An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Why Isn’t Paul Taken More Seriously?
Why isn’t Ron Paul taken more seriously and… is there a coordinated attack going on against the Congressman from Texas?
The impression I get is that Paul doesn’t count that many supporters, but that those who do support him are incredibly passionate. That’s the main difference between Paul and every other Republican candidate. Most Republicans are lukewarm about every candidate, including the candidate they support. The only one who’s truly different in that regard is Paul. His supporters are on fire.
36 Responses to “Why Isn’t Paul Taken More Seriously?”
He’s not taken seriously because he isn’t a serious candidate. He’s gained traction for two reasons. First, because he’s the only GOP candidate who’s opposed to the war, and thus has that (not miniscule) constituency all to himself. Second, because many in the party are overreacting to the excesses of big government republicanism over the last six years by running to the candidate who most directly expresses a desire to go in the other direction (although Thompson will now start to cut into this margin, as would Giuliani if my argument about federalism incentives gained traction).
But as to the second, I think his supporters – those who weren’t already hardcore libertarians, that is – have been so carried away with a candidate who talks about limiting government that they haven’t paused to consider just how much Ron Paul would limit government. As I noted yesterday at Amba’s, if you take what he says seriously, it becomes very obvious that he is far outside of what even I think is the mainstream. Lookit, I consider myself a small government federalist; you will find me flocking on the boundary betwixt the libertarian and conservative wings of the Federalist Society. Again, borrowing from comments at Amba’s, I think Hayek destroyed the traditional right-left socialism-fascism axis so completely that it genuinely mystifies me why that scale still has almost universal currency today, and I would reorient the political scale so that it runs from Authoritarianism (including what we normally think of as socialism and fascism) at the one pole to Purist Libertarianism at the other, and on that scale, you will find me far closer to liberalism (as Hayek used the term) than planning. I say all this because I want to emphasize that I’m very sympathetic to the idea that the state should intervene minimally (and that the federal government should use as light a touch as possible and only ever as heavy a touch as is constitutionally permissible), but that is a far cry from saying it lacks authority to do so when required by outstanding moral exigency, and Paul’s vision is too extreme for me. And for that matter I find the idea that he and Randy Barnett (among others) propound that the Constitution requires rather than simply to a greater or lesser extent accomodates his vision of not merely limited but outright emasculated government mildly offensive; consciously twisting the Constitution to demand one’s preferred policy outcome is the sin of modern liberalism, and it’s one I hope will find little traction among conservatives. I don’t think America wants a President who’s opposed to the Civil Rights At an the Voting Rights Act, but if you take Paul’s expressed views on the limits of federal power seriously, that’s where he stands. Put another way, going back to the liberalism-planning scale noted above, I’m well outside of the mainstream on federalism and liberty, and I’m here to tell you that Ron Paul is waaaaaaaay further out from the mainstream than I am.
I think libertarianism’s “‘good stuff to cut conservatism with, each tending to curb the other’s worst impulses,’ but [as Althouse put it,] ‘[t]here is something incredibly obtuse about the libertarian view, something that misses the reality of human life and that is very wedded to a stark abstraction. In pure form, it is repellent’” – and Burkeian conservatism is skeptical of any abstract sociopolitical theory precisely because it’s abstract.
I’ve got to agree with Simon. He isn’t taken seriously because I have a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than he does.
Ron Paul had won the text message poll after the debate at 33% For some mysterious reason they changed him to 2nd place the next day.
The first results tally
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Ron_Paul_wins_text_messaging_vote_0906.html
Next day modification
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html
It would appear that Fox is actively trying to bury support Paul.
I don’t think being extreme should take you out of the running, especially if we think he’s being extreme in the right direction.
I mean, isn’t Bush extreme with the doctrine of preemption and the unitary executive and executive privilege? However, the nature of democracy slows his agenda down and gives us a more moderate outcome.
Isn’t that the point? To elect a president with a vision but not to give him a blank check to do whatever he wants?
He’s not taken seriously because so many think he’s just plain nuts.
Spoken like a true extremist.
[Sidebar: no, the unitary executive doctrine isn't in itself "extreme."]
Because the GOP wouldn’t know a real statesman if he bit them on the ass. Same goes for the Dems. We elect fluff. Its why we are going to have a Clinton-Thompson choice next year. The ex-quarterbacks girlfriend vs. the movie star. You just know it, and it kills me.
