Ramesh Ponnuru scoffs at the notion that Ron Paul’s tilt at the White House has, supposedly, encouraged an upswelling of libertarian sentiment in parts of the Republican Party. My rough guess is that he has had a bit of a positive effect and has raised a lot of money over the internet, pretty fast. Some people try to dismiss Paul as a kook but their dismissals seem to amount to little more than smears of half-understood points, such as his championing of gold-backed money (I am not convinced the dollar should be tied to gold but it is not nearly as daft, when you think about it, as the idea that the world’s largest economy can be run by a Federal Reserve bank by an army of economic gods). Despite my own differences with his strict non-interventionist foreign policy, which, pace some libertarians, is not necessarily a logical outcome of the non-initiation of force principle in the face of major foreign threats, Paul is a breath of fresh air. He is no Ronald Reagan or even Barry Goldwater in terms of his name recognition factor or charisma – I bet hardly anyone in Britain outside a small group of political anoraks has heard of him, but his profile is pretty impressive.
Ponnuru points to Ron Paul’s own stance on abortion to prove that he is not quite the darling of the libertarian movement that some might claim. Rubbish: if Ponnuru has read any libertarian authors thoroughly, he would notice that libertarians can and do differ quite a bit on the issue. The issue of how one goes from the axiom of the right to life to the vexed question of when life begins is a difficult one, and I am not sure I am clear myself on this one. Ron Paul is against federal, ie, tax funds for abortion clinics. But that does not make him anti-abortion, it makes him anti-spending, at least on this issue.
Paul Marks has argued on this blog elsewhere that Ron Paul’s record on spending is not spotless – it is hard to think of any politician who is – but I think he is generally a positive influence on American politics.
The prospect of such a man in Britain’s Conservative Party reaching any sort of senior position at present is, of course, nil.
I generally agree with this sentiment. As I’ve stated previously, I think Paul is good to have around the Republican party and in the presidential primary race, but for a variety of reasons I wouldn’t want him to actually be president.
Having been a pro-life libertarian myself, I am perfectly aware that the species exists. My point was that Gillespie and Welch understated how pro-life Paul is to fit their version of libertarianism.
I like Ron Paul, but even if the GOP starting looking more like the small government, small spending party that could nominate someone like Ron Paul, they still wouldn’t. Paul is 72, he will be 73 by the time of the election, the same age Reagan was when he started his second term. Even if he were to win in 2008, a Ron Paul Presidency would likely be a one term Presidency simply because of Paul’s age, and the GOP isn’t going to risk asking the American public to elect a 77 year old into the oval office in 2012.
It really is a shame though, but at least he is raising the profile of small government politicians. Reagan won against a hopeless Carter as a 69 year old. Paul won’t be facing such lacklustre opposition. He could be run as a lame duck candidate, after all it is hard to see the Republicans not getting punished in the race for the Oval Office because of the sins of Bush. At least Ron Paul would differentiate the Republicans, if he got a good running mate, tempting Americans 4 years later to vote GOP.
I don’t think that Ron Paul is advocating merely backing the dollar with gold. He’s advocating a free market competition between various commodity-backed currencies. Imagine one backed by gold, another by silver, or crude oil, et al.
Probably the Federal Reserve dollar would continue to be used for day-to-day transactions, but with the other currencies used for savings, etc.
A dark horse candidate like Ron Paul doesn’t have to win, or even have a hope of winning to profoundly effect the course of American politics.
American politics evolves largely having mainstream politicians absorb ideas once thought to extreme. Once ideas begin to collect support among 10% or so of the population, politicians towards the center will integrate those ideas. Ross Perot never won anything and yet his ideas exerted a great deal of impact on American politics in the 90’s.
I will tolerate talk of “tied to gold” or “gold backed money” from a lot of people Johnathan – but not from you (you know too much to be forgiven sloppy writing like that).
Murry Rothbard may have been a moron about many things (not opposing Nazi Germany, not opposing the Soviet Union and so on) but he understood economics, and monetary theory was his area of special interest.
It is gold-as-money.
To someone who follows the Murry Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises Institute line – notes (if they are allowed at all) are just warehouse certificates – it is the gold not the note that is the money.
Ditto if silver is the money (or whatever).
Why do you think the Feds raided that organization in Indianapolis a few days ago and confiscated the “Ron Paul Liberty Dollars” they were not notes Johnathan – they were bits of GOLD.
