Napolitano interviews the Pauls

Beating up on the Fed

Ron Paul, who clearly hates the Fed with a visceral passion, had some fiery stuff to say to Ben Bernanke yesterday:



Meanwhile, Bernanke seems to be getting rave reviews from global investors. Why is that? The easy money?

Hell if I'm equipped to make sense of whether the existence and operation of the Fed hurts the economy over the long term. But Megan's comment on central bank independence seems appealing:

Start with a stylized fact: in a democracy, there will be a strong tendency for monetary policy to favor debtors, because there generally more debtors than creditors. This is particularly true of America, with its lavish credit markets.

In the long run, however, strongly inflationary monetary policy makes everyone worse off; it impedes capital formation, lowering productivity.

Central bank independence works, not because the bankers aren't accountable to Congress (they are, after all, reappointed every so often), but because Congress is only weakly accountable for the actions of the central bank. If Congress were held to account for the actions of the central bank, Congress would appoint bankers who would do populist things that would make us all worse off. Most of the financial policy journalists I know have the sense that Congress actually supported most of what Paulson/Bernanke/Geithner did, but knew they did not dare enact it. They don't want a more accountable central bank.

So there is something magical about bank independence. It lets Congress cut against its basically populist political interests. You may think that makes it too bank-friendly. But it also means we don't have double-digit inflation, which is where we were headed before Volcker.

Bravo, Ron Paul

Here's the text of H Res. 560, "Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes."

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Ron Paul's response made memeorandum—his was the single vote against. Emphasis mine below...

Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran

June 19, 2009

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Against Pat Buchanan

Buchanan mocks Sotomayor:

[Sotomayor] went to Princeton. She graduated first in her class it said. But she herself said she read, basically classic children’s books to read and learn the language and she read basic English grammars and she got help from tutors. I think that, I mean if you’re, frankly if you’re in college and you’re working on Pinocchio or on the troll under the bridge, I don’t think that’s college work.

Yglesias responds:

Learning a foreign language, if you’ve ever tried, is really hard. Meanwhile, it’s clearly also important for people living in the United States of America to do their best to learn to speak and read standard American English. But this takes hard work. Sonia Sotomayor, like many Americans, was born into a Spanish-dominant family. But she worked hard, learned English, went to Princeton, then Yale Law School, then had a successful career as a lawyer, as a District Court judge, as an Appeals Court judge, and now as a [nominee for] Justice of the Supreme Court. This is, as I’ve said before, a good inspirational story that parents are going to tell their kids to encourage them to work hard in school.

Unless, that is, you’re Pat Buchanan in which case you take a cute story about Sotomayor spending her summers re-reading classic children’s books she hadn’t had a chance to read as a kid and turn it into a pretext to mock her:

[..] normally Buchanan claims that Hispanics need to work harder to learn English. But faced with an actual example of someone working to learn English, he has nothing but scorn and spite.

I think the most unfortunate thing about The American Conservative (which Buchanan co-founded) as well as paleoconservatism in general is its association with Mr. Buchanan's classless racism (including antisemitism).

Ordinarily bad apples won't hurt the whole too much—you can find plenty of prominent rotten lefties and movement conservatives with similarly disturbing views or lack of class. See Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michele Bachmann, Michele Malkin, et. al.—they get called for it regularly.

But paleocon-ish numbers are few, so Pat Buchanan's prominence creates a disproportionate image problem for the related ideas of figures like Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larison, and Ron Paul.

So I cringe whenever I see Buchanan's name mentioned—paleoconservatism would be much better off if he'd shut the hell up.

Heir to the revolution?

Yoda voice: Sigh. Told you, I did. Senior citizen is he. Now matters are worse.

Obi-Wan: That geezer was our last hope.

Yoda: No. There is another.

Dr. Ron Paul's son, Dr. Rand Paul, 46, may run for Senate in Kentucky...



Polling numbers... we need polling numbers!  If it takes off, I pledge to follow this race with only a moderate degree of obsession.

Because, well, seriously, it's exactly what the GOP needs... something to get more young people excited and interested in shaping the party's direction again.

Ron Paul discusses GOP on Maddow's show

[ Pssst: Welcome, The Moderate Voice readers. I'm an avid reader--got 55 posts tagged TMV in 3 months. Feel free to look around more, you're certainly welcome here. ]

Ron Paul at CPAC 2009

This first part is a little weak with its vague talk of "liberty". But watch it anyway, because it gets better: Part 2 - Part 3

Too bad he'll be 77 years old on election day in 2012. That's a little much. But it would sure be nice to have a 1964 Goldwater moment against Obama's LBJ-ness that gets the party back on track.


Update:

David Frum tries to dispel the Goldwater myth. I would contend that today the Republican party is nothing like Ron Paul -- it lost its libertarianishness during the Bush years, largely due to hose 9/11 hysterionics. So why would a shift back be a bad thing? The GOP stands little chance of winning in 2012, and should be more concerned with developing a long-term coherent governing strategy rather than short-term pandering to its existing rump (i.e. the Bush and Palinites).

Where were Republicans in the past eight years?

It's too little too late. It's like they're born again budget conservatives. Where where we in the past eight years when we [were in the majority and] could have done something? ... It's the last eight years that has set this situation up ... We can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have. We have to blame both parties and presidents for the last several decades that have generated this huge government.