My Problem with Ron Paul
Don't get me wrong: if things get as bad as I think they're going to get, I still believe Ron Paul may be the only presidential candidate with the gumption, the ideology and the incorruptibility needed to save America. (And by extension, the Free World).
So why do I still find my sympathies, on occasion, wavering towards Rick Perry? Why am I still praying that Sarah Palin decides to throw her hat in the ring? Why, given my libertarian leanings, am I still very much a closet Paul aficionado rather than an out and proud Paul nut?
In two words: his fans.
When you write a piece in favor of Palin, the general response is a barrage of hate from leftists who feel threatened by her and a tidal wave of love from Palinistas who share your enthusiasm.
When you write a piece in favor of Paul, the responses are a bit scarier. Either, a) you find yourself being welcomed into the elite brotherhood of Enlightened Ones Who Finally Get It and are thereafter automatically assumed to have all sorts of opinions you don't necessarily have: 9/11 being a "false flag" operation, and such like. Or, you find yourself subject to niggling criticisms for those tiny sections of your paean where you have expressed the slightest glimmer of a hint of a reservation about the PaulGodEmperor's sublime and mighty wondrousness.
One can't, of course, blame Paul for attracting this level of zeal. But it doesn't do his cause any favors. Maybe there is a conspiracy in the MSM to ignore his popularity (there's a conspiracy in the MSM to ignore lots of true things, not least the fact that Man Made Global Warming is the biggest and most expensive scam in history). The problem is that the way the Paulites keep banging on about it just makes them sound whiny, needy, petulant.
And I'm not sure that Dr Paul (as they will insist on calling him) can do much about this. He's a serious man with his serious ideas and as a result his followers take him very seriously. If only he could watch a few Ronnie Reagan videos. Learn to lighten up a bit.
As I say, all this may change if America falls off a cliff between now and 2012 and Armageddon begins: then cranky, austere, Howard Roark-ish Paul will be just the ticket. But suppose the very worst doesn't happen, then I think Americans are going to need more in a presidential candidate than mere integrity and ideological soundness. Electability, for example.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
As far as his domestic agenda goes, I find myself in agreement with quite a bit of it.
His pronouncements on foreign policy are another matter. I wonder -- do the voices in his head have formal roll-call votes, or is it just by acclamation?
Apr '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Well, it won't be Paul and it won't be Bachmann.
The next President of the United States will be one of these four people:
Obama
Palin
Perry
Romney
Edited on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:14amAug '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Viator: Well, it won't be Paul and it won't be Bachmann.
The next President of the United States will be one these four people:
Obama
Palin
Perry
Romney · Sep 14 at 5:23am
If you are correct, then we might as well pack it in. Game's over.
Percival: As far as his domestic agenda goes, I find myself in agreement with quite a bit of it.
His pronouncements on foreign policy are another matter. I wonder -- do the voices in his head have formal roll-call votes, or is it just by acclamation? · Sep 14 at 5:02am
Thanks for reminding us that Paul's detractors can be just as nasty as some of his supporters.
Mar '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
"danok1" - thank you for your reminder, with your responses to Percival's comments, of the creepiness of the Paulites.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the only thing worse that could happen to US politics than a second term of Obama would be the election of Ron Paul. He shouldn't even be in the Republican Party - he should go off with the likes of other isolationists and anti-semites like Pat Buchanan.
Apr '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
In your linked article, you describe Paul's principles as "adamantine". A couple of counterexamples:
Paul believes that he is the only congressman who follows the Constitution 100% of the time. Paul believes that the Constitution prohibits federal regulation of abortion, including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Paul voted for the act anyway, on the basis that 100% support for the Constitution only applies when more important principles are not at stake.
Paul's protectionism is most frequently justified by the claim that Congressional-Executive Agreements are unconstitutional and are not valid laws. Paul votes in Congress by right of the Congressional Executive agreement admitting Texas into the Union. If only he could stand by his principles and repudiate his seat!
Sep '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Have you considered that if we go off the cliff the party that holds power for the next 4 years will not hold power again for a l o n g time. There was a chance of addressing the fundamental problems in 2008 and 09. They were not addressed by either O or Bush. There may will be nothing that can be done anymore that will not entail 5 - 7 years of extreme conditions. Winning in 12 may in the long run may turn out to be an undesirable thing.
May '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Rep. Paul is right about a lot of things. However, his ideas regarding the gold standard are just...misguided. He needs to read Making Money by Sir Terry Pratchett. It is a great story that teaches the lesson of why the gold standard is just simply nonsensical.
Jul '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
It's kind of why I don't speak of being an Atheist. The assumption is that if I have trouble with faith, I must agree with (and follow, religiously), Richard Dawkins. But just because I don't agree with Dawkins, does not mean I claim to have faith, either.
Elections are not about electing the most popular kid in high school i.e. the one who hangs out with the coolest kids. Neither are they about electing your intellectual clone into office. Despite 8 years of having a president who did not agree with abortion, abortion laws did not change.
