Let me start by saying that I did not watch the CNN debate on Wednesday.  I did, however, catch some of it on C-SPAN this morning.  There were a few things that caught my attention.

(By the way, I know that I have not capitalized Islam in this and other columns.  That is not an oversight.  If you see the context in which I have failed to capitalize, I think you will understand why.)

First, candidates were asked a question about whether they support farm subsidies.  Only Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani were given a chance to respond.  Quite frankly, I was very disappointed with the answers they gave.  Both gentlemen indicated that they support the continued payment of farm subsidies.  For the most part, I think they cited the same reasons: we need food, other countries won't repeal their farm subsidies if we repeal ours, etc.  This morning the Club for Growth issued a short response to the candidates' answers.  When I heard the candidates' answers most of the reasons listed in the response came to my mind.  Here is part of the response:

"There are several basic economic problems with agricultural subsidies:

• Government should not be subsidizing any industry in America. It is simply not the proper role of the federal government.
• 
  
• Farm subsidies, as they currently exist, take tax dollars from middle-class Americans and dole them out to wealthy farmers. It is nothing more than an income redistribution program.
• 
  
• Farm subsidies distort the agricultural economy and create perverse incentives to grow crops based on their subsidy value rather than their market value."

For the rest of the written response, you can follow this link.  I agree with the Club for Growth on this one.  Yesterday I took some time and previewed some of the question submissions for the debate on YouTube.  I saw the farm subsidies question asked by more than one person-- from my memory, none of them seemed to favor them.  The position that Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani took on this issue will certainly hurt them among true, fiscal conservatives.  To me, that one question is a tell-tale sign of whether those two are really as conservative as they say they are.  They do pretty well with the limited government rhetoric most of the time.  This one really came as a surprise to me-- I thought they would take the free trade position that they claim to embrace.  That they did not, is, I think, very significant.  The only question is, "How will that answer affect their chances in the early primary states and in their overall campaigns?"  Only time will tell.


The other point I found interesting was a remark made by Congressman Tancredo.  In the discussion on Iraq, Congressman Paul gave his usual bit about over-extending our military and how our presence in the Middle East is contributing to the rise of islamic terrorists. 

I don't disagree with Congressman Paul on those points.  Non-intervention should be the default position for foreign policy and the fact that many in the Middle East see us as meddlers has contributed to islamofascists hating us more than they would under other circumstances. 

However, Congressman Tancredo brought up a point (not a direct question to Congressman Paul) that I think some in the Ron Paul camp fail to address.  Why should we believe that if we pull all our troops out of the Middle East (and the rest of the world for that matter) the terrorists that hate everything that is Judeo-Christian/Western civilization will let us go our merry way and stop hating what the United State stands for?  If we bring every last American soldier home, will islamic terrorists suddenly decide they were wrong about the whole "Great Satan" thing?

I think the answer to that is obvious-- islamofascist terrorism is a problem that will not go away, regardless of our action.  I think that even Congressman Paul would acknowledge that, as I'm sure every fair-minded American citizen would. 

The question then becomes, "What do we do about it?"  Congressman Paul's answer seems to be that we can better protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks by having more troops at home and by securing our border.  All in all, I can't say that that would not be a better idea than what we are presently pursuing.  The recent surge has made many areas of Iraq much safer; I think that makes the United States safer as a result.  What happens when we leave?  Will all the work our brave men and women in uniform have done in the past 4&1/2 years be undone in a matter for a couple years? 

Eventually, we will have to accept that Iraq will never be "America 2.0."  Representative government and the rest of our ideals simply cannot be supported without the same distinctly American heritage that we have.  Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with that.  We do not have to remake the world in our image in order to be safe in our everyday lives.

However, I don't think that means that we have to take preemptive action off the table entirely.  I'm not sure about Congressman Paul's position on preemptive war, but I imagine, based on the tenor of other things he has said, that he would generally not support such action.  (I'm sure if Ron Paul supporters read this, I will be soundly corrected in the comments-- I welcome it.)  My only reservation with bringing all the troops back here and bulking up missile defense and border enforcement is that the nature of terrorism is such that it can't necessarily be effectively fought that way.  How do we insure that terrorists don't get into the country legally?  ALL of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US legally.  How will battening down the hatches prevent something like that from happening again?  If we don't have some way of gathering intelligence overseas (to compile terrorist watch lists), we could never know who should get into the country and who shouldn't. 