The government claims that they break various laws against counterfitting – which is funny as it is really the government coins (let alone the notes) that are counterfeit – as they are neither gold nor silver.
It goes back to some Supreme Court cases:
In the first Greenback case the Surpreme Court ruled that issuring fiat money was unconsitutional (the Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase, actually ruling that what he had done, in his capacity as Treasuary Secretary, during the Civil War was wrong), a few added Justices later the “Second Green Back Case” ruled that what the government had done was O.K. – no one really cared that much as the Greenbacks were being withdrawn from circulation anyway.
However, in 1913 the “private” Federal Reserve system was set up.
And in the early 1930’s (during the Great Depression produced by the credit-money bubble of the late 1920’s and the demented reaction to the popping of the bubble) the F.D.R. regime wanted to not only end convertability of the (unconstitutional) paper Dollar to gold – but void all gold clauses in private contracts, and steal privately owned gold as well.
The Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) ruled that F.D.R. using the Constitution of the United States to wipe his backside on was perfectly O.K.
So even though the private ownership of gold bullion was made “legal” again in the early 1970’s (correctly speaking it was never illegal – unless one believes that “law” is the arbitrary will of the rulers) raids like the one in Indianapolis a few days ago.
“But no one could mistake the face of Ron Paul for George Washington and the coin said Liberty Dollar not Dollar”.
It does not matter – the last thing the government wants is anyone drawing practical attention to their counterfeit currency and the whole corrupt special interest credit bubble financial system the government represents
All the above being said……
If I was a citizen, which I am not, I would still not vote for Ron Paul – and not just because he has not been attacking the Welfare State during the campaign, and thinks that if the West did not bother the radical Muslims they would not bother us (everything in the world is the fault of the United States you see – Murry Rothbard may be dead but his influence lives on).
The thing is as follows:
At heart I would not “press the button” (as Rothbard used to put) and bring the whole rotten system crashing down. I am timid reformer really – I would desperatly try and prevent a collapse as I timidly reformed.
I doubt, in practice, that I would be stricter than Paul Volker was.
Although even being as strict (on limiting subsidies to the financial industry) as Paul Volker would make a lot of people want to kill me.
Because there is a knock on effect.
Cutting off the subsidies does not just hit the financial industry – it hits the “real” economy also (hence the big 1981-1982 recession – a needed clear out, but one that did NOT alter the basic structure of the economy).
Going all the way and saying “all those government Dollars are counterfeit, may you burn in Hell you credit bubble financial industry scum bags, with your fiat money lenders-of-last-resort and franctional reserve banking” would not just hit people like you Johnathan.
The Irish may say “I would not start from here” but sadly we have to.
If we had a proper financial system and someone suggested the one we have now instead, I would shoot them in the head (free speech not withstanding) – and I would shoot them twice, to make sure they were dead.
However, we do not have a proper financial system -and I believe (as the gutless timid person that I am) that we have to start from where we are.
One big difference between European politics (excepting the special case of Britain) and American is the well-known pattern of coalition: Europeans form their coalitions among the parties after the election; Americans do it within the parties before the election. Paul cannot be elected, but I agree that his candidacy serves notice that the libertarian wing of the Republicans is not happy with compassionate conservatism. Many of us would prefer a government that would just stay out of our hair, maintain a fair system of justice, keep the currency stable, and make sure the barbarians stay on their side of the river. Please note that staying out of our hair is the first priority.
I love it when Republicans (or anyone) dismiss Libertarian-leaning figures just because they’re not 100% certified Ayn Rand acolytes. I doubt Ramesh Ponnuru has ever in his life voted for any politician at any level of government with whom he agreed 100% on all policy issues. And yet the fact that Ron Paul might not completely toe the Reason party line on abortion implies … what, exactly? That libertarian-minded Republicans should vote for Rudy Giuliani instead? That Ron Paul’s substantially Libertarian stance on every other issue therefore exerts no influence on Republican Party politics whatever? And all this is not to mention, as Jonathan quite correctly points out, that abortion isn’t even a settled issue for Libertarians anyway. Why is it that the mere mention of the word “Libertarian” in political discourse turns otherwise intelligent commentators into pedestrian idiots? It’s as if they forget all the argumentative reasoning they’ve learned since high school and go back to thinking like a member of the junior high debate team.
