This isn't exactly something we should be cheering seeing fulfilled (as I'm seeing a lot do lately without really understanding Francis). I'm really not sure why Conservatives cling to him because he was a rabid anti-Capitalist and against free markets- always talking about how profits should be reigned in or forced to be redistributed to the middle. He called Capitalism an old bourgeois economic formula and said the that defense of capitalism is not a conservative issue. ("The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism.").
He is latched on to by many neoconfederates (like Buckley called them) because of his promotion of racial identity and many who call themselves paleocons because his calls verge on almost a nationalist authoritarian state (get rid of trappings of democracy for someone who will yield minimalist power with maximum force). He called it Anarcho-tyranny (as if that was a positive thing).
He wanted this populist/nationalist movement to bring about his Anarcho-tyranny vision. He wanted the end of Capitalism and free markets to a tightly centrally controlled nationalism based market.
Seeing what he wanted fulfilled is almost as bad as seeing what Marx wanted fulfilled. It is that full circle of politics that is often mentioned (you swing far enough to the right you'll end up back on the extreme left).
I don't know all that much about this Francis fellow, and never heard of him before Rush brought up the article the other day. So, I will accept all that you say about him as the truth.
But, I will try to use your post to illustrate something that I
think, many are missing about what is going on. Many seem to be searching for some level of "purity" in candidates, their surrogates, and even dead people referenced in this primary season. The line of thinking goes something along the lines of: "Well if person-X said
this, you must realize that person-X also said
this, that, and the other thing in the past." And hence attempt to devalue the
"this" statement that is currently being discussed. (And also leads to the "shoot the messenger" type of tactics being used from all sides.)
I think that some people (myself included) don't really mind the fact that the person-X may have said other things in the past (be they contrary, antagonistic, etc.), and rather just deal with the
"this" statement. And I think that this fact is very frustrating to many that have a vested interest in arguing against the
"this" statement, either directly or obliquely.
For example, I really like Dr. Ron Paul, I voted for him in the 2012 primary (my personal form of a protest vote!). I agree with a lot of things that Dr. Paul has said in the past, and I disagree with some other things that he said. So I am perfectly comfortable with standing by his statements about the role of the Fed, even though I may disagree with some tenets of his non-intraventionist policies as relevant to the present day geopolitical landscape. It even goes further, if one were to accept the rumors and innuendo that have been thrown around about him being "racist" or "anti-Israel" as
fact, it still doesn't reduce or eliminate my support for his views on the Fed.
I'm pretty sure that Rush had the same line of thought regrading the Francis article from 1996. The particular point that Francis was making, and that Rush highlighted, was the only reason the article was being discussed. No one really cares what else Francis may have said or done in the past.
Another current example, some people think that Glenn Beck at Waterloo is a kiss of death for Cruz's campaign and that Beck has descended into a madman at this point. Others still love Glenn Beck and view him as a voice of reason and "conservatism." But almost all of agree that Moron Trivia sucks!
I'm not making a judgement on who may be "right" or "wrong" in this particular case, or when it is abstracted to the more general. Just my personal musings as I try to figure out: "What the hell is going on in this world!"