I think Simon hits it on the head.
If Paul were able to implement most of his policy ideas he would throw this country into a massive tailspin.
Paul has much more Internet appeal than real-world appeal.
Our country is built on moderation and compromise. People may not like it but it is one of the primary reason why the United States has been so successful. We don’t allow the extremists to dictate policy.
Simon:
Wrong. First he is taken seriously as illustrated by constant attempts from the neocon media to block his message, poll success, and grass root support demonstrations around the country. Why because military industrial complex owns much of the media. The “mainstream” is very afraid the people will discover their house of cards.
If you love the “mainstream” so much I hope you will be the first in line to get “your papers”, the national ID Card and wave the new North American Union Flag when the USA and the Constitution become irrelevant.
Outside the mainstream? Really? Who said the that the “mainstream” is anything to be proud of? As I recall Ron Paul is spot on what made America great. So your telling me the Orwellian welfare/warfare state is the “mainstream”? Is it so extreme to follow the supreme laws of the land? Dig a bit deeper and stop reading and watching propaganda news.
flyerhawk:
WHAT? First Ron Paul has more real world support than any other Republican. Proof of this is seen solely by the 40,000 plus volunteers ( growing exponentially by the day) that have organized a grass roots firestorm around the country. Just look at Ron Paul’s Meetup group page. No other candidate even come close. Not even a combination of of candidates!
Moderation & compromise? We are a nation of revelation and change. Ron Paul will begin the process of undoing all that has gone wrong in the last few decades. It will not happen overnight and he knows this. Is it so extreme to obey an oath to the Constitution??
You gentlemen need to cut through the static and look a bit closer. Ron Paul is it.
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a
scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When
his cause succeeds, however, the timid join
him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
– Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
– Barry Goldwater
Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.
Drive-by Paulista attacks are far less impressive than you might imagine, “saynotoslavery,” particularly when you clearly didn’t even bother to read the comment to which you purport to reply with your copy-and-paste remarks.
Seriously? Wake up we’re already there. We’re already in a quagmire in the middle east with our military sprawled across two countries with no concrete objective. Our economy is falling apart and we are now 9 trillion dollars in debt. That’s 3 times the debt of the 80′s when we were fighting a cold war and 100 times the debt before we got into Vietnam. The dollar has already dropped well below the pound, the euro, and recently the canadian dollar.
Our current government is completely unsustainable. You cannot send hundreds of thousands of troops to all corners of the globe without any exit strategy. It’s costing us a trillion dollars a year to do this alone and we cannot afford it without soviet style taxation. Forget all the domestic boondoggles that we are wasting our money on.
In fact just forget the war as an issue and simply look at domestic spending and our economy (although they are admittedly tied together but I digress). Not a single Republican “frontrunner”, not even Fred Thompson is talking about reducing the size and scope of the federal government. They won’t even take a “no new tax” pledge much less actually discuss decreasing them. What happened to actually vetoing bills? Our current “conservative” president has vetoed maybe 2 bills? This is a guy who backed a massive medicare expansion and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants.
When the so called conservatives who are supposed to be in the Republican party start talking about cutting the size of government then maybe I’ll start giving them a look. Instead we have a bunch of tax and spend politicians up there who talk about how they hate government spending but do absolutely nothing about it.
The war aside, Ron Paul is the only guy up there talking about tax relief, fiscal responsibility and rejecting the relentless onslaught of boondoggles that congress tries to shove onto the presidents desk only to watch them get signed.
Enough is enough.
Simon
Hmm lets see “Paulista” …ad hominen derogatory comment in response to what what “attacks”??
You also are contradicting yourself… If I copied and pasted your comments then how did I not read them?
If not that then what copy and paste remarks are referring too? And from where did I copy them? Ludicrous… Just like your previous comments.
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a
scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When
his cause succeeds, however, the timid join
him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.â€
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
Many have come to accept the government as their security provider and savior. When you see things like ‘dangerous isolationist’, ‘appeaser’ its the government programing kicking in. These people are completely dependant on an authority figure reassuring them they’ll be safe.
Paul represents a ‘dangerous’ alternative to the government servitude many have come to accept. At the end of the month campaign money will be reported, its likely he’ll become even more ‘dangerous’.
All you have to know in order to realize why he’s not taken seriously is to read what his supporters have posted here.
And David is completely and utterly wrong because in the real world a President who is as much of an extremist as Ron Paul can do a world of damage by himself just with executive power.
