Ron Paul
I gave $50 to the Ron Paul campaign yesterday, and I’m delighted he made such a huge haul. I’ve been critical of what I see as Paul’s nationalism, since I think this is incompatible with a concern for liberty. But, on balance, I cannot help but think that Paul’s presence in the race as a critic of war and executive power and as a proponent of limited government more than compensates for the confusion inherent in his border-reifying sovereignty fixation. I feel hopeful that with his now-bulging war chest, he’ll help keep the non-interventionist wing of the GOP vital, and make a lot of college students interested in learning about the libertarian alternative.
November 9th, 2007 20:01
I think nationalism is generally understood as being expansive while patriotism is defensive. Nationalists–think of the mindset at work in the Balkans in the 1990s–argue that their borders and territories are insufficient, that they have been, in some fashion or other, slighted by their neighbors and rivals. Patriots, meanwhile, seek to preserve their own traditions, lands, and habits but do not make a habit of laying claim to what others have.
Now, I suppose you could say that Paul’s notions of border sovereignty are misguided manifestations of what he would regard as his own patriotism, and there may be some truth to that. But nationalism isn’t the proper word to describe what motivates Paul’s positions. (The other Republican candidates on the other hand…)
November 11th, 2007 17:38
I think that Ron Paul’s nationalism is not such a bad thing. My thinking is that if he gets close to implementing all of the policies he wants, he should begin to see that the degree of free trade he is advocating is largely indistinguishable from a much freer immigration policy.
Somehow, I doubt that one presidency (I hope) will be enough to move American national policy to the point where it matters one way or another.