As the 2008 Presidential campaign unfolds, various storylines are appearing. The supposed inevitability of Hillary, the evolution of Obama, and the musical chairs of the Republican candidates. None of them however are as intriguing to me as the story of Ron Paul.
On the surface, Ron Paul appears to be the perfect Republican candidate. He is the only Republican calling for withdrawal from Iraq in a year when there is strong skepticism throughout the country about our role in Iraq, he is truly fiscally conservative unlike the Republicans in Congress who no longer can make such claims, and is even has some social conservative credentials such as being vocally pro-life. Perhaps the most appealing thing about Ron Paul is that he is a strong advocate for freedom.
Yet he appears to have a fatal flaw that some libertarian/Libertarian folks have. They often are their own worst enemy.
Ask the average fairly well-informed citizen in the U.S. about Libertarians and the list of descriptions will contain some of the following:
- Legalize drugs
- Government is BAD!!!
- Bring back the gold standard
- Get rid of the Dept. of Education
- Conspiracy theories
In short, many Americans believe Libertarians/libertarians (I'm making a distinction between those who belong to the Libertarian party and those who hold to libertarian ideologies) are outside of the mainstream in American politics. Some might even go so far as to call them nutjobs. I recognize that these are unfair and usually inaccurate stereotypes. Nevertheless they exist.
So you would think that an astute politician like Ron Paul would be aware of these negative stereotypes and do everything he could to avoid getting tagged by any of them. You would be wrong.
During last week's CNN/YouTube debate, the following exchange took place with Ron Paul:
YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul. I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.
These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?
(Anderson)Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.
Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.
And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.
And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.
So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.
You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.
But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.
In politics, a question like this is called bait. And most politicians are too smart to fall for the bait. But Ron Paul goes for it hook, line, and sinker.
The substance of the question doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that Ron Paul is on record discussing the Council on Foreign Relations and conspiracies. He might has well have brought up the Illuminati and the Bilderburgs. In fact he did bring up the Trilateral Commission himself.
What should Ron Paul have said instead?
"I'm certainly familiar with organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations but I don't believe in conspiracy theories per se and quite frankly I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am a conspiracy theorist. Regarding my supporters, I am drawing from all across the political spectrum because of my support of freedom. And yes, even those who believe in conspiracy theories believe in freedom as well."
Until Libertarians/libertarians like Ron Paul can learn to not allow themselves to be lampooned in this manner, the beliefs they promote will make little headway. Until Ron Paul can learn to be a smarter politician, he will continue to harm the libertarian cause.
Update: Let me make a few clarifications. I am not relying entirely on Ron Paul's answer to this question about the CFR to make my point. I have heard Paul talk way to much about things like the gold standard and concerns about the Federal Reserve Bank in ways that make it easy to lampoon him. As an aside, I agree with Paul's concern about fiat money and the role of the Fed.
Also, contrary to some of the commenters and emails that I have received, I am not out to get Ron Paul. If I were forced today to pick a Republican to vote for in the primary, it would be Ron Paul.
Comments
Ron Paul Has Been Elected 10 Times
I think that's called "scoreboard" these days.
Furthermore, he's done it without voting for any government largess for his district. I would say he's a pretty darned smart politician, based on the evidence.
I watched the YouTube debate, and I thought he handled the question brilliantly. He let those who care about the issue (and there are a lot of them out there) know that he's on their side, but came across as thoughtful and intelligent, not kooky at all.
Mitt Romney said on his "Ask Mitt Anything" tour in Iowa this summer that the NAU was the second most frequently asked question, after immigration. It's a sleeper issue in the election, and Ron Paul owns it.
As for helping the libertarian cause, I think Ron Paul has done more for it in the past 11 months than anyone else has done in the past 30 years.
I live in the Texas 14th
I live in the Texas 14th Congressional district represented by Ron Paul. Yes, we've elected him to Congress five times since 1996. And, yes, we are dumbasses. At least we have a voting majority of dumbasses.
His goofball presidential campaign, however, has raised some eyebrows here though. I've never been active politically but this guy is just embarassing. Harmless enough as a gadfly Republican representative but I really dislike his use of his seat in the House as a platform for a presidential campaign.
I live in the Texas 14th
I live here in Galveston, which is part of Ron Paul's TX-14 district. My parents moved here from Houston and have been registered Republicans since 1965. I've been one since 1990.