Not in the intended sense they weren’t. They are made partly of gold, but not gold equal to the amount the represent. They are redeemable for gold – which is stored in a private vault in Idaho. So there is nothing about the Liberty Dollar that is really any different from how gold standard currency used to operate before the 30s.
Not strictly speaking. Strictly speaking, the gold under such systems is only a guarantee against arbitrary meddling by the government (or holding bank). It ties the currency to some outside measure of value that the government (or issuing bank) can’t just add zeros to when it wants to spread “wealth” around. But gold standard systems still depend in large part on the gamble that everyone holding gold (silver, oil, linoleum, whatever) certificates won’t rush the bank at once demanding their shares. If they did, there simply wouldn’t be enough to go around. Banks – even under gold standard systems – don’t necessarily limit themselves to issuing loans only on what they have in the vault. They also issue new loans on the promise of old loans being repaid, so there is often more money in the system than there is “money” in the bank. But that is as it should be – since money is not gold (silver, etc.) – it is “redeemable utility.” If people are busy producing utility, then …
Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan. I happen to disagree with him about Iraq, but I don’t think his position amounts to the idea that leaving the radical Muslims alone will make everything peachy. The only reason anyone has that impression is because those are the perverse terms of the debate these days, and media coverage of Paul pigeonholes him into them.
It’s true that he has been focusing on the Iraq War issue in his speeches, but that is because that’s what gets attention. Dark horse candidates have a hell of a time getting media recognition in the US because the two-party system is so entrenched here. So Paul focuses on issues that will get him attention. He is a politician. That hasn’t stopped him from attacking the welfare state now and then. He did, after all, appear on Colbert (admittedly not a serious political commentary show) saying that he wanted to abolish, among other things, the Department of Education. He’s not hiding his anti-Welfare State creds, and I think we could count on him as President to veto enough spending bills to lead us to the brink of armed revolution in the inner cities. Since that’s better than I really could have expected from any mainstream party candidate in my lifetime, he has my vote.
Too bad he hasn’t got a prayer.
In one of the debates, they asked the GOP candidates to name three government programmes they would get rid of. If I recall rightly, most of them come up with rather trivial answers to the question. Ron Paul said he ‘would start with the departments’. He then named (1) the Department of Energy, (2) Department of Education, and (3) the Department of Homeland Security.
I stand partly wrong on the first point Joshua so I apologize to you – however only partly wrong (I was wrong in thinking the coin would actually have the weight of gold in it that it was supposed to be). But the system you describe was not the system as it existed in the 1920’s (at least I do not think it was).
Even if we ignore all the book keeping money (i.e. the fractional reserve games of the banks and other institutions) the government, as far as I know, did not have enough gold to cover all the paper notes back in the 1920’s.
In Britain I do know that the Bank of England issued more notes than it had gold right from 1694 – the difference was not very big, but it was there.
On the second point, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ROTHBARD you are mistaken Joshua.
To Rothbard (and a lot of other Austrian school economists) the name of a currency should be a measure of weight.
For example if the money is gold then the note (if notes exist at all) should represent say one ounce of a certain type of gold.
To Rothbard (and others) anything else was not only economically damaging (leading to boom-busts) but fraud as well.
For example, to Rothbard and co, the directors of a bank that issued a lot of notes (or drafts or whatever other game they played to get round Sir Robert Peel’s Act of 1844) and was then found not to have all the gold (or silver or whatever it was using as money) to cover all its drafts, cheques (whatever) should go to prison.
Indeed, I have the feeling that Rothbard would have liked to do a lot more to them than send them to prison.
Well, right – but I think I made clear in the second part of the same comment that I was well aware that that’s how gold standard systems traditionally operate.
However, you are probably right that Liberty Dollars are fully redeemable – that is, that whereever this mysterious place in Idaho is it has enough gold to cover every LD bill in circulation (they issue bills in addition to coins). However, I should point out that you buy Liberty Dollars at a discount. You pay more for them than they’re actually worth – part of it is a service fee. The advertising pitch goes that you’ll make it back in your hedge against inflation in under 5 years – which is probably true. (I looked into buying some Liberty Dollars a few years ago. I live in Indiana and so there are a handful of businesses in driving distance that accept them, and I thought it a kind of Libertarian duty to support a real economy, however fledgling, if one exists locally..) So in that sense neither are Liberty Dollars purely “Rothbardian” either.
