What next for Ron Paul?
The recent story about the Ron Paul (RP) newsletters has lead to lots of discussion.
Background: RP is a US congressman who is running for the Republican primary on a platform of ending the US empire (troops in 120 countries), shrinking the size of government, balancing the budget, ending income tax, ending the war on drugs, defending the US constitution and giving political power back to the States. He raised the most money in the last quarter of any Republican ($20 million) and has built a strong following that has significantly raised the profile of libertarian philosophy.
But history has come back to haunt him. About 20 years ago RP allowed his friend Lew Rockwell to publish a newsletter in his name, and he apparently used to write articles for the newsletter relating to foreign policy. In the early 1990s, when RP was out of politics and spending his time travelling & working, the newsletter included a couple of racist comments. The author of these comments isn’t known, but it was probably one of the many writers employed by Lew Rockwell.
Ron Paul has strongly repudiated the racist sentiments in the newsletter, but he took responsibility for allowing his name to be linked to such comments and apologised. Over the years he has spoken repeatedly against discrimination against any groups, and he counts Martin Luther King and Ghandi as some of his heros. The next RP fund-raising day is on Martin Luther King holiday. Even the Austin NAACP President (who has known RP for 20 years) says he’s not a racist.
Some libertarians are not impressed, and are speaking out against Ron Paul. They are worried that the newsletter incident (combined with the fact that he received a $500 donation from a fascist) will lead people to think that libertarians are all racist. Some other libertarians (including myself) continue to applaud the efforts of Ron Paul and hope that his message continues to reach a bigger audience as the American primary elections go on.
Let me be clear — I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says. I agree with shrinking the size of the US empire, but I think there is a role for foreign alliances and occasional deployment of troops overseas. I agree with him that activist monetary policy is a problem, but I am worried about his fixation on gold and his silly rants about monetary collapse (which I think are the worst parts of the newsletters). I agree that the WTO & NAFTA are imperfect, but I don’t think they should be abandoned. And he showed poor judgement with the newsletter.
Having said all of that, I still think he is a positive voice for libertarian ideas who is helping to promote the idea of small government to a new audience. He is still clearly better than all the alternatives. He has created a bigger libertarian movement than has existed for 200 years and I think it would be a shame if we abandoned this new movement because we find out that the ”leader” is imperfect.
This takes us to the question: what next? After coming 5th in Iowa (10%, beating Guilliani) and 5th in New Hampshire (8%, beating Thompson) before the controversy started, yesterday he picked up a 4th in Michigan (6%, beating Guilliani & Thompson) — which includes 19% from under-30s and 22% from the non-religious, but strangely only 14% from the anti-war crowd (of whom 36% voted for McCain).
In a few days we will get the Nevada and then South Carolina results and it will become clear whether RP supporters are abandoning him and the “movement” is over.
55 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
John Humphreys on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
DanD on Animals, Morality, and Margina… jc on Minimum wages frozen jc on Minimum wages frozen DanD on Liberal budget response: tax … DanD on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… DanD on Queensland Fuel Rebate John Humphreys on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
Interesting take: I picked up and linked to this story for Delaware Libertarian.
Thanks for the good work.
On foreign policy Ron Paul also supports the use of troops abroad to support allies so long as congress authorises it. In regards to Tawain he said that if China attacked Tawain and he was President then it would be up to congress to decide if supporting Tawain militarily was in the US national interest. What he opposes is blank cheque guarantee in the way of alliances. I have mixed feeling on this issue. Promising ahead of time to help Tawain in the event of a Chinese attack may temper Chinas ambition. However it also creates moral hazard where by Tawain does not need to build up it’s own defence capacity or reach a lasting peace with China.
Ron Pauls actual policy position on monetary matters is a little unclear to me. From what I can discern he wants the private sector to create currency and the government to mint gold coin and silver coins and make them the only legal tender. A good idea in my book (except for the bimetalism factor). Of far more concern is how he would manage the transition and what he would do given that congress is unlikely to support such a radical reform. I can envisage a few worthy initiatives that he could undertake in this direction in spite of congress but there is no guarantee that he would take the intitatives that I think worthy and possible. Although the prospect of a Rothbardian running monetary policy also makes me nervous, Ron Paul is something of an exception.
NAFTA is a bilateral trade agreement. If it is abandoned in favour of unilateral trade liberalisation I see no big deal. The fact that Ron Paul openly wants to end farm subsidies counters any concern I might have about his desire to knock over NAFTA and the WTO.