Both my parents and I have voted for him in every election since '96. And I can say with confidence that we're proud Texans to have been able to support Rep. Paul through many of his ten terms in office.
We're just real happy to see the nation come around to his message of low taxes and small government in the same way as us Gulf Coasters.
And I'm completely in support of him launching his second bid for the presidential campaign while representing us. There's no better qualified American, and no better conservative to put true Republican values back in the White House after the past seven years.
That approach that you're
That approach that you're suggesting might have been appropriate 10 years ago, but if I had to make a bet on which way was better today, I might actually go with Dr. Paul's answer.
Enemy number one?
You live in a country ruled by George Bush and Ron Paul is Libertarian Enemy Number One? And for giving an honest answer to a question, too.
Gee, I wonder what your real objection is...hmmm...
Rep. Paul answered this
Rep. Paul answered this issue properly. He neither ranted or raved. He was methodical about the issue, never calling it a conspiracy, but a difference in ideology.
I believe it is you that is uncomfortable in questions like this being raised. That if you ignore the problem, it will go away.
Ignoring Iraq didn't make it go away. Same with the devaluation of the dollar, the high cost of government or the loss of right under the Bush regime.
I know there are more important issues we need to debate and inform the public about, but when given 8 minutes to speak, and you get a question like this, you make lemon aid from the lemons you receive.
You are completely missing
You are completely missing my point. I have no problem with the substance of Ron Paul's answer to this question. But by not explicitly rejecting the idea that he believes in conspiracy theories, he leaves it open for many people to believe that he does.
Kind of like: "So, when did
Kind of like:
"So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
You are damned by the question, no matter how you answer (especially in 90 seconds)
Kind of like: "So, when did
Kind of like:
"So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
You are damned by the question, no matter how you answer (especially in 90 seconds)
----
Um, no - all he had to do is said "I don't believe in that stuff." It wasn't a difficult question to work your way out of.
What Hinton is missing here, and the reason he's confused that Paul didn't give a more mainstream answer, is that Paul genuinely *does* believe all this stuff and, for that matter, so do a lot of his supporters. His answer was essentially "no, those aren't conspiracy theories - those are real!"
If you've listened to the guy in the past, he's spoken much more strongly about NAU theories and the CFR than he did at the debate. According to a former aide of his, he even belongs in the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor" camp.
Far from failing to restrain himself, Ron Paul actually did moderate his comments during that debate into something that's more socially acceptable than usual.
Whatever
His answer explicitly says that he doesn't believe in a conspiracy.
How on Earth can you say that you're not interested in the substance of Paul's answer, but then make substantive statements about his answer, like "he should have said he didn't believe in conspiracies"?
Basically you're complaining that he didn't use exactly the words you would have chosen in order to say that he didn't believe in a conspiracy.
And by the way - the Republican Presidential party platform in 1980 and 1984 explicitly called for the elimination of the Department of Education. This means that the Republican party Presidential candidate to win the most dramatic landslide victories in the last 50 years ran on that platform plank. How, exactly, does that square with your assertion that this is a fringe or non-mainstream idea? Similarly, various ballot initiative and state legislative actions decriminalizing marijuana or creating medical exemptions for marijuana have passed all over the country, and the states have been held back only by federal intervention. What makes these state-level actions, and not the federal response to them, the non-mainstream?
Mystery Man
Yeah, exactly what do we really know about Mr. Paul? He also did not overtly state:
- I am not gay
- I like Cheerios
- hockey is a great sport
- my favorite color is blue
- Hobbits are boring
Until these and other pressing matters are addressed God knows what people must think of him. In fact, until we know who he really is, who cares about his political views and record.
(Hint: Ignore everything I actually wrote. My real message is actually hidden between the lines, and anything I failed to address, well, make up as many blanks as you need and fill them in.)
Will makes a good point
As a Democrat, I've got no dogs in this fight. I do, however, find Ron Paul to be the weirdest candidate out there. He's probably a fine guy, but his followers are all sorts of strange folks. Ron Paul's answer validates their beliefs and makes "normal" folks think that he is just as strange as his online followers.