It’s funny to talk about how much damage Ron Paul could do…given the current situation. I mean, maybe y’all are right–but it’s…ironic?
Jim Satterfield said,
Huh? Sir would you care to elaborate your points?
Also Ron Paul has stated time and time again that he would not abuse executive powers. He would even repeal many of the current draconian executive orders on the books as he knows they are unconstitutional.
So where is your argument? Are you just on the “Paul is nuts” bandwagon that is about to fall off a very steep cliff when Ron Paul announces the millions he has raised in small donations (from the people and the military) this quarter thrusting hims ahead of many of the current candidates?
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a
scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When
his cause succeeds, however, the timid join
him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.â€
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
[...] ALSO: Why Isn’t Paul Taken More Seriously? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Wow. They are like a roving pack of wolves.
Ron Paul is a reactionary. He wants to bring us back to the 18th century. What he fails to realize was that the United States was a backwater hick nation then with 1/3 of it’s population enslaved. Not really very appealing to me.
Cutting taxes is great. How does Ron Paul propose to cut the commensurate spending? Does he plan to eliminate SS? Medicare? The military? Because those 3 programs represent 75% of our spending.
saynotoslavery asked me to elaborate.
To quote from his earlier post:
And David is wrong because someone who doesn’t believe in the mission of an agency or who is simply dismissive of the role of the federal government in virtually anything in the real world can just put people in who share his philosophy and won’t do the job they are supposedly there to do. In the current administration it meant putting in people for the sake of their connection to the Republican party. Remember, Brownie did a heck of a job.
Ron Paul does not believe in small government, he believes in minuscule government for a very large and complex nation that exists in a complex world. To call that attitude (shared by his supporters) foolhardy is an understatement. While he doesn’t believe in the federal government limiting individual rights in the name of religion he has no problem with individual states doing so. Libertarianism is simply the mirror image of the insanity of communism.
The whole image of Ron Paul damaging America cracks me up! People, we have lived under the constant ravagement of the priniciples our nation was founded upon for 70+ years by power hungry socialists. Now you believe that having one constitutionalist in office is going to destroy America? Give me a break!!! Seems like to me that bigger men than Ron Paul have tried, and failed. It also seems to me that we need not just Ron Paul, but a string of Ron Pauls in office, before we can even get close to returning America to liberty again, much less, getting anywhere close to radical libertarianism!!!! However, the last 7 years has led us down the path to tyranny much faster than any previous President in history. Even more so than Clinton, and I was really worried he was taking us to hell. Funny I should find the wolf in my own party’s clothing! The scariest thing about this thread, is the utter blindness of those who should know better. Don’t you people realize that Ron Paul cannot dismantle all the programs he wants to without the help of Congress. What’s a constitutionalist to do??? VETO!!! And Praise God for that!!! A congress spinning their wheels is MY KIND of Congress!!! God Bless America, and God Bless Ron Paul for having the moral courage to stand against the tide for liberty. He is the Patrick Henry of modern political speech, and the Thomas Jefferson of modern political thought. GO RON PAUL!!!!
OK. So we should elect Ron Paul because he will….. not allow Congress to pass any bills?
Sounds…… great.
Maybe he should just shut down the Government. Worked great last time.
The candidate from Texas uses the Constitution to support his positions. How is the law of the land extremist? Your saying to follow the law is crazy because we’re a modern, complex society now? Then we need to update the law, to give government the power it needs, so that when people notice they’re acting outside the law, they won’t sound like lunatics for pointing it out. You do realize don’t you, the Constitution was written to limit the powers of government in specifically enumerated ways, in order to preserve divinely granted individual rights? if anyone on this board thinks that is the question of an extremist, then the problem here is education.
Little Bit Farm, that really is funny!!! The fear that Ron Paul, if elected, will make the Federal Government too small!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of us are sane enough to know that calling someone a socialist because they recognize the limits of the markets and the insanity of libertarianism is the sign of someone who’s a bit out of touch with reality. Can Paul dismantle the agencies he’d like to? No. Can he cripple them? Yes. Your political philosophy seems to be that if we stick our heads in the sand long enough we can pretend that everything that worked in the early 19th Century will work just fine and dandy here in the dawn of the 21st. Let’s go all the way and get rid of tanks, planes, machine guns and modern rifles for our army while we’re at it. After all, if the economics of the past can work for us shouldn’t the weapons? Don’t forget, we must return to the gold standard and eliminate the federal reserve, even as the rest of the countries of the world laugh their asses off at us for returning to a system that puts a straitjacket on economic policies of the nation.
