Orthodox for Ron Paul

Clark Carlton appeals to his fellow Orthodox Christians on behalf of Ron Paul for President. Over to you, Brother Larison...

UPDATE: Josh Trevino fires shots at Orthodox who support Ron Paul:

Too many Orthodox Christian converts in America — and especially those who participate in the public square — seem pulled toward perceived originalism or anachronism in the political realm. This has the appearance of being motivated by the same aesthetic sensibility that appears to draw them toward Orthodoxy: the sense of a necessary fidelity to the foundational faith is basically the same, translated from the religious to the political sphere. But in both spheres, it leads them to falsehood.

He jumps on Larison specifically, who hits back hard:

Mr. Trevino’s objections to my and others’ support for Ron Paul are no more credible. If there are cases where Ron Paul’s constitutional views are not perfect, his willingness to adhere to the Constitution according to strict constructionist and originalist interpretations–the interpretations conservatives are supposed to respect and follow–is so much greater than that of his rivals that it seems absurd that someone could find fault with him for lacking in fidelity to the Constitution. Which candidate can Trevino find who is more faithful to more provisions of the Constitution? Of course, there is none. It is not as if Trevino has found himself a more faithful constitutionalist whom he can support–his complaints against Paul on this score are basically groundless. Not that it matters, but my affinity for strict constructionism and constitutionalism predated my conversion to Orthodoxy by many years. My embrace of Orthodoxy was a result of coming to recognise, through the working of the Holy Spirit, that it was the fullness of Christian revelation. It has nothing to do with being drawn toward the “dead purity of antiquity,” and no one should know that better than a fellow convert to Orthodoxy.

Trevino’s appeal to living Orthodox tradition is all very well and good, but then he has no evidence whatever that I disagree with this understanding of Orthodoxy. I find it more than a little bizarre that he opts to attack fellow Orthodox in this fashion over what appears to be primarily a political disagreement. The implication inherent in his remarks that we should also embrace some “living Constitution” interpretation of our fundamental law is a perfect example of what is wrong with conservatives who strive to evolve and adapt with the times.

Josh mentions me too, but I'm afraid I'm not worth his time in this dispute. I'm almost certainly going to vote for Paul in the primaries, whom I find admirable in many ways, but mine is almost wholly a protest vote. I have very little interest in the rest of the GOP field (save for Huckabee, on whose candidacy I wax and wane). I really am that alienated from politics this year. That's probably worth giving me a hiding over, but not my Paul enthusiasm, such as it is, which is based mostly on Paul's witness to his fellow Republicans on issues of the war and the abuse of executive power. No other Republican is talking this way, and I admire Paul for saying what he does, and taking the stands that he's taking. Given what Bush & Co. have done to the GOP, I see the enthusiasm for Paul, however limited, as mostly a healthy reaction.

That said, I should in no way be confused with a principled, thoughtful supporter of Ron Paul, e.g., Daniel Larison, who is actually for Paul for clear and well-considered reasons. Daniel really wants to see Paul as president. I personally doubt that's a good idea, even though I want to see some of the things Paul stands for thrive on the Right, and within the GOP. Put another way, I like Ron Paul, but if he actually stood to win the presidency, I'm not sure at all that I would vote for him. I may change my mind either way between now and my opportunity to vote in my state's GOP primary, but for now, I've pretty much got bad faith all around on this issue, and am, as they say back home, "as useless as teats on a boar hog."

Anyway, as someone who has been reading Larison's blog for a long time, it does seem unfair and inaccurate to me to accuse him of backing Ron Paul out of some misguided longing for the kind of idealistic purity that supposedly first interested him in Orthodoxy. (And for that matter, unlike Clark Carlson, Larison has never associated his Orthodox faith with his advocacy of Ron Paul; has anybody else, other than Prof. Carlson?) Larison has laid out over and over again a political case for Paul's candidacy, which has nothing to do with religion. And it is worth remembering that in my case, posting a link to something on this blog doesn't imply endorsement, only that I found the linked-to thing interesting.

Anyway, it strikes me as uncharitable and presumptive to assume that one converted to a particular faith not because one found that faith's claims to be, you know, true, but rather that it fulfilled, in Josh's words, "yearning for the dead purity of antiquity."