Ron Paul's answer further reinforces the image that libertarians are people on the political fringe and not ready for a position of power or responsibility. This is no way to win a general election (although, I suspect Ron Paul is running simply to pull the party away from a Giuliani direction)
Weirdest Candidate?
You mean,
weirder than a candidate who thinks he was abducted by aliens (Kucinich),
or weirder than a candidate who runs for president and doesn't care if he wins (Thompson),
or weirder than a candidate who claims gay marriage will destroy civilization (Huckabee),
or weirder than a candidate who has married three times and is Pro-Choice running on a Conservative-Christian ticket (Giuliani),
or weirder than a candidate who fires illegal immigrants working for him after Giuliani mentioned it in the debate (Romney),
or weirder than a candidate who runs her campaign on "My genitalia is different than all the other candidates'" (Clinton)...???
I guess it is kinda "weird" to have a candidate be vocally skeptical of the US government with a diverse group of followers but, is that a bad thing?
As a democrat, you must be against the war (93% of democrats are). The only candidate saying to get the troops out immediatly is Paul. I'm surprised you would cheap shot the only guy on the stage saying "Get out of there now!". In my opinion, that makes you weird.
I'd really like to know your definition of "weird"...
Yeah, wierder
I didn't say that the Republicans weren't weird. They are and you, thankfully, laid out the reasons why. But I'd still say that Ron Paul is the wierdest. He believes, or certainly didn't claim to NOT believe, in a wide-ranging conspiracy to undermine the United States of America. Anyone who thinks that in today's age, with all the diverse opinions and access to media sources, that anyone can keep a secret about ANYTHING of substance for very long is just plain wierd.
Oh, and Governor Bill Richardson has a plan to remove troops from Iraq in 6-8 months. This isn't just grandstanding and declaring it so, like Rep. Paul. He's got a 6-points plan.
He did you one better
Actually, Ron Paul did one better than claim that he doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories.
He gave the right answer - it doesn't take a conspiracy.
The people in the named organizations and the supporters of the named institutions share a certain set of ideas. They don't have to get together and agree to destroy America in any conscious "yay or nay" sort of way. The things they believe naturally lead them to act against the interests of our country.
Ron Paul is, at root, fighting against those ideas - the entire view of the world that makes these organizations possible. How is he supposed to convey that message in a soundbite?
Maybe I Wasn't Clear...
I never said Republicans were weird. I said all the candidates are weird except Paul (but I guess sarcasm ocassionally goes over people's heads).
Do you really think Paul is "weirder" than someone who believes he was abducted by aliens?
If you look at Richardson's site, although he says he wants out of Iraq "soon" (like ALL the other Democrats still beating on the war drum), he also mentions going after the Taliban and nuclear proliferations...
...meaning he's just like everyone else.
Plus, he says he wants to "throw the three sects in a room" and make them talk and "get along"...meaning we are still interfering with other people's affairs.
He wants to make Iran "invest" in fixing the rest of the region (Middle East)...once again, US interference!
Americans want peace. You should check out the documentaries Why We Fight and Power of Nightmares. Our Constitution is straight forward, we are to defend not offend or interfere with other countries through force. If you want peace, vote Ron Paul, it's that simple.
Keeping that secret
I had read history for 30 years, book after book, and yet had NO clue the british army had mutinied during world war one, refusing to fight and killing their officers. It was only after the british government released the fact 70 years later that we had an idea how bad it was. Keeping a secret? Its not that hard.
No Secrets?
If it is impossible to keep secrets then please tell us who the owners are of the Federal Reserve. Come on we are waiting. What is that? You don't know? Wow, guess what, it is because it is a SECRET! And they want it that way.
Neocons are evil and support liberation of slaves
"Libertarian" means protecting the property rights of dictatorships.
The U.S. had no right to invade the Confederate States of American and "free" the slaves.
The U.S. had no right to intervene in Saddam's Iraq, which was his property. The Iraqis were the property of the Baathists.
9-11 was blowback. It's like the weather. It wasn't the terrorists fault, it was the US A good libertarian is supposed to do nothing. Submit!!!
The USA is a terrorist authoritarian state and the worst State in the history of the world. Unlike North Korea and Iraq and Iran. Real , true ANTI-STATISTS know this. Neocons do not.
What are you smoking and where can I get some?
Whomever this is, dude, you're on drugs.