But I concede that if we are talking about Rothbard (which we were), then you’re right – money in the 1920s was also not satisfactory (though certainly Rothbard would agree it was better than the funny money we’ve had since the 30s).
I do not believe Mises was quite that fanatical about gold standard money, however. If I am not mistaken, Mises merely disapproved of the government monopoly on the issuing bank (sorry, the Federal Reserve is, of course, “private”), not the idea that banks sometimes issue more money in loans than they have in the vault.
Cynic – yes getting rid of those three departments would be a good idea.
Republicans forget that the Department of Homeland Security (a bureaucratic nightmare) was first a Democrat idea – but then they have long forgotten that the Pledge of Allegiance was thought up by the socialist Bellamy brothers (Francis and Edward) and it is to “the flag” (plus a lot of vague waffle) because the brothers hated the principles of the Constitution of the United States (and because the brothers hoped to get support from the flag making companies – NO I am not making that point up).
Sadly Ron Paul has not talked about the entitlement programs during this campaign (although he used to), he DID hide his anti Welfare State principles – at least in all the debates I watched.
He has left the area to Tom Tancredo (when he stops talking about immigration for five seconds) and Fred Thompson – when he is not fighting Fox News.
The last point is important.
Fred Thompson is the best (or least bad) of the top candidates on government spending, “gun control” and just about everything else.
But without a friendly eye from F.N.C. it is hard to see any Republican having a chance.
The other networks hate Republicans (that is a given), but if even F.N.C. does not like you …… well things are not good.
Joshua.
Ron Paul on radical Islam:
If the West had not gone into Iraq in 2003 not being there now would not matter – but as we did go in, running away now would make defeat in Afghanistan much more likely (as enemy spirits would rise and a lot of people would switch sides) and make the world struggle (and we are in a world struggle) much more difficult to win.
Iran is a good indivator for Ron Paul:
Helping kick out a proSoviet Prime Minister in 1953 may have been good policy or bad policy.
But talking about the operation, and nothing else, is not a policy with dealing with the Iranian regime now.
Not just the President of Iran, but the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians believe that if they kill enough infidels (world wide) the 12th, or hidden, Imam will be impressed and lead them to world conquest.
Following a policy of “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone” which IS Ron Paul’s policy on Iran, just misses the point of who the regime is.
I should probably begin by clarifying that I do not support Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I am in favor of the Iraq War.
That said, I do not think the issue need be as simple as you’re painting it here. We have plenty of room to “cut-and-run” in Iraq and still fight a winning war in Afghanistan. Admittedly – only if we divert a lot of what’s in Iraq now to securing Afghanistan (and maybe just maybe catching a certain petty annoyance of a leader of Al Qaeda in the process) – something that I concede Ron Paul is unlikely to do. But my point here is simply to say that withdrawing from Iraq is not necessarily a concession of defeat if handled in the right way (and by “the right way” I mean fighting more vigorously in Afghanistan and setting up bases there to potentially invade Iran if necessary).
Maybe. But it might also be a sober estimate of how likely the regime actually is to cause trouble. Iran is more likely to run itself into the ground than it is to wage nuclear war on the West. I’m personally in favor of precision bombing their nuclear facilities if they get close to the danger zone but otherwise leaving them alone. Ranting about the coming of the 12th caliphate isn’t a danger – it’s actually fighting for it that is. The same way that Khieu Samphan can talk about how great the Khmer Rouge was all he wants so long as he doesn’t actually bring it back. As long as Iran is just spouting nonsense, let’s leave them be. But let’s keep an eye on their facilities and troops near their borders all the same … just in case.
What we shouldn’t do, and where Ron Paul is absolutely right, is overestimate ourselves and think that we have the resources and/or ability to go turning every country we feel the need to invade into a model democracy. Clearly, we do not, and we need to remember that before saddling more white elephants in the future.
The worst thing about Ron Paul? His biggest fans… holy hell. A huge chunk of the Paulie minions are an evil bunch of little people similar to the LaRouchies – just less tact and more racism.
It is probably a good idea to back up such a scurrilous claim with evidence, links, etc.
Joshua:
I do not agree that there would be much of a chance to win in Afghanistan if we did surrender in Iraq.
I agree there would still be a chance – but it would be a very small one indeed.
