RSSWhat is the RP/Ron Paul Connection?
W.H. Chellis
I was a Presbytery a couple weeks ago and noticed that Ron Paul had much more support among St. Lawrence Presbytery teaching and ruling elders than I would have imagined. Shocking since Paul is the least likely of candidate to want to impose morality on the masses.
I would have guessed a good deal of Huckabee-ism but Ron Paul? I am happy for it, but what gives? What do Reformed Christians find so attractive about Paul?
C Brown
May 27th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Maybe it’s because Covenanters like the talk of “revolution”.
Or, more seriously, could it be that Reformed Christians are weary of warmongering? I wonder whether the Roman Catholic position on these interventionist wars is starting to gain a hearing among more evangelical and Reformed types.
Of course, it may also be that we’re fed up with the growing size of our government, to which both Democrats and Republicans have contributed in recent years.
rondeldon
May 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
What about Ron Paul’s Newsletter? The guy destroyed himself as a viable candidate when that material came out. His excuse about not knowing is worst than Obama’s excuse about not knowing about Jeremiah Wright.
Polites
May 28th, 2008 at 1:40 am
rondeldon,
The newsletter smear is old news and his political viability hardly suffered from it in his own district that keeps re-electing him over and over, so your “viability” assertion doesn’t hold much water. He admitted his neglect years ago and has utterly and totally disavowed what was published under his name repeatedly and unequivocally. If that weren’t enough (and it is!) his libertarian philosophy is so utterly counter to the ideas espoused in those rogue articles, that only a persistent desire to discount his message can explain the persistent refrain, “what about the newsletter?” Sorry, but I’m really tired of that canard.
No man is perfect. Paul made a mistake of neglecting a publication that used his name while he was basically out of the political realm and practicing medicine again. He admitted his mistake to his constituents. He received forgiveness, which is readily apparent by his political success in his own district. This is where Christians take the cue to move on.
Now how about the ideas he espouses? Of all the candidates that ran this past year, to whom to you think this country’s founders would be nodding agreement? Perhaps the one who can quote their words without a second thought. Perhaps the one who sticks to those founding principles in the face of ridicule and very lonely votes.
Bill, here’s an answer to your question. Reformed Christians are typically men who are loyal to covenant, to principle, to truth as it is written. Paul strikes them as that kind of man. Though he says the Constitution is far from a perfect document and that “nothing written by man is,” he says it’s a pretty good one and he’s serious about his sworn commitment to defend that document. That is a commitment Reformed Christians can appreciate.
rondeldon
May 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Polites,
I don’t see how you can call it a smear, the facts are pretty clear. Dr Paul is negligent in at least one of the following ways:
1) He wrote some or all of it himself.
2) He knew about it being written and didn’t intervene ( I believe this is the case ).
3) All of this happened under his nose for years in his name and he didn’t know about it ( I guess those who believe this should also believe Obama sat in his church for approx. 20 years and didn’t know what his Pastor believed.
4) If he didn’t do it, he refuses to divulge the names of those that did. He owes no loyalty to someone who has published such vile comments in his name.
In context I was speaking of Dr Paul’s viability as a presidential candidate. Local districts often re-elect candidates that have no chance beyond the local district. For example we have David Duke winning locally in Louisiana, we have the imbecile Cynthia McKinney winning repeatedly in her district, we have Marion Berry the crack head winning repeatedly, we had one of the most corrupt governors of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, winning repeatedly, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, your claim that he wins in his district is the one that doesn’t hold much water.
And of course I agree that no man is perfect and that Christian should accept his forgiveness and repentance if one believes he is sincere. Likewise if Paul is truly sincere and seeking repentance he should put forward actions that demonstrate this. He should completely set the record straight as to not what happened and not just a disavowed what was said. How do we know if these individuals are not still on his campaign? Could he be afraid to name names, because the individuals may tell the real story?
So no, Christians do not just accept a disavowal and move on. We understand the hearts of men and especially those seeking power, so as even the Presbyterian BCO reminds us we need to be satisfied that there is repentance as much as we can tell. It is not just that we have to accept someone’s statement without any further searching for signs of true repentance.
Finally, it is always amazing to me how the ones who are not directly affected by slander and injustices are so quick say “move on” if they like other things about a person. It is somewhat interesting that a Christian tradition (i.e. Reformed ) which has never really appealed to minorities seem to support such a candidate in large numbers. Before I can take his policies serious in reference to all people of the United States I need to be convince that he considers all people of the United States, especially by brothers and sisters in Christ as equal.