Frankly, I don’t care if Ron Paul can’t accomplish everything he wants since congress wouldn’t go along. Somehow that doesn’t mitigate the fact that anyone who can seriously want to do the thing that he wants is highly delusional and completely ignorant of how anything works in the real modern world. It also doesn’t help that he doesn’t believe in individual rights that the majority can destroy on a whim if they think it’s good social policy. At least as long as the state does it instead of the federal government.
Ron Paul stayed on top response to comment # 3:
lurxst,
Check the date on the second link—you’re looking at the results from South Carolina. I made the same mistake. It’s misleading. Search Google for “new hampshire debate fox poll results” or anything like it, and you get sent to what looks like New Hampshire’s. So where are the results? They remain unpublished by Fox News from what I can gather. But you can see them in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us9DAkxkQuA
Simon, yours is the only anti-Ron Paul post that actually makes a valid and logical point. The rest are merely clumsy attempts at character assassinations saying “Ron Paul believes in A, so he must be dumb/out of touch/insane”.
However, Simon, lets take your point about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, which are perfectly valid. Firstly, I doubt that a President Paul would seek to interfere with those acts – from a practical there are greater things that he would try to do. However, the Civil Rights Act does violate property rights and really should have formed the basis of a constitutional amendment.
Second, I think Paul would agree with the position that if there is a “moral exigency”, the constitution should be used to lawfully authorize government to do something about it i.e. declare war.
Third, with your point about Paul’s interpretation of the constitution to limit state powers as mildly offensive – thats not only his point of view but also the founders and those who believe in the rule of law.
Although I disagree with your points, thank you for posting something more than just vitriol.
Ron Paul won 9 straw polls http://www.ronpaul2008.com and this is on his website. He also raised $100,000 at the Texas straw poll. He finished third the Texas straw poll and the voters were former delegates.
Saying that we are going to go back to slavery after Ron Paul eliminates all these government programs is total socialist BS. Ron Paul says we should not see people as groups but as individuals.
Listen folks
Once Ron paul has been booted out of the GOP and ridiculed beyond redemption by the Neocon owned media, just put Mr Paul on an aeroplane over to England for me would you! We could do with his services over here in our own totalitarian nanny state.
Thankyou very much
And God bless Ron paul
To point out that Ron Paul believes things that just don’t work in the real world of the 21st Century is not character assassination. It is pointing out that he believes in policies that would be bad for our country because they are based in an ideology just as misplaced as that of Bush’s neocon friends. Yes, there is more than one way to be wrong.
I believe Ron Paul is the closest available match to my attitudes about the role of the Federal government. I want local and state governments to hold more of the authority and responsibility currently assumed by our Federal government. I want the Federal government to be limited by the constitution. I don’t think it is so much that libertarians want no governance, but that we don’t think power and control should be held so far away from individuals and families. I don’t see that as the mirror image of communism.
Given the challenges we face with looming threats of global warming and world-wide terrorism, a strong federal government seems inevitable. But don’t mistake that for the bloated, inefficient , overly politicized bureaucracy that we have today, where no agency has received acceptable performance marks from govt watchdogs. Under Bush the federal government has grabbed power over its citizenry at every turn, but has mishandled that power, leaving Americans more suspicious of their government than ever. Thus the attraction of a libertarian like Dr. Paul.
His solutions do seem radical, but so do the Bush administration’s policies, that limit our liberty.
Michael,
Is the answer really that difficult?
The reason that Ron Paul isn’t taken serious is because his views are constantly and blatantly misrepresented by pro-war pundits. Fox News is among the worst offenders.
Who can forget the May debate in which pro-Bush hacks Wendell Goler, Karl Cameron, and Sean Hannity outright distorted Ron Paul’s foreign policy position? Or what about John Gibson claiming that Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on the government?
Maybe we ought to take a look at some of the pro-war bloggers that TMV regularly links to. You guys might think the world of Captain’s Quarters, but Captain Ed was quick to join in the Ron Paul-bashing and distort his position.
Captain Ed on May 22, 2007:
1. Ron Paul NEVER said America invited the 9/11 attacks. Wendell Goler of Fox News used the word invited, and Giuliani–being the 9/11 exploiter that he is–was quick to pounce on Ron Paul and pretend that Paul had said something that he had not.