It is even possible that we could win in Iraq and lose in Afghanistan – the Pakistan situation puts an element of farce into the proceedings.
O.B.L. and his deputy just pop in out of T.V. recording rooms with the local army doing anything.
And the Taliban (inculding Mullah Omar) operate fairly openly.
Even there killing of large numbers of Pakistanis (both military and civilian) can not seem to get a reaction from General M.
He may change – but he has been in charge of the government since 1999 (and the armed forces before that), he appears to be useless.
Also I have a thing against military officers living in luxury – call me a puritan if you wish.
And Pakistani senior military officers have houses and lots of other stuff that are beyond the wildest dreams of Indian military officers of the same rank – indeed their lifestyle is way beyond that of American military officers of the same level.
Something is rotten in the state of Pakistan.
Agreed. But we weren’t talking about Pakistan.
What I was specifically talking about is losing in Iraq and diverting those military resources – the ones currently tied up in Iraq – to Afghanistan. If the problem in Afghanistan is the local army, then more of our boys keeping an eye on things seems likely to help.
I am not advocating this policy, merely suggesting that things are not as simple as you were painting them earlier. Withdrawing from Iraq need not be more than a loss of a battle if the rest of the war is handled properly.
That is, in fact, my biggest regret about the Iraq campaign. I don’t oppose it, but I think it happened too soon. It would’ve been more effective after a more convincing/decisive display in Afghanistan (probably including the capture of OBL). Although, I suppose Prez Bush had reason to believe people wouldn’t have been as supportive of Iraq without the Bugbear in Chief still running around. Hindsight’s 20/20.
Joshua.
One of the problems of losing in Iraq would mean that a lot of people in Afghanistan would switch sides (the will of God having been made clear – at least as far as many people would be concerned).
So sending the forces from Iraq to Afghanistan would not do much good – unless the mission was changed from one of supporting the majority of the population, to an extermination mission.
There is also the problem that enemy command and supplies would continue to operate from Pakistan.
Also Iraq can be supplied from the sea – that is harder for Afghanistan (as you know Pakistan is in the way).
I did not reply to your question about whether Ludwig Von Mises himself was opposed to fractional reserve banking (and so on).
The arguments on this get so heated that I feel like hiding under the bed – so I will not express an opinion.
“What a coward, and you are in favour of other people being in a real war”.
Fair enough – if anyone wishes to say it.
Well, yes, but the Will of God was equally clear the first time we went in, what with the Towers having fallen and all, and that quickly reversed. Just as it takes little to convince them that God is on their Side and Victory is at Hand, it takes little to convince them that’s He’s gone back to bed for another nap.
I see your point about Afghanistan being harder to supply than Iraq, but I don’t think that problem is as proportionately large as you seem to be implying. It’s certainly not a dealbreaker in terms of winning.
Joshua,
I don’t get you here. Everything I’ve heard recently suggests that we are winning in Iraq and the ‘stan is turning into a bloody stalemate. So, if this is the case, and we’re gonna cut and run from one place why do it from the one we appear to be winning in?
Paul Marks is correct to point out that Pakistan is very relevant to the situation in Afghanistan. It’s the wild-card in the pack and a potential nightmare. I suspect until somebody (yup, that’s you Gen Musharref) has the gumption to (a) purge the ISI of pro-Taliban rats and (b) knock hell’s bells out of Warizistan the Taliban will never be defeated no matter how many troops we transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Ron Paul’s disengaged foreign policy is naive. Dubya had an overwhelmingly domestic agenda when he came to power and look what came out of a clear blue September sky…
Just a note about the Ron Paul/Libertay Dollar raid:
“There was a separate raid, NotHaus said, of Sunshine Mint in Coer D’Alene, Idaho, a company that prints the organization’s coins, where von NotHaus said agents seized the huge pallets of silver and gold worth more than $1 million that the organization says back the paper certificates issued to its customers.”
Link to article
To reiterate – I am not actually advocating this policy. I am talking in this way just to demonstrate that Mr. Marks’ false dichotomy is indeed false. Cutting and running from Iraq does not necessarily mean defeat in the war – provided we handle the next step right. That’s all I was saying.
I have supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and continue to do so now. In actual policy, I agree with Mr. Marks that we should stay the course there, largely for the reasons he gives.
So they’re no longer even hiding that this is naked theft. I hate the feds. Now I sincerely regret not having bought Liberty Dollars in 2004. I will have a look at their site and see if they’re still operating through all this.
