What someone thinks of things is far more telling than what he says about himself. So, by way of introduction, here are my impressions of our present presidential campaign. This will take a few posts and then we'll see if anyone cares. We have all seen the same debates and heard the same speeches and read the same analysis by the same pundits, so here's your chance to see just how weirdly I've interpreted these things.

I apparently disagree with almost every pundit out there. They keep talking about this "flawed Republican field." I think this is a brilliant array of candidates. True, there is no Ronald Reagan among them. But then it would be foolish to look for one. President Reagan was a very special man in a particular time and place. Anyone who thinks there are more like him is far too optimistic to be calling himself a conservative. While there isn't another Ronald Reagan there are several candidates who could represent the Republican party well and govern as a principled conservative.

What we have instead of one towering figure are a full palette of  candidates across the 21st Century Republican spectrum. Sure, some of them are a little weak on what  we consider basic conservative principles, but you've got to expect that in a party that is made up of everyone to the right of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Think about this for a moment - President  John F. Kennedy was too conservative to be a Democrat in this century. His program of cutting taxes and militarily pursuing America's security interests is now a disqualification for high public office in the Democrat party. As a result of the Democrat party's refusal to develop a sane national agenda, Republicans have ended up with a very big tent in national candidates. And yes, I think that is a good thing. Options are always a good thing, even if there's a chance you might pick the wrong one. In this case I think there is only one truly wrong choice among the candidates.

Every Republican candidate now running legitimately represents some faction in our grand coalition. Yes, even Ron Paul, the subject of today's post. I intend to discuss and dismiss him and his candidacy today and then, God willing, never write about him again. Someone has to represent the black T-shirt and camo pants militia types and Ron Paul is their man. He does have a constituency and some of their issues are legitimate. You don't have to be a nut-job to question why every damn acronyminous agency in the federal government now feels the need for ninja-squad SWAT teams. Seriously, it wasn't until a few decades ago that the United States Marshals Service had authority to carry weapons in every county in the country. That's the US Marshals, the oldest and most constitutionally legitimate federal law enforcement agency. Now even the EPA has guys dressing up like the cops in the movie Brazil. The difference is Paul and his militia-libertarian friends believe this is because of some master plan to steal our liberties. I know better, they do this because it is just plain awesome to dress like a ninja-squad SWAT team and have all that cool weaponry. What is reasonable and what we can agree on, is that our federal agencies need to stop playing action-figure dress-up with our tax dollars, and address the citizens of this nation with humility and respect.

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of being the nominee and that's fine by me. I'm just as happy that he got heard as I am that he will not be elected. "Small L" libertarians have always been a part of the Republican party and the Reagan coalition. Sadly, Ron Paul is more of a "Big L" Libertarian, that is, a former member and candidate of the Libertarian party. As a party they are functionally insane; with no ability to prioritize they protect equally the right to keep and bear arms and the right to have sex with animals and the right to sell crack in a convenience store. That is their madness, they are absolutists; with no priorities they can have no plan.

Ron Paul shares in that madness. Worse, he is woefully and possibly willfully ignorant of foreign affairs and defense policy. He spouts the talking points of our present enemy without any sign of having subjected them to any analysis of his own. It is idiocy to blame the attacks of 9/11/2001 on our foreign policy when the men who perpetrated that attack also cite the crusades, the reconquista and the end of the Ottoman Empire. Libertarianism demands careful thought and vast historical knowledge. By dismissing tradition it demands that one discover anew history's lessons and consequences. Sloppy, bumper sticker thought as Paul has demonstrated is frightening in that context.

There seems no reason to think that he will support the eventual nominee, in fact there is a fairly serious threat of him running as a Libertarian when he   fails to receive the GOP nomination. It seems immoral to raise money as a Republican and then run against them, but I don't know that it's illegal. We will see. In the meanwhile, there is no need to consider voting for him as anything other than a desperate scream of protest. If you feel the need to make such a statement, please take this opportunity, but don't give him money with which to run against us later. And if you can, see if  there isn't someone better suited to promote libertarian principles. Libertarianism truly deserves better than Ron Paul or that gang of moral incompetents who have appropriated the name for their idiotic political party.