TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.05.2008
Would McCain Choose a Ron Paul Republican?

As the McCain veep watch chugs on, one name that's come up repeatedly is that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whom fiscal conservatives love. One thing that's not as widely known about Sanford, though--and one reason why it might not be realistic to expect Republicans to be enthusiastic about his selection--is that he's a harsh critic of the Bush administration's power grab in the wake of 9/11. Sanford appeared last week (with Democratic Senator Jon Tester) at the Cato Institute in Washington to voice his opposition to the REAL ID Act, which he considers an affront to individual liberty and states' rights (McCain supports the act). Here's what Sanford told me in a brief interview after the event:

TNR: What sort of sacrifices is it reasonable to ask citizens to make in the war on terror, in terms of privacy? Is there anything that citizens will have to give up, compared to what they were used to before 9/11?

 

MS: I don't see 9/11 as a seminal event in that regard. Liberty is the ultimate homeland security, and anybody who promises, 'I can take care of this problem for you,' at the end of the day, I don't think is telling the truth. … Tragically, post-9/11, there's been a lot of earnest, well-intentioned but ultimately destructive activity that expanded federal power inappropriately and encroached upon state authority.

 

TNR: How would you assess President Bush's record in the realm of homeland security and the war on terror?

 

MS: History will be the ultimate judge. I will say, though, that I unabashedly come from the conservative side of the ledger. I think that some of his policies not been particularly conservative in their approach. In the long run, I believe that that undermines both homeland security and liberty.

McCain, of course, has also voiced displeasure with some aspects of Bush's record in this regard, so perhaps it's not as implausible a choice as it might seem. But given that the Republican Party's intellectual establishment has wedded itself to a theory of untrammeled executive power as a response to the ongoing war on terror, one wonders if the fiscal conservatives championing Sanford realize that in many respects, when it comes to the role of the state, he's a quasi–civil libertarian who's closer to Ron Paul and Bob Barr than to any other major figure in the party.

 

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:26 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

Before I read your last paragraph Josh, I was thinking the same thing. But Sanford would be a nod to the right, where McCain needs shoring up and he would be palatable to many conservatives, although maybe not to bitter ender John Yoo types. Even there, I think many of these people would fall in line. And a Sanford choice would be an action - not mere words - that would indicate that McCain might not be the third Bush term, as Democrats are already framing such a potential presidency.

May 12, 2008 12:44 PM

Club for Growth said:

NBC in Minneapolis has a video discussing a McCain-Pawlenty ticket. Ted Kennedy's rejection of a Clinton vice-presidency resulted in a counter attack from Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Chicago Tribune has an editorial arguing the most important question

May 12, 2008 12:48 PM

Rhubarbs said:

A strong stand against Bush-era executive power would work for McCain against Hillary. As much as Republicans love the idea of an American despot, they really, really don't want Hillary Clinton to have the despotic powers of the Bush presidency. But take her off the table, and Republicans as a group do not want to de-fang the monarchical executive branch "in a time of war." So against Obama, McCain is better off downplaying any objections he might have to a dictatorial presidency in order to play to Republican fantasies of "strong" Republicans versus a "weak" Democrat.

May 12, 2008 1:29 PM

Daniel W. Drezner said:

I've een cautiously optimistic that John McCain would choouse a Ron Paul -type Republican (minus the conspiratorial bigotry) since the Huckabee wing of the party is much less likely to vote for Obama. Now James Pethokoukis reports the following on his

May 12, 2008 1:39 PM

virginiacentrist said:

McCain definitely has a Ron Paul problem.

May 12, 2008 1:44 PM

fougasseu said:

Sanford would be a very smart choice. He's disliked by both the Republican and Democratic old guard in S. Carolina for being a real maverick. He would ignite the right part of the right-wing, not the racists and homophobes. His age is perfect, the location of his state is perfect, and he knows when to stop talking - a rare trait in politicians these days.

As an Obama fan, I hope McBush picks Pawlenty. Young and clever, but more of the same.

Time for a Change....Or More of the Same?

May 12, 2008 2:19 PM

teplukhin2you said:

But is he a Rothbardian?

Where does he stand on privatizing the mint?

May 12, 2008 3:31 PM

liberal reformer said:

Teplukhin2you: There are few echt Rothbardians outside of Rothbard. Rhubarbs: Good point about Clinton. Earlier this year, I told my old friend Tom P. - who I met in college when I took logic and philosophy from him - that Hillary promised to return power to the legislature that the executive has usurped. He found that as funny as I did.

May 12, 2008 5:08 PM