Here is a critique of Paul’s philosophical position that seems to go beyond mere “smears of half-understood points”.
Jonathan Pearce,
Paul has a big following in the Nazi crowd – you can google it up – this is not saying anything about Paul (except that he take the money from overtly racist sources).
other than that, just go onto some blogs with a few Paulies and criticize him in some way – next thing you know you’ve got all caps and bold epithets such as TRAITOR! TROTSKYITE! NEOCON!(jew) flying about. sometime just jew or zionist rather than neocon. weird insane rants and crazy talk of the (super secret) north american union and the amero…..
fringe people
Alex, I read the article, which is a good piece, much more informed than “some of Dr Paul’s supporters are evil” level. Bob Bidinotto makes some searching points about the limits of a strictly non-interventionist foreign policy.
When it comes to attacking the people who back Dr Paul, however, one could say the same about the Dems and the GOP – just take a look at the Daily Kos types, for instance, or the sort of folk who back the religious right.
keep in mind I am talking about a segment of Paul supporters and not Paul himself – my original post:
Stormfront is big on Paul.
troofer crazies for paul — both of these are Alex Jones sites
There are lots of weird and very active fringe groups in love with Paul. I’ll provide you more sites and I’ll link you to some great Paulie comments on blogs if you’d like (prolific spammers described in my post that is on hold for content review) but I’m sure you can imagine since they come from people that probably visit Stormfront and prisonplanet as well.
These are some of the Paul Supporters – not Ron Paul. It is a shame, however, that Paul will not distance himself from these creeps and takes their money.
sorry, that was in response to Jonathan Pearce.
was sort of an extension of the post on hold so it was not clear who I directed it to
Ron Paul’s “neo-conned” Wasn’t sure why Paulies were so fond of calling people “trotskyites” and seemed to have an anti-semitic streak – guess this is their license. A lot of bilderberg /illuminati/world zionist conspiracy stuff coming from them as well.
Is Paul feeding this?
The fact is that a fair few neocons were originally trotskyists and/or new left types. One could also say that the neocon enthusiasm for spreading democracy using force has similarities with Trotsky’s desire to spread Communism by force. The banal accusations of antisemitism they always make against critics just shows that they never really dropped their left-wing childishness.
Alex –
I read the article too and agree that it’s a sane, researched bit of criticism of Paul – no strawmans involved.
I find the argument convincing as it applies to Paul’s position on Iran and the Shah. There are indeed issues of context that Paul needs to address there.
I was less convinced by the stuff pertaining to Vietnam. The idea that the US is responsible for the human crisis in Indochina that followed its pullout – rather than, say, the Khmer Rouge and VietCong who actually did the killing – is Noam Chomsky’s line, and I think it speaks against “Paul-as-blame-America-Rothbardian” that he doesn’t adopt it.
I also don’t buy the line that the communication revolution somehow makes us our brother’s keeper. The author is wrong that 1780s-style isolationism is no longer a possibility. The Founders (well, George Washington, anyway) didn’t mean that the US should ignore the rest of the world, merely that it shouldn’t enter into “entangling alliances” with other nations. It is roughly Vladimir Putin’s line that Russia has “no friends and no enemies.” I would personally prefer to live in a world where the United States had “no friends and no enemies.” It is (highly) unrealistic at present, but it is NOT “naive.” Provided a President Paul took us in that direction incrementally rather than overnight (which I admit I am not sure he would – though he is clear that he intends an incremental, rather than immediate, dismantling of the welfare state), I would support it.
Spidly, Paul feeds the groups with some enthusiasm. His work drips with insult laden conspiracy theories. This speech(Link) would not be out of place at any truther gathering. There’s a lot more like it, but it’s sufficiently laborious reading through this stuff to dredge up the really horrible stuff that I’d rather leave it to your own googling.
My beef with Dr. Paul is that he exaggerates the worst aspects of ignorant, hateful politics in the US. Everyone who disagrees with him does so because they don’t respect the constitution, which in Paul’s mind is large enough to provide the answer to almost every vote. Much of the time his opponents are instead motivated by fiscal gain and the prospect of the approval of moneyed special interests. There is insufficient love of America and opposing scholars know nothing of her history etc.
In substance there are differences between Paul and his ugly fellow travellers, but in process, tone, and style, much less.