I was predicting Ron Paul for third in Iowa. A few more percentage points and he would have got third. The difficulty is that no outsider has ever gained so much fund raising traction before so there is little in the way of precedent. Clearly there is a deep vein of support out there. Clearly part of this movement is about personality cult. I think a lot depends on the staying power of the other candidates. For instance Guilliani has asked his senior staff to go without pay for January. Guilliani is now being very nice to the Ron Paul crowd, suggesting perhaps that those delegates that Ron Paul does look set to win are going to become quite important in deciding the final outcome (not that I fully understand the delegate system). If nothing else Ron Paul has already got political people thinking about alternatives to the status quo on a large number of issues. The longer he does this for the better.
This is a storm in a teacup this newsletter deal. What it reflects more than anything is leftist heresies that ex-leftist libertarians have been potty-trained on.
Also libertarians have been told all their lives that they are racists and on the same political wing as the national socialists. So when this sort of unrestrained prose comes up they can panic.
Interesting statistic: total votes after Iowa, New Hampshire & Michigan…
Romney —- 443,139 Total Votes
McCain —- 361,546 Total Votes
Huckabee — 207,308 Total Votes
Paul —— 84,554 Total Votes
Giuliani — 50,925 Total Votes
Thompson — 49,198 Total Votes
Hunter —- 4,567 Total Votes
Is pommy an ex leftist Graeme? Are the Cato and Reason people ex leftists?
Libertarians should now reserve their energy for Wayne Root, the first non-loon LP candidate in a long time.
Russo was a loon?
Maybe you were right.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918&hl=en
Anyway, I’ve always liked the style of Carla Howell, but I question the appeal of singing your own campaign songs.
A truther and conspiracy theorist, Russo was a complete loon.
Regarding #4. The real surprise for me in these figures is John McCain. I had not expected him to do so well. His fund raising ability has been very ordinary. Clearly I was very wrong about McCain. The strong position of Romney is surely due in no small part to the millions he has spend on advertising over the last twelve months but this was predictable.
Rudy Giuliani is getting much more media time than Ron Paul. It is hard to see why the MSM is so keen to avoid putting Ron Paul near a microphone.
I expect most voters in the primaries go for the candidate they find least annoying. It’s unlikely many people would agree with one on everything.
On that basis Ron Paul would probably get my vote, in spite of my concerns.
Even if Paul were up against Wayne Root (which he’s not at the moment), I’m not sure I’d support Root. Root’s policies are rather fluffy and have a lot of qualifiers.
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php
Rather than repeating my comment on the other thread, I’ll just note that a whole bunch of libertarians in the US (at least prominent libertarian bloggers like those at The Volokh Conspiracy, the Cato Institute, Reason, etc.) are disassociating themselves from Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, and Lew Rockwell.
Well… you know us libertarians… always disagreeing with each other.
The CATO Institute has been disassociating itself from the Mises Institute & Lew Rockwell for decades. While the two groups agree on pretty much every point of substance… they have a very strong clash of style and personality.
To answer Jasons questions. Yes-no-doubt, yes and yes. And Wayne Root isn’t the quality candidate. Ron Paul is.
The non-libertarians want the libertarian vote split up because they would rather Rudi or McCain would win. But you must understand Jason that actual libertarians would not want the opportunity of getting such a quality candidate as Ron Paul going begging. The only thing wrong with Congressman Paul is that there is only one of him.
And this crap about the newsletters was brought up by someone else in his campaign in 1996. So basically that young leftist goober-head from New Republic plagiarised the story in the first place.
And notice that he was not able to come up with any more incriminating passages (few of them are incriminating in the first place. Just a little bit too far on the spectrum of conspiracy theory.) since the controversy was aired in 1996.
Of course somebody called New York “Zooville” and from the time I saw that the nightmares just won’t go away.
There’s barely anything wrong with the newsletters in the first place. Given that they had to pour through years of them to find the almost totally non-incriminating material that they did find.
Imagine the audacity of the pantomime of using this time THIS TIME to be promoting Wayne Root. To be promoting Wayne Root and pretending that one is doing so because one is a libertarian. This is implausible. When a person like Ron Paul is getting a substantial vote and is a Republican contender trying to choose THAT TIME to push the Wayne Root vote is a confession of not being partisan for the cause.
Beware the Libertarian Label
That is exactly what libertarians must overcome.
Bullshit Trinifar.
If socialists can overcome the ‘national socialist’ label, libertarians will thrive when there are just a few wankers tagging along.
