What Guys Like Ron Paul Used to Be Called

I came across this great article today and couldn't agree more with the sentiment -- except that I'm not a huge Lou Dobbs fan. Unlike Isabel Lyman, author of the article, I would actually listen to Rush Limbaugh than Lou Dobbs. Yes, Lou Dobbs is right on immigration, but his overt populism creeps me out. Rush is wrong on the war and a few other things, but he is generally highly entertaining, and far more thoughtful than his critics give him credit for. Here is what Isabel Lyman had  to say in Taki's Top Drawer:

In fact, in the last century, right-wing types had a simple way of describing patriotic congressional representatives like Ron Paul, who championed limited federal government, believed in natural rights, respected the oath they swore to uphold, and eschewed Wilsonian-style foreign policy. We used to call them “conservatives.”

You may be familiar with Taki from his founding of The American Conservative with Pat Buchanan as well as his connection to some Objectivist circles. If you haven't already checked it out, The American Conservative offers conservative analysis (opposed to neoconservative analysis, such as what is published in National Review and The Weekly Standard). Once upon a time, National Review could be counted on for reasonably conservative/libertarian (of the small-l variety) viewpoints. You can still find a few voices of reason in its pages, but it is getting frighteningly more and more neocon. And The Weekly Standard? I love Fred Barnes, but the rest of them have got to go. They are just way too hesitant to be constructively critical of the Bush administration. Reason magazine is good, but it's not quite filling the void, especially for for those of us who are pro-life (as the vast majority of actual conservatives are). I feel there is room for a new magazine for the revolutionaries who are Ron Paul supporters -- i.e., those of us who used to be called conservative.