Mr. Pearce,
The defining moment for Ron Paul as a pro-life leader, to my mind, is his greatest moment of hypocrisy. As a man who regularly, as in, in a majority of appearances, claims that he is devoted to the constitution, he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He stated publically that he thought it was unconstitutional (interstate commerce? Really?) but voted for it anyway. This was not justifiable on any anti-government or libertarian ground as such that I can think of, assuming that you do not believe pro-life values to be an inherent libertarian belief.
I think that people can get overexcited about politicians violating their oaths to uphold the constitution in this sense. It really does make sense to defer to the SCOTUS, who make the practical decisions about what the constitution means. If you’re going to define yourself and make all your other views on eccentric views of what the Constitution bans, though, that will never be supported by the SCOTUS, you can’t then find intellectual cover for this kind of a vote.
FWIW, I support the PBAB act, and agree with Paul on a fair number of policies. It’s his rhetoric and philosophy that appeal to nazis and truthers and not to me.
As I have said before, Donald Rumsfeld is not and has never been a neocon.
He was not a social democrat (let alone an ex socialist as so many of the neocons were), and he had little interest in spreading democracy for its own sake.
Even Condi Rice is basically a realist.
They wanted to knock over someone (Saddam) who had turned against the United States (and contrary to the media he had never been wildly pro American and his weaponary came from the East) – and the C.I.A. had failed to do the job (again and again and again).
So they went for the military option. Some of us said this was a bad idea – but it is not 2003 anymore. Now it is a matter of winning the war, not deciding whether going in is a good idea or not. And I do not agree with Joshua that we could lose in Iraq and still win in Afghanistan – I admit it is POSSIBLE, but it is wildly unlikely.
However, in our often heated debates with people like Cynic we must remember the TRUTH in what he says.
George Walker Bush is not a conservative (let alone a libertarian).
True he had no interest in spreading democracy overseas by intervention before 9/11, but his DOMESTIC policy indicates that he was useless.
His way of dealing with the entitlement programs, the cancer that is destroying the Republic – indeed the whole Western world, was to add MORE entitlement programs – the Medicare extentionm and the demented “No-Child-Left-Behind”.
Remember where the man was on 9/11.
He was in a school listening to some children tell stupid stories.
If the Federal government should be in charge of education, why not health care or the supply of bread?
George Walker Bush was not just useless on the big things in domestic spending – he was useless on the small things as well.
He gave the green light to every bit of Pork that Congress came up with.
This was because he was under the impression that this would help the Republican party – the truth was the opposite.
The people who loved the Pork voted Democrat – and Republican voters stayed home in disgust with it.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is both a LIE (it is not “compassionate” to spend the money of OTHER PEOPLE) and made no political sense either.
As for the war on terror:
More than six years and both O.B.L. and his deputy are in the field (and in the T.V. studios) and their allies the Taliban are still led by Mullah Omar – and are operating in Pakistan.
And, of course, “our friends” the Saudis are still spending billions on spreading death-to-the-infidels Wahabbi ideology all over the world.
And, I almost forgot, President Bush still seems to think that fanatical enemies like Putin in Russia are really pals.
We (meaing people like me) must never forget such things about President Bush.
cynic – so when a Paulie calls you a zionist or a jew and you think maybe they are an anti-semite, you are just being childish?
James of England;
Well, at least he is consistent, unlike the weasely rabble-rousing asshat Lou Dobbs. Boy do I hate that guy and I am sure he’s going to run Independent. I don’t think Paul is terribly disingenuous either, whereas Dobbs is all the schtick of the day that’s going to endear him to some segment of the downtrodden middle class who didn’t realize how bad they had it until they tuned him in. If Bill O’Riley and Michael Moore spawned it’d be Lou Dobbs. I reserve almost all of my hatred just for him because he plays to the worst aspects of ignorant, hateful politics in the US far better than Paul ever could.
Has it never occurred to you that the troops removed from Iraq would not be drummed out of the Army? Here’s what I would suggest:
1) Redeploy every U.S. serviceman in Iraq to Afghanistan, and put them to work hunting down bin Ladin. We can pull out of Afghanistan either when we catch him, or when it becomes clear that he is not there.
2) Redeploy every U.S. serviceman in Germany, Japan, Korea, and every other one of the 130-odd countries in which we waste our money to America. There, they can protect the borders, train, study, and relax a bit, so they can be used as relief troops in Afghanistan.