Nobody owns the libertarian label, unlike socialism which Marx and Engels originally defined precisely. It’s a broad umbrella that can extend from virtual anarchists to selective anti-authority conservatives.
I have my own definition and I don’t consider some so-called libertarians to be principled, but either way it’s not meaningless.
Thats interesting you should put it like that David.
With me its about time-scales I think. Like I’d be vigourously conservative in the short-run. Fundamentally near-libertarian in the medium run. And have asperations to seeing how close we can (rightly and without risk of catastrophe) get towards anarcho-capitalism in the longer run.
Well Graeme, just be a little bit more like me and support both.
There is a solid, sane libertarian in the United States congress. His is republican Jeff Flake. Unlike Paul, he has ferociously campaigned against earmarks and has even busted a few while Paul has not only been ineffectual in dealing with them but received many in his congressional district.
Yes but is he running for president?
well, I’ve been lurking on this blog for a while a decided to give it a post on the cusp of the NV primaries.
I think its all over for Paul and any hope now for some resembling libertarianism in the top echelons of politics is only fleeting. His chance, as any long shot candidate’s, laid with the two early primaries. Huckabee was able to propel into top tier as soon as he polled high in the state with negligible delegate offerings. I was predicting (if at least hoping) at top three finish but what a difference a few percentage points make. What was required was a perception of doing better than expected in order to garner media attention.
The biggest thing holding Paul down isn’t his radical policies. I think they could resonate well with ordinary Americans if sold correctly, especially the anti-war message and perceptions of honesty and integrity when you look at his track record. Rather, his biggest problem is unelectability and lack of voter awareness.
A top 3 finish in the early states would have given that little push that might have broken through this barrier. However the 5th place finishes have cemented his place in the eyes of the media and consequently the public of fringe candidate, who will capture a niche vote but never hit the mainstream.
Ron Paul is solid and sane. And he hasn’t voted for any earmarks. Since he’s voted against every budget wherein there were earmarks.
You have to be loyal to the community you represent. And in a socialist environment, if you cannot stop the other guys tacking on earmarks, then it would be disloyal of you not to take advantage of them for the benefit of your locals who are put upon by the Federal Government.
To be putting up these other names at this stage of a federal election is a phony, anti-libertarian thing to be doing. It is Ron Paul who is the quality candidate here.
Winton,
I tend to agree. Something else I have noticed of late after watching about three hours of TV footage from recent debates is that Ron Paul is much better at presenting his ideas in the written form than verbally in debate. The Internet, which is to a large extent a text based medium or edited video, is where Ron Paul presents well and does well. He is not overly suited to television when it comes to pitching to the issues in a debate. In the ABC debate on 5th January he had ample time to articulate his foreign policy arguments but ended up looking weak and alone (if you watch the full debate). Where in the past he has called on the 911 report and other authorative documents to support his position he tried instead to convince his opponents (ie the other presidential candidates) with simplistic metaphors and they clearly were not buying (why would they). Ron Paul is a deep thinker not a quick thinker and as such not well suited to live televised debate. In fact I think a lot of deep thinking people that would not have previously had much public profile have been enabled by the Internet. Unfortunately most people still decide their politics based on what they see on the box. And the box is mostly about visual form over and above substance.
Regards,
Terje.
The issue with most libertarians (apart from Iraq, but a lot of libertarians still see him as the best choice even if they don’t agree) is whether he has anything more to contribute to the libertarian cause, or whether his baggage will be destructive. In any successful political movement you keep refreshing change rolling along – just ask the Liberal Party whether or not this is good policy. I actually think he would do more good if he lifted someone else up.
Ron Paul came second in Nevada yesterday. Cool.
Graeme; I am trying to be nice about Ron, knowing how you guys feel, and I agree with you that he always votes against earmarks, even his own. This is from the Wall St Journal: -
Texas Congressman Ron Paul — libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful — has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can’t resist the political allure of earmarks.
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
While I don’t argue on the point that he is justified in seeking funds for his district, I feel that it is somewhat hypocritical to place earmarks in a bill that is going to pass without his vote, then vote against it on ‘principle’.
I think he is a bit of a poser.
Re Jeff Flake Yes but is he running for president?
No, but he is backing McCain. Actually he would be a good candidate, except for the name.
Flake08 sounds a bit like Lemon International NL.
Ron Paul got a distant second place in Nevada. That is meaningful leading up to Super Tuesday. But with only 6 delegates he is trailing. I’ll continue supporting him until he drops out of the race.