Some of us criticize the cult of personality election of Obama and then turn around and make the same stupid mistake regarding Paul and others. I don't agree with the man 100%, but if he wins the nomination, he has my vote wholeheartedly. AND, philosophically speaking, I agree with many of his positions. The chances of him passing his vision without change are slim, since we have a republic consisting of three branches. A watered down version of Paul's ideas (which is what one gets of any elected president) will not be a bad future.
Aug '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Heshmon: "danok1" - thank you for your reminder, with your responses to Percival's comments, of the creepiness of the Paulites.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the only thing worse that could happen to US politics than a second term of Obama would be the election of Ron Paul. He shouldn't even be in the Republican Party - he should go off with the likes of other isolationists and anti-semites like Pat Buchanan. · Sep 14 at 6:16am
Let's see, Percival said Ron Paul hears voices, I said that shows Paul's detractors can be just as nasty as some of his supporters, and I'M the creep?
I'm not a Paulite, but I sure don't think Romney, Perry, or Palin is the answer to our problems.
Mar '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
In my adjusting to the US political system I went through a phase of thinking I was a Libertarian, as I didn't really like the Republicans (I was a UK Conservative). Then, largely through listening to Mr Beck and Mr Limbaugh, I realized I remain a conservative in the US. Fortunately the Tea Party came along, so I identify mostly with that.
If you must have a Libertarian, I think Gary Johnson is much better than Dr Paul.
But I agree, it would be great if Mrs Palin entered the race - she is the most conservative in the sense of Reagan/Thatcher - but it looks increasingly unlikely.
So we are left with the choice between Mr Perry and Mr Romney - neither is ideal, but either would be fine.
In AZ you have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican Primary, so I registered as a Republican, and will cast my vote for whoever is left standing next year - we shall see.
Edited on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:28amJun '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Ron Paul will never be President of the United States - thankfully. His 18th century American isolationist position is no longer tenable in world where rogue regimes have the wherewithal to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. His characterization of Iran as a benign and harmless player in the Middle East is naive and dangerous. He attracts a fringe element of the American electorate who know little of world history and the consequences that occur when rulers or ruling authorities have brought death, rape, torture, famine and genocide to their own people and their neighbors.
He looks at American force posture as only an economic calculation and not as a hedge against mayhem and chaos or a way to hold adventurism from evil actors in check. He claims that America has been an "occupying" force in many countries when he doesn't understand what the term "occupying" means. His recent remarks on 9/11 are reckless and serve to only give aid and comfort to Islamist terrorists.
This man should never, ever be Commander-in-Chief.
Feb '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
I don't think being a rigid constitutionalist is such a good idea as many here think. James Madison was also a rigid constitutionalist and an extremely bad president. I mean, he set things in motion so you lot could burn Washington.
As for followers, I think it has more to do with politics in general. Politics seems to attract nutters, left or right.
Sep '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
I think Paul (like Will Wilkinson) believes we murdered 200,000 Iraqis (the figure from a discredited Lancet article which nonetheless keeps getting bandied about, never mind that, even if the figure were correct, WE didn't do the killing; Iraqis and outside agitators did), which, to my mind, is theory run amok. Years ago he allowed his newsletter to be filled with creepy racist tracts, and despite his asserted intellectual purity, he's okay with a ban on abortion. None of these is a good indicator of a principled intellect. Not to mention thinking it would be literally okay for Iran to have a bomb. I just don't see how that squares with liberty, which is more important to me than even the Constitution. I agree with David Williamson that Gary Johnson is a much better model of a libertarian candidate.
Apr '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Ron Paul is the only candidate who I wouldnt vote for against Obama and that is saying something,believe me.A man who essentially blames the US for 9/11 and has no problem with Iran obtaining nukes and wants to withdraw from the world is an embarrassment to the GOP......a disgrace
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
What I dislike most about Obama are his manifold efforts to cut America down to size with his domestic policies. Everything he aims to do --ObamaCare, increased welfare state, raise taxes, etc-- hurts the American economy and furthermore reduces America's standing in the world.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, Ron Paul's raving about American occupation and his failure to see that the U.S. has global interests are very much corollaries to Obama's work at home.
I just don't think we can handle four years of Obama's rubbish domestic policy followed by four years of Paul's very scary foreign policy.
Apr '11
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
I know a Ron Paul presidency is very much a long shot, but he's the one I'd most like to vote for. I think he is naive when it comes to Iran, but I'm more concerned about this country collapsing from debt than I am about a nuclear Iran destroying us. Furthermore, any president who thinks he/she can stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons without a war is fooling themselves, and Americans do not want another war. All of the Republicans talk about cutting spending but I think Ron Paul is the one with the most determination to do it. He's not going to roll over on spending just because the press is portraying him as being heartless. Can we say the same for Mitt Romney, for example?
Oct '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
I think Paul's naïveté applies to everything. His idea of the constitution and American history is his romanticized version of it. This is a guy who thinks Lincoln was a tyrant who started the civil war as a power grab. If he were alive in the 18th century he would have called Washington and Jefferson neocons. I think he's basically a Leftist whose utopia is a libertarian society. The only difference is the rhetoric.
Oct '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Sep '10
Re: My Problem with Ron Paul
Yes, to me he's quite the grumpy romantic.