I don't think people are flocking to Paul because of his stance on illegal immigration. That having been said, I don't think he'd have as much support if he were for open borders. I also think that's true of the issue in general. You can't win an election just by talking tough on illegal immigration, but I think you can definitely lose one if you take the "let 'em all come in" approach. Just look at what's happened to McCain's candidacy.

If a loner stands in a crowd screaming with thousands of other loners, can you really call him a loner anymore?

Ron Paul supporters are not rich. The median donation to Dr. Paul last Qtr was only $45.52. That is only $15.17/mo. Hardly Daddy Warbucks territory.

Later.

You know, I actually could be described as a "smart loner bred by the computer revolution." Although I don't know how one can be "complacently Darwinian." And I don't know what being a loner or a libertarian has do do with not needing society.

Libertarianism doesn't say that people don't need society.
It says that society doesn't need the government.

That's a MAJOR distinction, and Kinsey's inability to even recognize it just highlights his firmly socialist viewpoint.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am a career Naval officer who has always been politically neutral--but this is about voting for America and our Constitution! I am supporting Ron Paul with my wallet--and my heart.

Go Ron go, Save America!

Bottom Line is this...

Nobody is falling for the mainstream hit pieces designed to make us all feel like Ron Paul is a cook or a nut.

We all know he is not, AMERICA WANTS RON PAUL.

And trust me 150 Million plus are gonna vote for him. There is no stopping this.

Its only natural when people are oppressed and lied to that they RISE TOGETHER AND FIGHT BACK FOR FREEDOM.

RON PAUL WILL WIN, AND HE WILL RESTORE ORDER TO THIS NATION

He will also make History on NOVEMBER 5th
by getting the largest one day donation for a candidate in HISTORY!!!

Viva RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!!!!

Mysterious Republicans? Needs a hobby? Last time I checked, Dr. Paul has served several terms in the US House. Maybe Mr. Kinsley needs to...I don't know, get out more?

As Dr. Paul stated, he set up a campaign and everyone of his supporters found him, not the other way around. Following Dr. Paul one gets the impression that he is an almost unwilling candidate. He set up the message (with 30 years of history) and is simply riding the tidal wave of support. If the support ever faltered can one doubt that he would stop running? He is not like other candidates who have to keep spending their own money to get people to show up at events.

As I am a fairly typical supporter I found Mr. Kinsley's comments condescending and insulting. I for one certainly need society, but I never signed up for 175k as my portion of the national debt. I never wanted the US currency to be a standard of decreasing value. I never signed on to have my personal values subjugated to the lowest common denominator. I certainly didn't vote to have nearly half of my income taken from me by force. Taken to run an empire and pay for some stranger's retirement.

If that is society, than yes, vote me out. But wait, I don't have that choice any more. To me Dr. Paul's message rings true and deep. I may not be rich but I will give everything I can to get him elected.

We sure are setting one hell of an example for the Iraqis. One on hand, we tell them they need to have a constitution and respect it as the rule of law. On the other hand, as they look back at us they see a country that has almost no respect for its own Constitution. Duh.

As I was telling Howard Fineman this morning, and he was agreeing, Ron Paul is the "Live Free or Die" candidate.

I guess they are taking him seriously and wanted to check to see if 'mainstream' people are supporting Paul.

If Kinsley hasn't seen this groundswell, then he's late to the party.

We have been set up for destruction by both the dems and repubs...Consider the destruction of our nation just by China demanding payment on our bonds! What college did these people graduate from? Go Ron Paul!

I read the original article. What began as an insightful and well balanced essay suddenly and without warning became a biased and pile of unsubstantiated tripe, all in the last paragraph! It reads like the author has Tourette's syndrome: intelligent and reasonable discourse is suddenly and involuntarily interrupted by a flood of random obscenities and animal grunts. So sad to see this occur over and over again with otherwise good writers working in the mainstream media. Is it the work of rogue editors? Marching orders by Murdoch?

I have to pinch myself as I can't believe there is a politician with the character of Dr Paul. I never thought I would see honesty again. When he talks, I get "goosebumps. I believe Dr Paul can save this country and Lord knows we need it.
We must vote our conscience in the primary. WE CAN WIN!!

Not so sure about that there chadwick. Paul may have raised some money, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will translate into votes.

Although I am myself a Libertarian as well as a great admirer of Rep. Paul for many of his positions and refusal to compromise regarding certain issues, and think him a terrific legislator... I personally don't believe he'd be an appropriate Executive nor Commander in Chief. This admitted, it has NOT been my understanding that his Presidential Campaign differs much from the Candidate himself. Ron Paul, as those familiar with him know very well, takes a very sincere and very absolutist position on issues he firmly believes in AND typically has a technically sound argument to defend. Often this makes him seem extraordinarily radical to beltway insiders, not only those like Kinsley, but also a very large number of "conservative" Republicans (who are often much more cynical then they themselves like to admit).