He’s not perfect, he’s screwed up a lot. I like a lot of what he says- but in all honesty- I prefer watching and prefer the personal opinions of some other candidates. But in terms of POLICY- I definitely prefer RP and people should vote on policy rather than people…
At this stage Romney is looking like the Republican candidate- that’s not too bad. I hope he is governor Romney more than presidential candidate Romney. He used to be a lot more tolerant. I don’t like what a Mormon President would do the Mormon church, they’d be whipped into a real frenzy. He’d become de facto Mormon prophet, in all honesty.
I think a Democrat will win. Bush has damaged the reputation of the Republican Party too much. Though Americans are able to see beyond the party lines more than happens here in Australia, I still think the Republicans will lose.
I like Obama, I’d prefer him over Hillary. I also think it’d be good for America to have a black President. Rather than a token black cabinet member.
Whoever is elected, I just think it’ll be an improvement over the monkey. It’ll be scary if it’s not.
It seems to me that Obama versus Clinton is just media hoop-la about two different kinds of interventionist which are just more of the same old same old.
I cut this from a blog commenting on the results of the Nevada primaries:
“These are real results:
Clinton 5,326 51% 12
Obama 4,739 45% 13
Edwards 394 4% 0
Uncommitted 31 0% 0
Kucinich 5 0% 0
Richardson 0 0% 0
Dem Total = 10495(98% reporting)
Romney 22,629 51% 18
Paul 6,077 14% 4
McCain 5,641 13% 4
Huckabee 3,607 8% 2
Thompson 3,518 8% 2
Giuliani 1,907 4% 1
Hunter 890 2% 0
Tancredo 0 0%
Republican total = 44260 (99% reporting)
Clearly showing a HUGE republican turnout of 4x that of the democrats.
Ron Paul vs Hillary vs Barrack
Paul 6,077
Clinton 5,326
Obama 4,739
This is the real story.”
Ron Paul is by no means out of the race.
Romney beats Obama, Paul and Clinton combined…
It seems to me that Obama versus Clinton is just media hoop-la about two different kinds of interventionist which are just more of the same old same old.
True, all I’m saying is I’d like to sit down and have a coffee with Obama. Less so for Hillary. I like Obama’s opinions more- but like any statist he wants to impose those opinions on others.
Freedom is preferable, but in the absence of freedom, any sane person prefers THEIR opinions to be forced on others.
Freedom is preferable, but in the absence of freedom, any sane person prefers THEIR opinions to be forced on others.
Sadly, when you get down and dirty in the real political world this is pretty much the compromise that is always made. Disappointing, but what to do?
while I was happy to see Paul place (albeit unconvincingly) second in NV, I stand by what I said about his chances. 14% in what would probably be one of the more libertarian states is not enough to propel him into the circle of ‘electable’ candidates.
Well if nothing else there is satisfaction in knowing that thus far he has generally done better than Rudy.
Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate to win the Presidency. Because against Ron Paul one third of the Democrats will not vote for the Democrat candidate, two thirds of the Republicans will not vote for the Democrat candidate. and almost no independent will vote for the Democrat candidate.
So if he can get that far he will win. The thing is that no-one individual has much of a chance. So what applies to him applies to the others. There is no clear frontrunner. And Ron Paul has more cash than anyone except for Romney.
I have followed the whole Ron Paul Revolution for a few months now, and I have deliberately looked for negative things about him.
Agreed that the Newsletter thing was a mistake on his part.
Apart from that however I think Ron Paul rocks! He is the best thing to happen politically in the US for a very long time. His bid for president does not stand much of a chance, but his ideology that is being spread by him running is the real positive here. The Ron Paul libertarian message will resonate long after he disappears from the stage.
GO RON PAUL!
Ron Paul is almost completely absent from the British media’s coverage of the primaries. It is a shame. Here the focus is entirely on the Obama Hillary race, it is as if the GOP doesn’t exist.
Having accurately predicted the federal election six months before it happened, rather than quit while I’m ahead I will offer a prediction about the outcome of the US election.
First, I think the Democrats will take back Congress. The Republicans have had too many scandals and stuff-ups to win. The momentum is there.
Second, I think the election will be a contest between McCain and Clinton. And McCain will win.
Why? America is not yet ready to elect a black president, so Clinton will win the nomination. But once she wins, the Republicans (plus plenty of Democrats) will remind everyone why she’s a poor choice – shonky real estate deals in Little Rock, looking the other way when Bill gets his dick sucked, attempts to introduce screwy health policies, etc. There’s no shortage of evidence.