Libertarianism means protecting the property rights of individuals *against* dictators. If you think otherwise then you are just stupid or high.
The Confederacy had every right to leave. Nowhere in the Constitution, to this day, is anything making the Union a Roach Motel. Read your history.
We did have no right to intervene in Iraq: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
Blowback of 9/11 had to do with bad policy. Change the policy to one of peace. That doesn't preclude self-defense at all. Remember, Dr. Paul supported going into Afghanistan and getting OBL (which the neocons have totally screwed up!).
And calling my nation a terrorist state is fighting words. Sure we have our warts, who doesn't, but your comments are uncalled for.
This "guest" must be another hyper-anarchist gasbag. Go organize yourself, think about it, and leave a note where the mop is to clean up the mess after your head explodes.
In the meantime, I'll be out working to get Dr. Paul elected so I can actually afford the mop.
Don't bogart that bong
Neocons are evil because they support the liberation of slaves?
WTF?
You support slavery? o_0
Please tell me your entire comment was a spoof. If it wasn't, you are in fact the stupidest, most bug-eyed insane commenter ever. EVER.
Ron Paul doesn't play "that game"
The very reason Ron Paul's candidacy is "working" is because he's not handling these questions like the mainstream candidates. I think people realize the mainstream candidates don't answer questions based on principles and merit, but they answer them to manipulate public opinion in an environment of a razor-thin first-past-the-post margins and a mass media echo chamber. The wonderful thing about Ron Paul is he doesn't care about these things, and now it is finally starting to not matter because of the disruptive effect of the internet.
I'd almost go so far as to say Ron Paul can't "screw up", because he always speaks his book (substance over show), and his lack of polish is part of his charm. He isn't afraid of his ideas and I agree with most (though not all) of them, and that's enough for me.
I am tired of plastic mainstream candidates produced to manipulate me and shore up a thoroughly dysfunctional, useless, and exploitative system. Ron Paul is not that. PRESIDENT PAUL!
I agree!
Do we want more of same? Look at where all of these middle of the road safe mainstream politicians have gotten us! Be someone unique and stand for what you believe in! I am much more comfortable with someone who lays it all out there even if I disagree with them than someone who plays the game. We have had decades of candidates from both parties with so little substance to differentiate them that normal has come to mean nothing. Give me a little something honest to work with!
Apparently Will's point is
Apparently Will's point is that because so many people out there are incapable of understanding forthright answers to complex issues, it is better to give the age-old non-answer championed by politicians throughout time, where you use the opportunity to grandstand, deflect, and get in as many talking points as possible. Come on, Dr. Paul, learn to play the game!
Small Government. Says Him...
That is untrue. This yer he brought hom almost half a billion dollars worth of pork home.
Produce the HR number of a
Produce the HR number of a budget resolution Paul voted for that included that spending.
The verb "to vote" has a specific and exact meaning, you know.
Ron Paul and Libertarians ARE nutjobs
Ron Paul and L(l)ibertarians ARE nutjobs because they don't belong to the reality based community. They believe in crackpot economic theories that make mainstream and noble prize winning economists shudder, they believe in the vilest and most sinister conspiracy theories, and have the support of racists, anarchists, and other fringe organizations and communities.
UBU is a nutjob!
You mean like Nobel prize winning economist Freiderick Hayek, an anti-fiat free market proponent? You mean like Alan Greenspan:
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
People as ignorant as yourself should not form such strong opinions.
BTW.... To conspire is to plan. Yes Virginia, there are conspiracies. Now go take your Soma and get some rest before the two minute hate tomorrow.
Idiot.
UBU is a nutjob!
You mean like Nobel prize winning economist Freiderick Hayek, an anti-fiat free market proponent? You mean like Alan Greenspan:
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
BTW.... To conspire is to plan. Yes Virginia, there are conspiracies. Now go take your Soma and get some rest before the two minute hate tomorrow.