2. I find it comical how often war supporters toss around the word isolationist, as if anyone who is the least bit anti-war is something to be scorned. I guess in Captain Ed’s views, the George Washington must have been an isolationist.
3. It’s funny how conservatives like Captain Ed constantly criticize progressives for wanting bigger government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Yet when Ron Paul, who is more sympathetic to smaller government and a strict interpretation of the Constitution as anybody in Congress, bothers to stand up for his views, conservatives like Captain Ed are the first to criticize him.
It’s simple. The Republican Party claims to support fiscal conservativism and strict Constitutionalism. Ron Paul has called them on their bull. Meanwhile, having long been a critic of the policies espoused by the Democratic Party, he isn’t making too many friends among partisan Democrats as well.
Ron Paul defies his party and the left-versus-right political spectrum. War supporters know they can’t tag him as a leftist as they love to do to any left-of-center opponent of the war, and this enrages them. So they simply distort his views and deride him as some right-wing lunatic.
The vast majority of people I know who don’t take Ron Paul seriously do so because of his views on issues other than the war.
There are other important issues than the war, you know. It seems important to frequently remind some people of that. And what I find comical is the way that many of Ron Paul’s supporters focus on the war and try desperately to shove his other stuff under whatever rug-type covering is available.
Jason,
If one visits Captain’s Quarters or Pajamas Media or Michelle Malkin’s Blog or listens to Fox New’s Sean Hannity, Karl Caermon, or John Gibson, the one common thread is that Ron Paul is criticized as being an isolationist who claims that America invited the 9/11 attacks.
Much of the rest of the criticisim comes either from partisan Democrats who will never vote for Ron Paul simply because he has an “R” after his name or from hard core progressives who don’t like his smaller government stance (big surprise there).
Ron Paul’s paleolibertarian views transcend the left-right spectrum. He is fiercely critical of both the Republican and Democratic leadership. In other words, when people say he’s a danger, they’re right. He’s a danger to those who are in power. And a number of the people attacking him now are either fierce Republican partisans or fierce Democratic partisans who have no consistent views of their own and are simply uncomfortable with the idea of a maverick who makes their convenient left-versus-right soundbytes obsolete.
Have you watched either of the Republican Debates sponsored by Fox News? Have you not noticed how Fox News moderators have distorted or mocked his positions both during and after the debate. No other GOP candidate has faced similar treatment from Fox News.
Pro-choice, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani gets a pass from Sean Hannity, but Ron Paul, who’s more in the mold of a Robert Taft Republican is treated as a pariah.
If taking a consistent stand in favor of smaller government (as Ron Paul does) is an extremist position, then perhaps Republicans should stop advertising themselves as being for smaller government.
A number of conservatives and Republicans criticizing Ron Paul claim they are for free markets and smaller government, but they’re all to willing to compromise on these ideal when it’s convenient.
Republicans spoke out against runaway government spending when Democrats controlled the White House. Why not when a Republican controlls the White House?
Republicans (including Bush) spoke out against nation-building when Democrats controlled the White House. Why not when a Republican controlls the White House?
Also, with the exeption of Jim Satterfield, I urge you to check out the blogs of some of the people who are criticizing Ron Paul. These are the same people who have vociferously defended the Iraq War from the very beginning.
Nick,
All of that may be true. It may well be the case that some or many of the people bashing Ron Paul do so in the ways you describe. But my point was only that it is not true of all of Ron Paul’s critics. At least some of us do not “take him seriously” for reasons that have nothing to do with his views about the war.
Maybe, just maybe it is time for comments around here to start dealing with what people who are actually around here think and not from projections about what FoxNews or Michelle Malkin thinks. At a minimum, doing so would decrease the level of rancor that inevitably results when people who are not Michelle Malkin and who are not from FoxNews keep getting treated as if they were accountable for statements that those other people allegedly made.
In short, if you libertarians are so big on individualism, maybe you should start treating your interlocutors as individuals. You have often asked to be treated as an exception to the common assumption that everyone who opposed the Iraq war was from “the left”. Well, this is the same thing back at you. Just as it is true that not all Iraq war opponents come from “the left” it is also true that not all Ron Paul critics come from “vociferously” pro-war perspectives.
So are you willing to make the same kind of concession to individual differences of approach that you yourself ask for?