I suppose my main point is that the enemy we are up against would love nothing more than for us to "wait around" for another attack.  I know that Congressman Paul and others are not saying that we should sit on our hands.  I simply think that some amount of the fight against terrorism must be done on offense (whether Iraq factors into that is another question for another post).  We need to keep from over-extending our military and we should not be involved in nation-building where our national interest is not concerned, but in pulling ourselves back in line with the Constitution we cannot sacrifice our safety.  I'm not sure I know how that balance should be struck.

In my last couple posts here and here, I complained of a dilemma for conservatives who, like myself, see problems with the frontrunners for the Republican nomination but are uncomfortable with Ron Paul as well.

This morning I found an interesting article by Patrick Ruffini that relates to my previous posts.  You can check it out here. 

Hopefully I can work out this whole intellectual dilemma/political identity crisis before Decision '08 is upon me.

Now for the promised sequel to my last post.  I'll try not to repeat things; forgive me if I do.

In my last post I finished by talking a little about Ron Paul.  I disagree with him on some big issues, mainly over the war in Iraq and its part in defending our country in the war against radical islamic terrorism.  Apart from that, I think he maintains a lot of traditional conservative/libertarian positions-- less government spending, do away with unnecessary departments of the government, pro-life, anti-gun control, return power to the States, secure the borders and control immigration, etc.  Those positions represent what we, the public, expect from the Republican party.  Over the last several years, that is not what the majority of the Republican party has represented. 

Here's the question:  If we keep rewarding the big-government Republicans by sending them to Washington and our state legislatures, how do we ever expect to steer the party back to traditional conservatism?  If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, what message does that send to Republican politicians across the country? 

I analogize it this way: Republican voters have a bad case of Battered Wife Syndrome.  We keep going back to the Republicans even though they treat us, the true conservative, like trash.  We get to a point where we're ready to leave the party and vote for a candidate who truly represents us.  Then election time comes around and we start to think:
   
    "There's really not another party out there that has the power to make my voice heard like the Republicans.      They may not be perfect, but at least they get me in the door at the Capitol.  I don't care what they've done in the     past, they need me.  Otherwise, who will take over the government?  Surely, it will be the Democrats and that     would be far worse than what's happening now.  Anyway, it's probably my fault to begin with.  I could've done     more: donated more to the party, volunteered with a campaign, written in to the editorial page.  If anyone's to     blame for the state of the Republican party, it must be me, not the party leaders and politicians."

And so, the vicious cycle continues from election to election.  The Republicans beat down their base, refusing to hold to conservative principles, and we keep going back to them, thinking that we'll change them.  Maybe we can coin a new term: Battered Republican Syndrome.

It's time for conservatives who are registered as Republicans to come to grips with something:  The Republican party does not represent you any more.  Are there exceptions?  Of course, (Jeb Hensarling and the members of the Republican Study Committee come to mind) but as a whole the Republicans are just as much a big-government party as the Democrats.  One of my professors put it, more or less, this way:  "The Republicans are the liberals in this country; you can imagine what the Democrats are."  Even liberals have begun to shy away from that term, opting to call themselves "progressives."  At some point, the cycle of "violence" has to end.  Either we have to get up the gumption to divorce the abusive, voter-beaters or the Republican party will kill off conservatives in this country.

The question for Election 2008 becomes: Do we send a non-conservative Republican to the White House and watch the party stray even further from its conservative roots, or do we throw support to some small-time candidate and hope there's still a country left after Hillary is through with it? 

Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.  I can see the arguments of the "anyone-but-Hillary" crowd.  A Hillary presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.  Nationalized health care would be devastating for our economy and for those who actually need medical attention.  The rest of her "million ideas" that we can't afford would prove equally detrimental.  So, I can see that there might be some merit to Sean Hannity's "Stop Hillary Express" and similar endeavors.

That being said, I see the other side of the coin as well.  Ask any conservative who the worst President of the last 50 years was and you will almost certainly get the same answer: Jimmy Carter.  Domestic policy . . . does the word stagflation ring a bell?  Foreign policy . . . American citizens held hostage for 444 days sound familiar?

Despite all the disasters of his tenure, the United States as we know it survived.  In fact, without a Jimmy Carter presidency, there may never have been a Ronald Reagan presidency.  After four years languishing under the Carter administration the American people ushered in the Reagan Revolution.  Why couldn't a similar thing happen again? 

After four years of President Hillary, people would probably be ready for a landslide bigger than in 1980.  A Hillary presidency might be just the right prescription to get Republicans to snap out of it.

Let me be clear:  I'm not telling anyone to throw away your vote. 