I sort of agree
I'm a libertarian, but I do not support Ron Paul, mainly for his desire to completely isolate the US from the rest of the world. And because his stand on free trade, particularly NAFTA, is just plain stupid (unemployment has averaged 2% lower since NAFTA was implemented than it did in the equivalent amount of time before it was implemented). And then, his followers are indeed the most absurd I've met. I've yet to hear them give a reasonable argument for him. They tell you all the things he's going to accomplish, but they don't give you any details on how he's going to do them. And if you call them on this, or point out how his platform differs from your values, they call you "ignorant" or "stupid," and tell you to check out his website because you're "twisted" and "don't know about him," even though you just spent time detailing his platform of nothingness and explaining why you disagree. And those are the most common. I've met others who had such outstanding reasons as, "Someone at church mentioned him, so I thought he must be the right candidate," prejudiced hicks who just don't know anything about the world beyond 30 miles from them, and of course, potheads, who expect to be smoking up the minute he takes office. I haven't met one single person who can give a reasoned explanation as to why they support him, and so I have to assume there just isn't one.
I don't know that I think he's a nutjob, but his followers are. And I don't call them supporters. They're followers- blindly worshipping at the altar of Ron Paul.
It's funny...
... to see a self-proclaimed libertarian call others 'prejudiced hicks' and 'potheads'. You've painted a broad stereotype of his supporters. If anything, his supporters can't be stereotyped.
I'm a U.S. Navy veteran, honorably discharged from duty, and I'm also a U.S. citizen with legal immigrant parents. I don't go to church, I don't smoke marijuana, and I think I'm pretty level-headed. I've reviewed all of the issues that RP stands for, and although I don't agree with all of his opinions, it's the vast majority of what he does stand for -- the big issues -- that pulls myself (and I'm sure many others) to this man. His stance is clearly defined, it's actually your vague passive-aggressive attacks that are hard to understand. I yet to meet an unreasonable RP fan.
I'm sure your intention was meant to discredit the passion of Ron Paul and his supporters, but your baseless insults actually hurt your integrity more than anything.
Ubu FTW!
I guess you have to give the nutjobs credit for one thing--it's allied the right and left in opposition to their extremist prattle like nothing else has since that brief moment of solidarity immediately following 9/11.
Ubu's right--the racists, anarchists, conspiracy theorists, and other extremists/fringe kooks are all following Ron Paul like the Pied Piper. If they weren't so damn annoying and venomous, it would be amusing. I for one resent like hell that Ron Paul and his cult have given a (loud!) voice politically to the most hateful people in America (troofers, holocaust deniers, white supremacists, militia scum, etc.).
RP isn't just Libertarian enemy #1, he's a disgrace and an embarrassment to America in general. He may be right on some issues--or at least close to right--but where he's wrong, he's frightfully wrong. Dangerously so. Representing a Congressional district is one thing--he can't do too much harm there. But on a national scale? Unthinkable--and thankfully, it won't happen, regardless of what his cult thinks. (A fool and his money are easily parted, wouldn't you say?)
"Enemy #1" is excessive hyperbole.
Could Ron Paul run a better campaign?
Yes, and for many of the reasons listed above.
Does that escalate him to "Libertarian Enemy #1"?
I don't think so.
But I'll drop the challenge to those who do: Provide a better alternative.
This is not a phony argument to say "Unless you've got better, shut up." No, I mean I want to see those people who complain about the situation work to improve it. Give us something better.
Too many of us are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the "perfect" candidate, the "perfect" platform, the "perfect" political party. We mistake complaint and protest for actual political activity.
Put the political marketplace to work by participating in it, not just going to the political "customer service desk" to complain.
Pardon me if I drifted off topic. But, I've seen plenty of (l/L)ibertarian bashing by other libertarians, who talk as if they are waiting for someone else to provide the solution.
Do you think things were
Do you think things were better when almost nobody knew what libertarianism meant, and just accepted that their only choice was statism? You imagine he comes off crazier than he does because you have accepted the marginalization of the liberty message. Did it occur to you that alot of people prefer straight answers to the style of extreme obfuscation in modern politics? People do not have to agree with him on every issue or statement in order to support him. Should libertarians expect perfection from their candidates, yet statists with far more outrageous statements and closets full of skeletons get a free ride? If you are libertarian, rather than constantly questioning Paul, you should be supporting him at every opportunity. His poll numbers keep going up, yet to some so-called libertarians, it will be a tragedy for libertarianism when Paul wins New Hampshire despite them.
Wrong
"Marginalization" of the liberty message."