For example, at the Michigan GOP conference last month at Macinac (which I attended), the passion and dedication of Ron Paul's supporters seemed to me to surprise both the opposing campaigns AND a number of neutral GOP State rep's and organizers. Because of Romney's family history in Michigan (and wealth), his campaign was well staffed, funded, and organized, yet it was a toss up between Romney's very slick effort and the sincere and unrelenting passion of Ron Paul's supporters as to which group made the greatest impression. As so many other comments have stated, Rep. Paul has taken such a pure "conservative" position on core issues that Romney and other campaigns soft pedal, that the obvious weirdness and "radical centrist" types observed in the ranks of many of his supporters was tolerated in a very charming way by other traditional "conservatives" because, in my opinion, the candidate himself DID speak to very deeply felt core "conservative" AND/OR "republican" ideals ignored by the other campaigns.

In this sense, in this ESSENTIAL sense, the representation of these very absolutist and hard line "conservative", "republican", or "libertarian" values is EXACTLY why Ron Paul's campaign is so robust, and EXACTLY why so many non-Libertarian concervatives and Republicans support his efforts. Ron Paul forces the Republican Party Candidates OUT of the "beltway" model/stereotype of "Conservative" that their various spin doctors are comfortable with, and pulls the entire GOP primary this cycle to the Right AND Center on issues that resonate with the electorate at large, but are anathma to Beltway Conservativism. To twist a cynical old saying, to many Americans Ron Paul might be a "kook", but he's THEIR kind of "kook" in a way that the "true conservatives" of the punditti will NEVER be. Remember, The Grand Old Party WAS NOT FOUNDED IN VIRGINIA or Maryland, nor have it's roots in the Dixiecrat South...

Lastly, Mr. Kinsley is merely repeating a trope that beltway "conservatives" themselves habitually fall back on to excuse their own campaigns abandonment of this or that core ideal. For a New York republican (whom I've actually voted three times for already!), the Red State electorates views on abortion (infanticide) and the 2nd Amendment are alien. For a New England Governor used to the corruption and cynicism of a State dominated by the Kennedy machine (or Kerry's wife's wealth), explaining his State's draconian gun control laws, or his very soft attitude towards other core issues is highlighted. For Senators or former Senators who fail to appreciate that they are going to have to defend their ACTUAL voting record against that of Ron Pauls (who takes positions on principle)... these Senators must explain to the voters what THEIR unshakable principles are. In short, Ron Paul's campaign attracts and highlights EXACTLY the resonant issues that OTHER Conservatives themselves do not like to debate, but which the electorate WANTS to know about... and, following the typical strategy of Conservatives discovering a Libertarian policy position MORE "conservative" than their own (on the second amendment, for example), both the quasi Right AND the Left use some red herring or ad hominem to duck explaining or defending a poor position.

Lastly, Kinsley, who is certainly NOT a Federalist Society contributor or debator, can and should be forgiven for offering such a shallow and petty argument (I doubt he ever questioned Al Sharpton's Presidential aspirations, which seem more far fetched than Rep. Pauls)... but Republicans who are Federalist Society members or supporters SHOULD NOT be forgiven for offering fallacious species of arguments to the public to escape Anti-Federalist or Libertarian positions they consistantly fail to defend in the F.S. context (like immigration, or Federal Authority). The questions for Beltway "republicans" to ask themselves is NOT the merit of Michael Kinsley's silly and ignorant view, but rather WHY they even DIGNIFY Mr. Kinsley's ill informed and foolish notions IN THE FIRST PLACE.

As per the comments above by the active military officers, JP and J. Cline, I wonder how it is one can get this message out to military personnel, can do it more effectively than has been done relying on the usual media to catch on, eventually?

That seems to be the issue, getting the message of the Paul candidacy to more soldiers.

And thank you to JP and J. Cline for commenting. It truly would be a significant campaign milestone for the media to have to recognize that a large percentage of active soldiers reject the posturings of the other candidates.

Relax Guys,

As Dr. Paul's popularity increases these attacks will become more frequent.

Remember what they did to Howard Dean! RREEEOORR!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay on message, he doesn't want to eliminate Social security or ban all abortion, or (especially) let big business hang us all out to dry by eliminating the FDA, think underwriters laboratory.

Fight anti Paul propoganda, and donate. It is in this way that Dr. Paul can return this nation to a constitutional republic, fix our economy, return us to world prominence by restoring our manufacturing base, secure our borders, and make our currency worth something again by eliminating the federal reserve.

God Bless

I'm NOBODY, I don't EXIST, but yet I'm EVERYWHERE and I'm voting for RON PAUL!

If you read the article you would notice that Kinsley was actually betting in favor of libertarians. He makes a good argument about how the repubs and dems have odd conflicts in their messages.

I'm all for Paul. Let's not beat up an article based on someones selective excerpt (that's the MSM trap).

If more people recognize this odd aspect of dems seeking control on social programs and repubs seeking control on social behavior then it will be much easier to recognize and align with someone who wants to do neither: Ron Paul.

"...convinced that they don't need society"??? What an idiot! We LOVE Society. Society is nothing more than the organization of voluntary individual action (trade). What we DON'T NEED are: 1) Coercive State action (legitimatized crime; aka. statism), 2) Coercive individual action (aka. commonly understood as "crime"). Read "But Who Will Build The Roads" by Tremblay.