If someone genuinely feels that they have to "stop Hillary," they should stand behind the candidate the Republicans nominate.  Just don't complain when you get what you paid for: more big-spending Republican legislators and more government intrusion in your life.

If you don't think that the eventual Republican nominee represents your views, don't vote for him.  Just don't complain when Hillarycare does a Mexican hat dance on your wallet.  Don't complain when our defense against terrorism goes to hell in a handbasket.
 
So, that's the dilemma I'm having.  Do I throw in with Ron Paul and give the country to Hillary or do I hold my nose and vote for another Republican.  I imagine there are others having finding themselves in the same quandary.  Hopefully, I can figure out an answer before next time this year.


Update:  For another discussion of this and related issues (that I wish I'd thought of) see what Prysson says here.

Well, it has been WAY too long since I last posted, but, for a change, I have been busy with work.  It's just as well, I suppose, because this is a topic that I've been rolling around in my head for some time now.  That being said, this post will probably be lengthy . . . I apologize-- I shouldn't have let all this build up.  Anyway . . .

The election season for 2008 has, for months now, been in full swing.  Candidates have been campaigning for so long already, that several on both sides have already had to drop out of the race.  As the field of potential candidates for President narrows, I see a sort of "big picture" dilemma for conservatives.

I use the word "conservative" and not "Republican" for a reason.

The party that once stood for limited government, federalism, fiscal responsibility and individual accountability has lost its way.  Gone are the days when a conservative voter could trust that simply checking every Republican on the ballot would adequately represent his views to his government.

When it comes to spending, Republicans (with the exception of groups like the Republican Study Committee) are no different from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.  Illegal immigration, abortion, national defense-- you name the issue and the simple fact is that Republican politicians, as a whole, no longer represent traditional conservative positions.  To many people, this presents a big problem when deciding who to support for President in 2008.

The "Big Three" (or four if you include Fred Thompson) are not solid, trustworthy conservatives.  Before I draw the ire of the Hugh Hewitts and Sean Hannitys out there, let me explain. 

John McCain has been in Washington far too long.  Although he remains a strong conservative on certain issues, McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14 and other debacles render him less than trustworthy at best and at worst, a traitor to the principles for which his party and constituents stand.  Both Giuliani and Romney suffer from the same maladies-- neither one of them has solid, conservative credentials.  Romney could rightly be called the "John Kerry of abortion."  That's something that you don't just up and change your mind on multiple times.  His experience as a businessman and governor is laudable, but telling the American people that you now hold the conservative line is simply not enough.  I'm surely not the only one who remembers "Read my lips.  No new taxes."  Rudy, for all the valor that he displayed in the latter part of 2001, is simply not a conservative on the issues that matter to conservative voters-- immigration, abortion, guns, etc.

Then there's Mike Huckabee.  If being likeable counted for delegates, he would be a shoe-in for the nomination.  I'm thrilled that he supports the Fair Tax, but he's just too darn squishy in too many other areas-- immigration, spending, taxes, etc.  Duncan Hunter is probably the only genuine conservative in the bunch (although I could do without his "fair trade," protectionist bit).  Without a huge surge in fundraising, he will become another victim of the money pit that is running a presidential campaign.

That brings me to Ron Paul, who is the main reason I'm writing this piece.  Let me start by saying that I have some major disagreements with him.  The whole "blowback" argument that he puts forward is completely blown out of proportion.  If we leave the crazy guys who attacked us by flying planes into buildings alone, there is no reason whatsoever to think that they will go away.  Isolationism is a good starting point for foreign policy, but complete isolationism is a suicide pact.  Ignoring radical Muslim terrorists groups is a recipe for the end of Western civilization.  That is my main beef with Ron Paul.  Most of the rest of what he stands for is good, old-fashioned conservatism as it used to be.  Return power from the national government to the States.  Government should shut down its social programs so that individuals have the money and opportunity to do more for their own communities.  Free trade is good for this country, despite the protectionist rhetoric of some other candidates.

So what's the big deal about Ron Paul, then?  Well, some people who have traditionally voted Republican, believing it to be the conservative party, are starting to get fed up with "politics as usual" from their elected officials.  They voted for the person with the (R) beside his or her name because they thought they knew what they were getting. 

I know there are many people like this for a couple reasons.  First, a number of them are close relatives.  Second, like-minded individuals, many of them looking for a return to true conservative values turned out in droves to donate millions of dollars to Ron Paul's campaign within the last couple weeks.  The big question is, how will these people affect Election 2008?  I'll have get to my answer (and more questions) in another post.