Normally, I don’t comment on Sullivan, because he is so philosophically incoherent, but I can’t resist this one time. In Misreading Obama, he makes the common mistake of thinking nostalgia is conservatism. Obama’s idealization of village markets is as bad as the 19th century critics of British industrialization who used to go on about the joys of English village life. Nostalgia is a longing for an ideal that never was. Conservatism is a reluctance to make cultural changes that have uncertain outcomes. True, a lot of conservatives suffer from nostalgia, but that doesn’t make them identical.

If you are ever inclined to ignore government corruption, just think about these poor parents in China. Their children were killed in shoddily constructed schools during the recent earthquake, and they have no chance of getting any justice.

If you really want to understand this year’s election, read this piece in the London Review of Books by David Runciman. As Runciman points out, the election has essentially broken down by demographics. This is no surprise, because that is how politics always works. The number of people who vote on reason is amazingly small. Moreover, everyone is suspicious of the few people who do so, because they appear to have no group loyalty. I’d get depressed, but there’s no point.

I’m boycotting the Beijing Olympics and I urge everyone else to join in doing so. And, join the Facebook Group.

Today is Trent Lott Appreciation Day. According to The Mississippi Press, it’s a “well-deserved honor.” They also note:

Today’s honors may not be as fancy as receptions held in Washington, D.C., but it is very likely Lott is among more friends here.

It’s hard to argue with that. On a related note, January 24th was National Compliment Day.

As always, I urge a write-in vote for William Howard Taft. A policy of trust-busting, dollar diplomacy, an increase in the corporate income tax, and strong tariffs is just what the times demand! It was right in 1908, and it’s right in 2008. So, get out and vote!

I normally avoid political discussions. But, after reading Terry Chay’s post on Ron Paul, I felt compelled to post something. I sympathise with Terry’s frustration with doctrinaire libertarians. Like unreconstructed Marxists, their insistence on finding the solution to all problems in a single principle is a relic of the nineteenth century: a time when the idea of a scientific explanation of society was new enough to excuse this reductionism. Like Marxism, Libertarianism is an excusable enthusiasm in the young, but at some point we all have to grow up. As Terry points out, we have had over one hundred years of development in economics since the nineteenth century, and libertarianism ignores all of them.

In the past, I have compared Ron Paul to Cato the Younger, and I still believe the comparison apt. Like Cato, Paul has never compromised, even when it would have cost him little. It was Cicero’s judgment that Cato’s unwavering commitment to principle did as much, if not more, to destroy the Roman Republic as it contributed to the effort to save it. Similarly, Paul’s intransigence has harmed his cause even as it has led to an unprecedented (for Libertarianism) success. I have no doubt that, should Paul, by some miracle, be elected, he would be an ineffective president. Yet, despite this, as you have probably already noticed, I have a Ron Paul banner in the right-hand column of my blog.

The reason that banner is there is that I believe all politics is contingent: when the house is burning down you don’t advocate pouring on more gasoline. The United States is on a path to bankruptcy, the dollar is debased, and continued foreign interventionism is supported by every major candidate. Paul is the only candidate whose positions would do anything to address these problems. So, in the rather vain hope that he might possibly influence the future path of the country, he has my support.

If you want to know why Ron Paul is the best candidate in the race today, just read “Pimp My Ride” by Tucker Carlson. Tucker spent a couple of days on the road with Ron, and liked what he saw.

Ron Paul is the Cato of our time: a man who favors principles over political success. That alone is enough to give him my support. I could give a lot more reasons, though, but Andrew Sullivan has done it far more eloquently than I can in this post.