Ron Paul Baseline Support

The thing about moving to a new neighbourhood is that you have to make new friends. Sure, some of your old friends come with you, but others fall by the wayside – and if your are in the blogging witness protection program that’s not a bad thing – so the stats barely register.

But what’s the blogosphere coming to when you can mention Ron Paul and have no one respond to the tag or search? It has always been a good jump-start topic, drawing in the curious supporters of Dr No. Is his bump in New Hampshire above Fred Thompson enough? Fred’s on the slide and Ron’s up to 8% in a CNN poll from last week. But Romney, whose Massachusetts proximity certainly adds favourite son pull is at 33%.

I hope I’m not becoming less interested in the Thompson because of the MSM. It seems to me that he is floundering under his own lethargy. Maybe I have it wrong. It’s one thing to talk as slow as molassess. It is another to move that way.

I’ve always been interesting in Ron Paul more as a novelty. I think he is a good Congressman. I appreciate his ideas, but I don’t agree with enough of them, nor do I think his views will translate well enough outside his hardcore following.

The True Huckabee and the False Novak

I haven’t heard much about what’s going on with Ron Paul lately. This could be due to my absence from the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, but most of the stirring beneath the Giuliani and Romney jugernauts seems to be coming from Mike Huckabee.

What’s Dr No done with the fruits of his historic online fund-raising drive on Guy Fawkes Day? I haven’t even seen his numbers on the imported American MSM, but then that’s not a big surprise.

Seems Huckabee has been outed as a fake conservative. But Robert Novak defines conservatism on a purely libertarian economic basis. “The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was anti-abortion, anti-gun control and no doubt would have been anti-gay marriage. Who cares about Goldwater, frankly.

Novak says, “Calling global warming a ‘moral issue’ mandating ‘a biblical duty’ to prevent climate change, he has endorsed a cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.” We can disagree on anthropogenic global warming (and it looks like I might disagree with Huckabee), but Huckabee does have the concept of stewardship of the earth in mind. Should businesses be allowed to polluted at will, in the name of present economic benefit? If you say no, you are anathema to the free market.

Conservatism is not biblical. Libertarianism is not biblical, any more than liberalism is. The biblical duty of government is often compatible with classic conservativism and libertarianism. Usually significantly more compatible than with liberalism. Many of the ideas of the former harken back to an age when the idea that the Bible is the source of worldview was undisputed. Most of the ideas of the latter are sourced in philosophy that was purposefully pitted against Christianity, though some of them were later co-opted by the Christian left.

When candidates start talking about biblical duty, both sides of the political spectrum start flying the red flag against theocracy. Well, against any theocracy but that of their own secularist idols. For candidates who fundamentally believe in a biblical worldview (and given the variety Protestants, there isn’t just one)  they must interpret their politics through the same lens as the rest of their life. Pretensions of cubbyholing religion are just that. It’s just that no one outs the secularists, or those who worship the conservative-libertarian model, forcing them to defend their worldview.