Friday, May 27, 2011

Peeving Tom

Why won't Congressman Tom McClintock endorse Ron Paul for president? In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed McClintock's first congressional campaign, which he then won by only 1800 votes. The freshman congressman has since proven he possesses neither gratitude nor any real ideology of liberty. If otherwise, why would McClintock not demonstrate his bonafide belief in liberty by supporting Ron Paul's presidential campaign?

First he suggested Chris Christie would be a great candidate at a recent town-hall and now he says "it's a very good idea" for pro-bailout Congressman Paul Ryan to run. Linked at Hot Air is a National Review story featuring the congressman blowing hot air:
"It's a very good idea," says Rep. Tom McClintock (R., Calif.). "Paul Ryan would make an excellent candidate and an excellent president." If Democrats are intent on making the House Republican budget the central issue of the 2012 campaign, who better than that budget's author — and most capable defender — to be the GOP nominee? Other members certainly feel the same, McClintock said — you won't find too many Republicans with a negative opinion of Ryan — but he insisted there isn't a concerted effort among members to urge Ryan to get in the race. "I've not heard any rumors that he's seriously considering it," he said. "But I still think it's a pretty good idea."
Apparently McClintock can't quit jonesing after blowhards. People understandably love politicians capable of being succinct, but the problem with blunt-styled Ryan, just like Christie, is that he fails to grasp the comprehensive nature of liberty. As Ron Paul said on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show a couple weeks ago: "Personal liberty, foreign policy and economic liberty - it's all one package."

McClintock and those like him, though, don't understand this and merely want to streamline the state to allow smooth business as usual. Under the budget proposed by Ryan, the feds would only cut spending over the same 10 year period from Obama's desired $46 trillion down to $40 trillion. As Rand Paul remarked: "The president adds, I think, 11 trillion to the gross debt and Ryan's plan adds eight trillion." The problem is that these congressmen have zero real interest in addressing the underlying cause of the American loss of liberty, which is the abject failure to restrain the federal government from crossing its constitutional boundaries. Because they lack a comprehensive ideology, they refuse to condemn the American empire, reexamine the existence of socialist swindles like Social Security and other entitlement programs, oppose the War on Drugs, rebuke police brutality or oppose the deliberate devaluation of the dollar.

Only when McClintock and those like him quit searching for accounting solutions to balance the books and begin questioning the system itself (which hasn't the slightest resemblance to a Constitutionally obedient system) should they be taken seriously by the liberty-minded. If McClintock is not a libertarian who confesses to the supreme power of individual thought over the holier-than-thou notion that a single anointed gang can plan with greater infallibly than millions of independent minds, then one can only conclude he accepts authoritarianism as the best solution. As this author stated exactly 10 days ago:
What is left to consider? Ron Paul is the most consistent person in the American Congress. He's proclaimed the exact same ideology of liberty for over 30 years. His book, Liberty Defined, paints a stark picture of what that ideology really means as it explicitly answers for liberty on 50 major issues. Whatever issues he might not have mentioned would be given an identical answer, as summed up in the introduction to his book: "Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others." Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes this. Either you agree with him or you don't, McClintock.
Update: Daniel Larison writes: "On many other issues apart from budget questions, Ryan has unformed or merely conventional views that he has hardly ever had to defend." On fiscal policy, Larison invokes Ryan's uncomfortable record, noting that "Ryan voted for the TARP… and he voted for Medicare Part D." As he puts it: "On the two biggest, most controversial votes of the last decade relating to the financial sector and entitlements, Ryan was on the wrong side, and if they are at all serious about fiscal responsibility many, perhaps most, conservatives would hold these votes against him if he ran. Compared to this, Mitt Romney’s health care liability is barely noticeable."

Why would Tom McClintock support a pro-bailout socialist for president? There's clearly a serious disconnect between the vacillating representative's mind and his mouth, as just over two months ago he harshly decried the anti-capitalist bailouts, saying:
Bailouts subsidize bad decisions and assure we get more of them… A bailout is the use of one person's earnings to pay for the bad decisions of another. The hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve lost to bailing out people’s past bad decisions (and the trillions of dollars we’ve placed at risk) pale in comparison with what we’re spending to encourage people to make bad decisions in the future.