So the US will have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress. It’s happened before and on balance it’s good, because it means not a lot gets done.
I’d still prefer Ron Paul, but it ain’t gonna happen.
David,
The Democrats already control congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary
Regards,
Terje.
p.s. At this point I think McCain is a pretty good prediction. However it is still an open field.
The Democrats already control congress.
Oops. I forgot about the half term results. I guess my prediction is simply that won’t change.
@Brendan.
Yep, just like here in Australia. I was always say that there are three people running for president of the United States according to the Australian media. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
All things aside, the person who I wanted to see win this race is actually Fred Thompson. Although it is now extremely unlikely that he will be the nominee, with federalism being his ‘lodestar’ and his plan to fix the United States entitlement programs which is bankrupting the country like nothing other. No, the war doesn’t even come close to how much programs like Medicare and the like are having on the American economy.
If not Thompson, definetly Romney (who has a much better chance). In fact, a Romney/Thompson ticket is the dream ticket!
I like Thompson’s policies, but on a personal level I don’t know if I could tolerate him.
He seems one of the more bigoted candidates towards abortion, gay rights, etc.
He did say that he did not believe in banning abortion and that it was up to the states to decide on that. I know he himself is pro-life but his federalist stance on those issues is a good proxy for us libertarians.
Yeah, that’s why I said on policy I don’t mind him.
But personally I’d want to strangle the guy.
I support early stage abortion being legal but I think it is a truely difficult issue. I have a hard time disliking somebody merely for disagreeing with me on this issue. Ron Paul in one interview pointed out that the states handle murder as a crime so there is no real reason at all to make abortion a federal crime even if you think abortion is murder.
Shem
Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have the exact same policy on this issue.
Quote from 2 posts up- Yeah, that’s why I said on policy I don’t mind him.
I’ve seen Paul speak on same-sex unions and even on a state level he seems tentatively supportive. He just has a different definition of marriage to me. He views marriage as an exclusively religious ceremony but also is supportive of freedom of association in the case of state-granted civil unions.
Policy-wise Thompson and Paul are the same, but what about their personal opinions? That also matters to me and I think Paul is more progressive on that front. Though if you have evidence of Fred Thompson speaking out in favour of “free association” implying civil unions, or civil unions directly in the way Paul does I’d be interested to see it.
Paul on homosexuality/ gay marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
The constitution doesn’t mention abortion.
So that makes it a State matter.
But Rowe Versus Wade is clearly an anti-constitutional ruling and an outrageous case of oath-breaking.
Huckabees broke. Fred Thompsons out. McCain doesn’t have as much money as Ron Paul. And he’s no conservative. He’s a lefty. Romney’s a fake conservative.
Unless Rudi can really pull something out of the hat in Florida or somewhere that means they are essentially down to three.
Apparently the Ayn Randians are passionately anti-Republican and advocating a vote for the Dems
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4816
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4817
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811
If Obama could be taught economics, he’d be very bloody reasonable to me. Clinton I and the Gringich Congress weren’t slashing the spending but they reined it in and balanced the budget. Would Mc Cain actually balance the budget and lower the spending/GDP ratio? Not likely to me.
I wouldn’t trust Hilary. I know people’s views change, but she has advocated everything from communism to conservative libertarianism. To me it is a signal that policy is meaningless for her, but achieving the Presidency is what matters, not any consequences.
The bizzare dislike of the LP outright by the Randroids is beyond me. Capmag has “improved: it’s articles recently (i.e, they sound more like me these days) but what have they got against Wayne Allen Root? Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t dinner party guests but he is still the best known libertarian idea pusher, and although not perfect has placed well (4th-2nd) in recent primaries.
Let’s see if Jeff Flake is like the new, improved Dr Paul.
I don’t think Paul would ever get up because he is too old and the average politician is getting younger.
I think it was Rand’s arrogant (I like her arrogance though) disliking of Libertarians because she thought that we don’t get the whole picture, where objectivists apparently do.
Don’t ya all go burring up now, this time I am being kind to you. I found an article which sheds a bit mote light on the background of the RP newsletter scandal. I am pretty sure that he has been manipulated, a conclusion I have been coming to for some time.
As a matter of interest Jeff Flake is being opposed for the party nomination this year by this Russell Pearce, who presents an almost libertarian agenda, but is in fact very close to the neo-nazi and white supremacist movements.
We seem to be acquiring a few unwanted hangers on.
How to get rid of them?