Basically, what you're saying is that if Ron Paul decided to go on a kitten-killing spree, you'd defend it, saying that those who disagreed with said kitten-killing spree weren't supporting liberty. IOW, anything RP says or believes is A-OK because he "supports liberty," and anyone who disagrees with his positions on the issues doesn't support liberty, because Ron Paul is THE sole arbiter of "liberty."
LOL. Lemmings.
Ron Paul does not lie
Ron Paul did not dodge the question about the NAFTA superhighway plans because despite the lies and deceit in our govermedia here, it does, in fact exist.
NASCO
Trans Texas Corridor
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType56/Production/pol306.htm
Whatever you want to call it, it is real.
I support Ron Paul because he does not lie.
BTW... The Bilderburgers, Trilateral commission and even the Bavarian Illuminati were real entities. Americans are dumber than a box of hair and damn proud of it. Just because the ignorant fools among us mock any mention of these real entities doesn't mean they should not be spoken of.
That is so dumb.
Who said they don't exist?
Who said they don't exist? Not I. That is beside the point. An undue interest in these organizations is a quick way to get labeled as a nutjob, fair or not.
so is ending your sentence
so is ending your sentence with a prepsition
Crimson
Maybe, but ending that sentence with "asshole" would have been implite. I'd go with the poorly constructed sentence.
Exactly correct Mr. Hinton.
Exactly correct Mr. Hinton. I said this from the beginning: people who care about the gold standard and the NAU will seek out Ron Paul. If he wants to win, he needs to go after the other 85% of the electorate who do not want to vote for anyone even remotely appearing to be a kook, wacko, nut, extremist, radical, etc. Showing that they truly are not ready for primetime, many Ron Paul supporters do not even know what the average voter thinks or hold contempt for them. The average voter cares about a handful of things: Iraq, terrorism, healthcare, immigration, the economy, and the character/leadership/likability of the candidate. Anytime a candidate speaks about a topic that is not one of the main issues, they lose. If Ron Paul's goal is to be like Tancredo with immigration, and run a one note (or several notes in Paul's case) campaign designed to highlight issues, that's fine. But don't think that's the same as running to win.
If we (libertarians) want to win, we tackle the main issues and engage in the mainstream debate, and we understand that change doesn't happen overnight. We pick ONE issue to push, and mainly hew the line on other issues—and perhaps as important, use the established language to describe our position. (Just like doctors, lawyers, and IT guys have their lingo, so do the politicians and voters. When we use different language, it's like holding a neon sign that says we're not "normal".) Many Libertarians try to enact the entire platform in one election, when even one of our positions could get us labeled as wackos. For instance, take the Fair Tax or Universal Healthcare as examples. If Huckabee or Clinton run on that, that will define their campaign because they are proposing radical change. If they tossed in other major changes, the average voter would be overwhelmed and turned off. It's even more important because of the problem of governance. Reagan wanted to abolish departments and privatize Social Security. Instead he settled for tax cuts and winning the Cold War.
If we can't accept political reality and learn to operate within it, we can never achieve victory. You go the polls with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
Spot-on
I'm not a Libertarian myself, but that's the best darn comment I've seen from a Libertarian, bar none. If there were more realistic L's like you speaking up, your membership and votes would likely go way up.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian
No friend of liberty would oppose the USA taking down a regime that declared its enmity to freedom, that cooperated with terrorists over and over again, that subsidized suicide bombers and embarked on a many-branched program to develop weapons of mass destruction which it could give to those terrorist groups. It also tried to take over the most important oil supplies of the world, threatening our free economy. The USA is the home of freedom. It has the right, nay, the obligation to defend that freedom. No war is perfect. This one has the great advantage of being right and effective. By the way, we're winning!
Ron Paul is XXX a libertarian
I suppose that you think George Washington was not a friend of liberty. He was very vocal in his opposition to entangling alliances. John Quincy Adams wrote:
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
"But she goes not abroad, in
"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
Fairly clear.
"She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
But, this is ripe with possibilities. He also had no trouble finding justification for the projection abroad of American military power.
He also said this:
"The constant maintenance of a small squadron in the Mediterranean is a necessary substitute for the humiliating alternative of paying tribute for the security of our commerce in that sea, and for a precarious peace, at the mercy of every caprice of four Barbary States, by whom it was liable to be violated. An additional motive for keeping a respectable force stationed there at this time is found in the maritime war raging between the Greeks and the Turks, and in which the neutral navigation of this Union is always in danger of outrage and depredation."
