Quoth Brian Holtz: > [Ron Paul]'s both [a conservative and a libertarian]. Deal with it.
You've put your finger on the major danger of Ron Paul's candidacy. Conservatism and libertarianism are not the same thing. They are very different, and mutually exclusive, political philosophies. Ron Paul may be a conservative, or he may be a libertarian, but he isn't both because it's not _possible_ to be both. Right now, Paul claims to be a conservative in nearly every public statement in which he characterizes/labels his political philosophy. He does assent to the term "libertarian" when it is shoved in his face, and on an occasion or two has used it himself as effectively a modifier to explain his perceived policy divergences with the conservative movement, but he is still presenting himself as a conservative. The libertarian movement is getting the worst possible representation it could possibly get from Ron Paul. His presentation is geared to tar the libertarian movement with his (bad) conservative positions, while simultaneously undeservedly crediting the conservative movement with his (good) libertarian positions. I take that back -- the libertarian movement isn't getting the worst _possible_ representation it could get from Ron Paul. It could conceivably be worse. But somehow I doubt that it will, e.g. that anyone will come up with credible evidence tying him to the Tate-LaBianca murders or the assassination of JFK. Tom Knapp
