"I'm a recovering Ron Paul supporter and I haven't attacked someone else personally in four weeks."

These words are the words which one really would hope to hear from the deranged masses which purport to support Congressman Ron Paul. These people claim to be defenders of liberty, small government. They will tell you that they support the only true conservative in the race. They will stand up zealously for their candidate and shout Ron Paul's name to every internet forum that will listen, expecting that to be evidence of Representative Paul's true virtue, for who else could inspire such zealotry? The reality behind Ron Paul supporters, however, is far more ugly than they would like you to believe, for though these people share the ideological trappings of conservatives, their behavior is about as irrational and hysterical as that movement which stands as the great monument against reason - the movement of liberalism. In short, Ron Paul's supporters are conservatives...who act like liberals.

In saying that, I don't mean to cast aspersions on Ron Paul himself. The man really does stand as a monument to pure, uncompromising, fierce conservatism, and even his foreign policy views retain the old notes of conservative thinking, though those notes now fall on deaf ears within the movement. I can understand how many conservatives would feel passionate about the man, seeing as we have been locked in a stupor of mediocrity and centrism for the past God-knows-how-many years. However, that does not excuse the blind irrationality, childishness and poor argumentation that many of Ron Paul's supporters use.

For example, upon commenting on a few particular forums that I supported Romney rather than Paul because he could actually win the nomination and the Presidency, I was immediately assailed on all sides by Paul supporters for being a "coward" and a "sellout" and other unpleasant terms which are unfit to print on a public blog. Now, I would expect this sort of poor argumentation and name-calling from liberals. After all, they typically cherish being able to straw-man their opponents as racists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes etc. However, to get this sort of nonsense from conservatives is shameful. As such, I ask myself why it is happening.

And I answer myself - it is true because many of Paul's most vehement supporters are not conservatives. Rather, they belong to cults associated with the likes of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. They are what Russell Kirk called the "chirping sectaries" of libertarianism.

Now, as a recovering libertarian, I will tell you that people who are libertarians early on frequently become conservatives, but that is conditional upon them being, to use Frank Meyer's term, "conservative libertarians" rather than "libertine libertarians." Many of Paul's supporters, I fear, are of the latter category - people who resent not just the monstrous force of Government, but also the more benevolent forces of prescription, prejudice and tradition. These are the people who, rather than wanting to halt the coarsening of the culture, chide those of us who complain of it for being "prudes", "regressives" and "fools." These are the same shrieking demons who lurk behind the smug grins of self-proclaimed "libertarians" such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. I do not think I need to address why Maher's use of the term to describe himself borders on self-parody. As for Stewart, I don't presume to impugn his libertarian credentials, but when was the last time you saw the man mock liberals as ruthlessly as he mocks us poor fools on the right? Perhaps, like many of his misguided ken, he sees the right as a greater threat to freedom than the left because his libertine hubris cannot stand the traditional approach of our social wing, but has no problem accepting the collectivist delusions of the Left's economic vision. Either way, it strikes me as distinctly unlikely, if Mr. Stewart is a libertarian, that he is the right sort of libertarian.

What does all of this have to do with Ron Paul? Well, I mentioned Jon Stewart and Bill Maher because Dr. Paul has appeared on both men's shows and gotten thunderous applause from the extremely liberal audience - as opposed to shows with reliably conservative viewers such as Hannity and Colmes, where his reception has been stony at best. Does this immense popularity with the Left (not the center, or the center-Right, mind you) have anything to do with the sudden upsurge in ad hominem attacks from Ron Paul supporters? I think it does. This is not to suggest that all Paul supporters are flaming liberals - I know that Rudy Takala is a Paul supporter, and I'd rather propose a bill protecting traditional marriage in the Massachusetts State Legislature than accuse Rudy of being a liberal. However, Rudy is also not the one calling people "cowards" and "sellouts" in internet forums. That dubious title, I believe, belongs to the liberals and those about to join their ranks.

I understand that it must be nice for Dr. Paul to have such devoted supporters - but in the long run, I think they hurt him. Though I support Romney, I think Dr. Paul is in a prime place to be Treasury Secretary, or perhaps even Vice President, if he plays his cards right. I also think that Dr. Paul's vocal support base signals a future shift in the Conservative movement similar to the shift that occurred under Barry Goldwater. I only pray that, when that shift comes, it will be the Conservatives who instigate it, and not the libertines.