W.H. Chellis
May 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Jon- I completely agree. I want to add to your answer. The new conservatives of the 1950’s were predominately Roman Catholic. Either they started there (like Buckely) or they ended there (like Meyer and Kirk). Still, Roman Catholicism was central to the new conservatism of the “modern conservative movement.”
Interestingly, I am not sure it was a great fit for either Kirk or Meyer. I believe that Kirk never stopped thinking like a Protestant when it comes to politics. The same might be true of Meyer but his Protestant libertarian traditionalism was subject to his former communism (those guys never stopped thinking like communists… at least on the strategic level).
Today the paleo-conservative movement is filled with outlandish Roman Catholic traditionalists who stand for a conservatism of crown and alter. This was not the conservatism of Buckley or Kirk. Still, it raises an issue. The Old Right were national libertarians, local republicans. This fits well with the American experience of federalism deeply rooted in Protestant, even Calvinistic patterns of thought. Roman Catholic conservatives only do well in America when they play by the rules of Protestantism.
Does Ron Paul raise the banner of WASP conservatism? Is this why we like him so?
Please do not get me wrong. I love my Roman Catholic conservative counterparts. I have learned much from them. But isn’t the conservatism of the Randolph, Dabney, Machen, Weaver, Taft, Fish, and Paul different? More organically American?
Polites
May 29th, 2008 at 12:26 am
rondeldon,
Apparently we briefly interacted on this a while back on this site, where you said, “It is hard to believe someone would have a news letter published under their name for so many years and not be aware of the myriad of racists statements that were put in it. Did he never read the newsletters?”
Myriad? So many years? Justin Raimondo went after the smear-masters back then and could only …
I obviously agree with Raimondo and have found Paul’s owning up to his negligence quite enough. Assuming these articles spanned four separate newsletters, one could hardly accuse him of negligence over “many years”. He wasn’t actively editing the newsletter, which was left to other writers. That was his mistake and he apologized profusely for that mistake. I’ll reiterate that his disavowals of the offensive material were unequivocal. But apparently, for some, certain kinds of offensive speech require a pound of flesh hefted upon the altar of political correctness, even if such speech isn’t one’s own. I’ve read enough of Paul’s writing over the years (by the way, how much of his prolific writing have you had to pleasure to read?) to know that such statements could not possibly come from his mouth or pen.
Apparently you’re unwilling to take his word for it and you think he has to justify himself by naming names. Assuming he knew who wrote the words, to what end? Sure, it would be just like a statesman to take the “it was him, not me!” approach. He took full responsibility for the publishing of offensive material and did not shift blame. That’s a rarity in politics.
I won’t try further to convince you. It’s really pointless anyway. Your last statement about his convincing you can only be achieved by your actually engaging the stuff he did write or deliver in speeches. I encourage you to do so. All doubt would be removed. Believe me.
Polites
May 29th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Hmm. I attempted to use blockquote tags in my last post, but they didn’t take. The text between “could only …” and “I obviously agree with Raimondo” is a quote from the article I linked to.
Polites
May 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
William, I’m noodling on that a bit. Could you expand a bit on this: “Roman Catholic conservatives only do well in America when they play by the rules of Protestantism.”
W.H. Chellis
May 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am
What I mean is that traditionalist “crown and alter” types are not playing by American rules. Traditional Covenanters… who have a strain of crown and alterism… are the outer bank but they mix in a good deal of Whiggism that makes up for it.
Our system of constitutional government, constitutional interpretation (especially for conservative who hold to strict construction over against high court tradition), individual liberty are all deeply rooted in traditional Protestant soil.
William F. Buckley famously declared, “Mater si, Magistra no!” This is perfect example of a Roman Catholic playing by Protestant American rules.
Josh M.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
To answer the last question in your post, perhaps they are steadily growing weary of state encroachments into their own social and personal lives, or what Paul Gottfried calls the social engineering of the Managerial State. I think Caleb Stegall basically said this on a column on Taki’s website. It’s not automatic that Christians would desire civil liberties — many have Yankee inclinations, and even Israel in the wilderness wanted to go back to Pharaoh — but it is increasingly obvious that America as a “Christian” nation is a facade not worth supporting. I say this having introduced a few in my own church to Paul. They took to him quickly, they told me, because of his views on the IRS, strict constructionism, unnecessary Federal departments, etc.