Introduction

Not long after one friend inspired me to write about abortion, another brought up the issue of the “new form” of conservatism that is growing particularly quickly among the younger generation. It’s a movement I’m proud to be a part of, but my friend’s take was not at all in favor of it, instead favoring the type of “conservatism” that President Bush has enacted during his presidency. He made a number of interesting claims about the new, largely Ron Paul-led movement:

• That we are pro-life but want to leave it up to the states to decide, which will result in it remaining legal in some states.
• That we want to legalize drugs because the current method of getting rid of them is failing.
• That we oppose the war on terror because the need to stop mass murderers doesn’t justify the cost.
• That we oppose all tax increases, which is causing economic problems due to national debt.

He then suggested that this new movement is in fact libertarianism, and that those who hold to these views are a lot like the Bush type of conservative, just too fearful to forcefully fight for our beliefs. He concluded by suggesting that we should be less like Ron Paul and more like Mike Huckabee.

I have a number of things to say in response, nearly all of them involving clarification of some misunderstandings about this growing political movement (again, popularized by Ron Paul). And while I believe my views are in the mainstream of Paul’s supporters, I don’t mean to speak for all of them as he also has the support of some people whose views I strongly disagree with.

Conservatism, Neo-conservatism and Libertarianism

The first problem here is the idea that the conservatism of Paul is new, while the conservatism of Bush is somehow traditional. Bush conservatism is often labeled “neoconservatism” because the exact opposite is actually true. Neoconservatives are named such because characteristics such as preemptive and undeclared war, deficit spending, border security inaction and domestic monitoring are in fact very recent developments. US involvement in both the Korean and Vietnam wars was instigated by liberal Democrats (Truman and Kennedy, respectively). Republicans have traditionally run on a platform of balanced budgets and limited government. Even Bush ran on this platform, until 9/11 happened and he forgot his traditional conservative ideals.

If anything, Paul’s version of conservatism is the true and traditional conservatism. My friend has one thing right: Paul’s movement is a lot like libertarianism. What he misunderstands, is that libertarianism and true conservatism are not at odds at all. Libertarian ideals are what this country was founded upon, and according to Ronald Reagan, are the “very heart and soul of conservatism” (Reason Magazine, 1975). Paul’s movement represents not an adulteration of conservatism, but a return to its roots.

Pro Life?

In truth, being pro-life (that is, anti-abortion) is not a particularly libertarian position. Many, if not the majority, of libertarians would consider themselves pro-choice on the basis that libertarian principles uphold personal liberty and choice as a right not to be infringed upon, unless they hurt another. For those, like Ron Paul, who understand that abortion involves the murder of an innocent human being, the issue is not about the woman’s right to choose, but the child’s right to life. If a libertarian believes a fetus to be a human being, they will be pro-life. If not, they’ll be pro-choice.

As for the idea that Paul wants to let states determine whether it should be legal or not, that’s not entirely true. Paul has repeatedly introduced to Congress a Sanctity of Life Act seeking to define life as beginning at conception, an action that would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade without a difficult judicial process and without a supermajority as a constitutional amendment would require. Unfortunately, it was never even scheduled for debate despite existing during a time when supposedly pro-life Republicans held the majority. This is probably the easiest way to make abortion illegal in all states, yet it’s never even been given a chance.

Along with this bill, Paul has introduced legislation seeking to remove the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. Although not as effective an approach, it too would overrule Roe v. Wade and possibly bring at least some states to ban abortion faster than the better, but potentially more difficult, method described above.

Both approaches are practical ways to remove this scourge from our nation and much more achievable than a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Legalize Drugs Because It’s Too Hard Not To?

The libertarian position on drug regulation has nothing to do with the fact that our war on drugs is failing. That is, however, a good reason to rethink our policy. The libertarian position stems from the idea that the government’s role is to keep us safe from one another, but not from ourselves. If I want to eat McDonald’s everyday, I have that right despite it being dangerously unhealthy. If I choose do drink so much alcohol that I develop an addiction, I have that right, despite it being dangerously unhealthy. Similarly, if I want to shoot heroin everyday, I should have that right despite it being dangerously unhealthy. While parents and schools and interest groups should absolutely be encouraged to instruct their children about the dangers of these habits, it’s not the government’s job to tell us how to live our own lives unless it harms others. Thus, prosecuting DUI is a valid role for the government. Prosecuting private drunkenness is not.