I am so glad that Ron Paul came along. I have grown bored with the Star Trek conventions and my mom finally gave in and let me start using her car so I could go to the rEVOLution rallies. I'm starting my own RP meetup group too! Almost everyone in our trailer park has signed up. My pregnant girlfriend is going to start showing more support when we can get her Dell computer out of the pawn shop.

Can someone tell me if they have changed that law so that convicted felons can vote now? Me and some of my friends were wondering about that.

Thanks! Go Paul Ron!

I have for years really liked the great comments by Kinsley; I was shocked on how he came down on the Paul supporters. Paul is, the only canddate I have seen, that actually generates passion. No one really likes the two candidates the Main Stream (scream) Media is cramming down our throats -- Rudy and Hillary (Bush/Cheney Clones).
The Constitution hangs by a thread; what happens after Feb 5 when Paul is out of the running -- where do we turn?

Kinsely does have some good points about the parties, and their differences, but he doesn't hit the nail on the head. The masses who are flocking to Paul are not necessarily ideologues, loners, anti-communitarians, or whatever; they are gravitating toward Paul as a matter of principle and self-determination.

Let's reiterate the point, so aptly stated in the Declaration of Independence: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel to them to the separation."

In other words, the tyrrany of modern-day government, the shackles of taxes and monetary slavery, and the dysfunctional, elitist-run "system" that serves globalistic interests over the needs of its own people, are opposing forces to what this nation was founded upon. That is, we Americans are going backwards, not because of our national will, but because of the self-interested, deluded elites who are unwilling and unable to change and adapt to new principles of governance.

Thus, people are flocking to Paul because they are beginning to realize that subservience to the "state" equates to everything that is un-American, unnatural, and un-Constitutional. So Kinsley missed the point: the Libertarians and the Ron Paul supporters of many different stripes and beliefs are united in self-identify, national interest, good government, and respect for the individual. And they are united against manifest destiny, ideological posturing, world-building, poor money management, and foolish warmongering. Enough said.

Remember, remember the 5th of November!
thisnovember5th.com

Smart loners sounds like another term for "well informed individuals". Wow....how un-American!!! Apparently we dont need society. I guess "society" is just another term used to describe the herd.

If I was running for president as a "hobby" I'd use my own money like Romney.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win. Ghandi

The internet is the knife cutting the mainstream media's puppet strings to the ballot levers.

Go Ron Paul

thisnovember5th(dot)com

The Paul campaign like so many others get's smeared just like any other politician. Like a Republican base guy said the other day to Paul supporters "welcome to what we've been having to put up with." When people disagree with you they try to discredit you without debating the actual points of the platform.

"Smart loners" is clearly a perjorative statement.

They use these terms because they cannot wrap their minds around what is going on. This is not the natural course of campaigns as we have come to know them.

Our campaign is not normal so we must not be normal. It is so strange to them that lacking any understanding to draw upon they default to their prejudices.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with all the comments on a Washington Times thread! This paper I've always associated with the Neocons, and corporate domination.

Peter said in the Book of Acts: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons". I now see that, in the same way, as Alex Jones says, the Left/Right paradigm is a false choice.

The posters on this site are essentially rightists, but I, a traditional leftist, agree with them on the central issues:

1. the preeminence of the Constitution
2. reservation of all other powers to the states & people (10th amendment)
3. the folly and criminality of Imperialism

FDR, not a favorite on this site, said: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group."

I understand that Paul is in favor of growth, in favor of the Free Market, and unfettered private ownership. But I also know he is honestly (there's the difference!) opposed to collusion between corporate power and government.

I'd love to hear him parse the details of the story about Standard Oil defying FDR's Commerce Secretary Ickes on the issue of selling tetraethyl lead to Goering's Luftwaffe and to Japan during the war, sometimes even raiding its British stockpiles to do so, and sending the Brits the bill!

"...[DOJ Antitrust head Thurman] Arnold cooly suggested a fine of $1.5 million and a consent decree whereby Standard would turn over for the duration all the patents Frank Howard had picked up in Holland.

[(The Rockefellers' bank) Chase president Walter] Farish rejected the proposal on the spot. He pointed out that Standard, which was fueling a high percentage of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, was making it possible to America to win the war. Where would America be without it? This was blackmail, and Arnold was forced into a defensive position. ... Ickes wrote in his diary on Apri 5 that when the light was thrown on a situation like this, it made it easier to understand why some of the great and powerful in the country were Nazi-minded and were confident of their ability to get along with Hitler. After all, he added, they had been doing business wit Hitler right along." (Higham: "Trading With The Enemy", pp 45 & 46)

Kinsley is wrong about who Libertarians are. Libertarians are NOT loners. Many libertarians are VERY social people. What unites libertarians is the belief that government should not use coercion against innocent people. In other words people shouldn't be made to hand over the fruits of their labor at the threat of prison sentences/fines.

Well when it comes to BARKING MOONBATS with a flair for ignorance of history and basic economics Ron Paul fills the bill...

If Ron Paul is considered a libertarian then many libertarians who are also Constitutional conservatives are also being slandered...