And, this:
"It were, indeed, a vain and dangerous illusion to believe that in the present or probable condition of human society a commerce so extensive and so rich as ours could exist and be pursued in safety without the continual support of a military marine -- the only arm by which the power of this Confederacy can be estimated or felt by foreign nations, and the only standing military force which can never be dangerous to our own liberties at home."
A prescient man, John Quincy Adams. Unfortunately, the "vain and dangerous illusion" persists albeit a much different context.
Source for the above quotes can be found here.
Ron Paul just gave the guy a
Ron Paul just gave the guy a straight answer, something most politicians are not doing these days. Ever listen to Hillary, or her spokesbots? Or most any other candidate for that matter.
I will vote for Paul in the Texas primary but will not be able to in the general elections as I no longer vote for major party candidates in a national election - Gerald Ford being the last.
BTW, I'm often called 'weird' by people I know and I make sure to thank them for that compliment.
Libertexian - you don't know Will
If you think that somehow this discussion about Ron Paul was a defense of or applause of Senator Clinton, you don't know Will. Will has his own issues with her.
You can be happy to be weird, but most people don't like it. In fact, as the commenter above says, until libertarians show they AREN'T weird, no one will take them seriously at the ballot box.
Welcome to the Club!
Will:
Welcome to the "Those Concerned that Paul Could Be Bad for Libertarians in the Long Run" Club. With your membership, you receive a free pair of scissors to cut through the tin foil hats worn by the influx of commenters you're about to get telling you that the NAU, CFR, and Trilateral Commission are not only real, but also really, really evil. You also receive a free graphic that you can post repeatedly that says "You're completely missing my point." This saves hours of time responding to commenters who think that you are the Devil incarnate for questioning orthodoxy about Ron Paul.
For an extra gold coin, you can also get another graphic that says "I am not out to get Ron Paul. If I were forced today to pick a Republican to vote for in the primary, it would be Ron Paul." This is handy for responding to commenters who insist that you are really a Giuliani supporter in disguise.
LOL - Too funny. Thanks.
Was that so hard, Mark?
Council on Foreign Relations? Check.
Trilateral Commission? Check.
North American Union? Too early in the game for it to have an official website. No doubt it will follow the model of the European Union. Like the EU, it will "evolve" from existing institutions, and then after a decade or so of official existence, claim a "50 year anniversary."
What is it with you "anti-conspiracy theorists" and your inability to use Google? Why is it that I can find the official websites of two of those "groups that don't exist" out in the open, but you can't?
The movement toward the North American Union is quite open, and not even criminal. It is not a conspiracy, but rather being built clearly in the open. The infrastructure is being built, the legal and economic systems are being harmonized by proposals from the SPP, and all three major North American governments have committed to working toward common goals.
Mark, this is how the European Union started as a mere economic organization called the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s and turned into the European Union. It is a slow process, that takes at least about 50 years to get under way. If the SPP and NAFTA follow the ECSC model, we can expect North America to be under a EU-style confederation by no later than around 2055-2060.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I will remind you that on the matter of credibility, you have claimed that major, influential groups that operate openly with official websites don't even exist. Even a cursory Google search is enough to prove that you may be little more than the flipside of the coin WRT conspiracy theorizing.
Suffice it to say, what I am pointing out here is a matter of observing current political processes, and comparing them to a known quantity--the European Union. If you look at all of the factors involved, you will see a startling similarity between the SPP/NAFTA and the ECSC. You might want to refer to this timeline of the European Union's growth to see how it morphed from an inocuous trade organization into a continental, multi-national confederation. We are currently between stages 1 and 2, essentially where the EU was during the stage of the Treaty of Rome.
Ugh!
Uhh...I never said they weren't real. I really don't feel like getting into this debate all over again since I've done so way too many times before. More importantly, you completely miss the point of my comment (and in the process proved my point, oddly enough).
But, long story short: how, exactly are all of these things evil? Is Europe as a whole more or less free with the EU, and are things in EU countries better or worse than they were before the EU? If your answer is "less free" and "worse," then have you actually been to an EU country lately? Not to say the EU is perfect- just that I don't see how it's any more or less evil than any other governing body with at least some regard for classically liberal values.
Post new comment