In addition to the principle behind legalizing drugs, there is a strong practical argument for such action. DrugPolicy.org provides plenty of evidence for why America would be better off if the drug war was ended. Besides saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars a month, drug violence would be practically eliminated by the emergence of lawful drug sellers who must adhere to safety regulations. I’d also advocate state laws keeping them located away from residential areas as porn shops and strip clubs are. But by allowing legal providers of drugs, buyers will no longer need to deal with violent black market street sellers and gang bosses would lose a major source of income, rendering them largely impotent. It would also free up space in our prisons, saving taxpayers even more money. Prohibition of alcohol created men like Al Capone and even encouraged the consumption of harder, more easily produced, alcohol. It’s time for prohibition of drugs to suffer the same fate as its alcoholic predecessor did.

The “War On Terror:” Give Up?

Neoconservatives like to paint Ron Paul as a cut-and-run candidate, who would apparently let terrorism go unpunished and unchecked. The difference is one of strategy, not of goal. Paul understands, probably better than his opponents, the constitutional need for our government to protect Americans. That goes for foreign invaders as well as domestic institutions. Thus, he would get rid of unconstitutional violations of our civil rights such as domestic spying programs and unwarranted search and seizure, significant threats to the free society that was of paramount importance to the Founding Fathers. He would also bring our troops home from foreign entanglements where their presence does less to protect America as it does to prop up America-sponsored governments while local sentiment is one of resentment toward the new occupiers. Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he did not pose an imminent threat to America, thus we had no constitutional reason to invade. Osama bin Laden did lead a direct attack on Americans, and thus should be hunted down through effective means such as international bounties and efficient processing of legally-collected information. We had information suggesting an attack using hijacked aircrafts could have been in the works, without the Patriot Act. The failure was not the government’s inability to spy on American citizens, but of federal agencies’ analysis of the information they did have.

Bush campaigned against nation-building. If he had stuck to that policy post-9/11, we would had had to borrow nearly $500 billion fewer dollars from foreign nations like China and many American families would still have their loved ones. And Middle Eastern Muslims would have one less reason to resent us and our constant intervention in their affairs. To think that our activity in their nations doesn’t give fuel to extremists in those countries is absurd. Extremists already hate us, but by constantly meddling in the affairs of their countries, we’re almost guaranteeing that they’ll have a steady stream of volunteers. If we just got the heck out and minded our own business, in time they’d find it much more difficult to convince their people that we are the enemy. I’m not saying there aren’t other motives involved in Muslim extremism and terrorism, but I think it’s common sense to realize that blowback is a significant factor.

Tax Cuts Without Spending Cuts?

This last suggestion is the most absurd, at least when referring to Paul’s policies. Although Paul advocates eliminating the income tax, he just as forcefully argues for the importance of drastically reducing federal spending. Never has Paul suggested that we should cut taxes without cutting spending to match. By ending the war in Iraq, cutting programs like the war on drugs, giving education back to the states, removing unnecessary and redundant bureaucracies like Homeland Security, implementing a phased privatization of welfare programs, etc., we can certainly bring our spending back to levels sustainable without an income tax. In fact, today’s federal revenue besides that from the income tax is similar to all federal revenue (including the income tax) less than a decade ago. Is it that radical to think we can’t cut spending back to that of a decade ago? I should hope not, especially when our national debt is over $9 trillion. For more info, play the “Debt and Taxes” video clip on Paul’s website.

Conclusion

The Ron Paul movement is indeed very libertarian in many ways, but that doesn’t make it any less conservative. With a failing economy, astronomical national debt, costly and unnecessary war in Iraq, and an impending financial crisis (due to unfunded social security promises), what we need now is indeed something new. Something revolutionary. Something, dare I say it, the founding fathers would approve of.