By the way, I have a Liberty Dollar in my pocket. Actually, it is a “$20” piece, a coin, and contains one ounce of .999 pure silver. It is, obviously, not worth $20 in FRN’s, but it will be. I traded three Ron Paul T-Shirts, which I was selling for $5/ea, for it. At the time, I think that means it cost me about $1 over spot, but you can’t actually get retail quantities of silver at spot anyway, so I did not feel bad about it.
I also have a “$1” note in my wallet, which I bought for $1 in FRN’s, so that I can participate in the lawsuit against the Feds for busting a perfectly legal business. This is, according to it’s backside, a “warehouse receipt” which would be (if the silver had not been stolen) redeemable for 1/20th of the coin my pocket. How to divide the coin is left as an exercise for the reader.
I personally consider using the word “dollar” in connection with Liberty Coins unfortunate, since their value in no way relates to the value of the dollar … which greatly pleases the holder of the coins these days. I would have preferred to call it a zag, (for oZ ag=silver), and to have a matching (but more expensive) zau, but I don’t grok marketing.
Rich Paul:
we’ll pull ’em out of Iraq early and deploy them to Afghanistan, then pull ’em out of Afghanistan and redeploy them to Iraq, then will pull them out of S Korea to go to Afghanistan, then out of Germany to Korea. When the planes and casualties show at Ramstein and nobody is there we’ll pull them out of iraq on a lottery basis back to the US for crosstraining – FO/neurosurgeon and Aircraft Pneudraulics Repairer/ SAW……in a couple years they’ll all be McGyver meets House meets Rambo and we can reduce our presence like 90%. One guy will spot and fire his own artillery while operating on his own wounds while flying his own medivac.
Rich Paul.
If the United States loses in Iraq (and pulling out now is losing) then the operation in Afghanistan will become hopeless.
It was pointed out to me before that it is not “impossible” that the West might not go on to win in Afghanistan if we lost in Iraq – and I agree with that.
But I put in the same area of “possible” as an alien space ship landing on the Whitehouse lawn in the next 12 months. Possible yes – likely no.
However, on the things you say about the gold coins – I agree (100% on just about everything you said).
Spidly:
Lou Dobbs.
The man is not even consistent.
If he was, as a matter of principle, anti illegal immigration and anti Chinese trade advantages he would be out there supporting Duncan Hunter.
I do NOT support Duncan Hunter – but that would be logical thing for Low Dobbs to do (if he was honest).
And, as far as I know, he is not campaigning for Congressman Hunter.
And who did Mr Dobbs support in 2004?
John Kerry.
Harldy a great anti illegal immigration man. And not someone who would, in reality, have done anything about the P.R.C.
So it is not even that Mr Dobbs has mistaken opinions – he is just pretending to believe certain things in order to get certain viewers.
“All broacasters do that” – (if anyone want to say this) no they do not.
I man not agree with what someone says, but I can still note a person for saying something he honestly believes in.
I doubt Mr Dobbs believes in anything.
Rich Paul;
Dobbs on Medved kept asserting that America was going to have a 3rd party president but could not say who it could be. Refused to say he was not going to run, Just kept repeating “I would be the candidate of last resort”
Dobbs does not have the money to run – but Bloomberg has.
But would Bloomberg settle for being Vice President for Obama?
Perhaps he would prefer Obama to be his Vice President?
The nightmare possibilty was (and perhaps still is) Bloomberg running with Chuck Hegal as his Vice President.
That would spilt the Republican vote and mean an automatic President H. Clinton.
Ross Perot 1992.
Anyone know if C.H. is or is not under the influence of Warren Buffet?
If the GOP nominee is Giuliani and the democrat nominee is Clinton, I will not give a shit who wins out of the two.
Your comment shows that it is possible to be too cynical Cynic – although that may be a bit much comming from a person as cynical as I am.
Still if Steve Forbes can not convince you that there are important differences between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton than I will not be able to do so.
Of course neither Steve Forbes or Rudy Giuliani are libertarians – but they are in favour of lower taxes and some reform of the Welfare State (as opposed to the ever greater collectivism that Senator Hillary Clinton represents).
Full disclosure:
I am not a citizen (I am British).
And if was a citizen I would vote for Fred Thompson.
So no pro Rudy axe to grind from me.