the painfully true facts about ron paul
Encyclopedia Dramatica has a great Ron Paul entry– one that is probably a little too close to the truth, if you ask me. Take the following passage for instance:
His fanbois are probably some of the most easily trolled on the entire internet. Just say you’re Jewish or Black, claim allegiance to the Illuminati, Freemasons, North American Union, or ZOG entity, or mention that Ron Paul has publicly denied that Jews did WTC, thus alienating his base.
During one of my recent spats with some very passionate Paul fans over his foreign policy stance (which I find inaccurate to the point of absurdity) I was accused– and I use the word accused very specifically here– of being Jewish. (Indeed, the commenter suggested that, due to my belief that the Iraq war made sense in the overall campaign to eradicate Islamic extremism and its roots in the Middle East, I therefore must be supporting Israel).
Where does such obvious idiocy and bigotry stem? Obviously not all supporters are as insensitive and stupid. Indeed, I am friends with several passionate and extremely intelligent Paul supporters. But is there a reason why Paul tends to attract these sorts of individuals? I think so, and it happens not due to Paul’s positions per se, but rather, the way that he promotes them.
Paul has fashioned himself some sort of political maverick– challenging the status quo. One of the problems with taking this position is that Paul must highlight where his platform (which, I will admit, is by any reasonable measure unorthodox) differs from the traditional Republican ideas. Whereas other candidates are falling all over themselves to prove how Republican they are, Paul must prove how Republican he isn’t. This has the unintended consequence of attracting a whole lotta’ crazy, if you know what I mean, as well as a lot of support that isn’t healthy for the Republican Party, the ranks of which are swelling as people who don’t agree with any of the major platforms of the Republicans race to register so that they can attempt to shove Paul past the primaries.
This is why so many people have big problem with Ron Paul– aside from the obvious policy disagreements. Moreover, it has a lot more to say about Paul’s electability than I think most of his supporters would like to admit.
Ron Paul attracts people who take to heart, what liberty and freedom really mean. I don’t think it fair to single out a particular supporter of Ron Paul that you thought was crazy as somehow representative of the group. Take a moment and read this this article:
http://www.newsli.com/2007/12/06/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-bears-an-empty-pot-for-americans/
Richard
December 24, 2007 at 1:26 am
Nice article, although the substance of your comment seemed to ignore one of the key sentences:
“Obviously not all supporters are as insensitive and stupid. Indeed, I am friends with several passionate and extremely intelligent Paul supporters. But is there a reason why Paul tends to attract these sorts of individuals? I think so, and it happens not due to Paul’s positions per se, but rather, the way that he promotes them.”
Moreover, while I continually praise Paul’ consistency, since I think much of the positions he’s been touting are not only wrong, they are obviously so– especially in the arena of foreign policy. I don’t think he’s “pro-constitution” (in that I disagree with his idea of what the constitution says) and I think that he employs knowingly dishonest and manipulative campaign tactics. Thus, I think it follows that he is bad for the republican party.
curtisschweitzer
December 24, 2007 at 2:12 am
what may i ask is right about our current foreign policy? Ron being bad for the republican party? is that because you think he may split the party? if thats true then it should tell you there are alot of republicans that aren’t happy with the status quo. You don’t have to be a nut not to be happy with the way the direction the country is going in.since ron is not your candidate of choice i would like to know who is and why?
Thank you and merry christmas
david
December 25, 2007 at 7:25 am
What is right about a foreign policy that seeks to stabilize one of the most volatile regions of the world? That recognizes that the military might of the United States can and should be used to actively oppose extremism and tyranny? That balances international cooperation with the sovereignty of the United States in an era where many would wish to wholly remove it?
The above is admittedly exaggeration, but rhetorically important nonetheless in that it illustrates how framing an issue makes a big difference in how it is interpreted. Quite obviously Ron Paul and I would disagree on the above characterizations, but that’s the entire point of this debate, is it not? To hash out issues?
Ron Paul doesn’t really engage the facts of the issues much of the time. This is often forgivable in that he is running a campaign for President, and will inevitably end up having to do so– however, he is also basing almost all of his platform on this hollow rhetorical technique. Witness the self-righteous attempts to suggest he is somehow more “pro-constitution” than his opponents without explaining why, or his childish assertions that Al Qaeda and other terrorists are motivated only by U.S. foreign policy, rather than a rapid global expansion of a particular cultural paradigm that diametrically opposes fundamentalist Islamic ideas. Or any number of issues where Paul avoids addressing the facts in order to drum up support by attacking unpopular politicians and policies without really pushing his own. (Which isn’t to say that Paul doesn’t have a position– clearly his platform is detailed and well thought-out, if extremist– merely that he doesn’t really stress it because to do so would no doubt erode the small support he already has.
Nonetheless, to answer your question– I support John McCain, because among all the candidates, he is the only one to base his campaign on the notion that, though it be unpopular, the safety and security of Iraq is the most prominent and important issue of our time. (In addition to agreeing with his domestic policy nearly 100%). This, I think, is a far more principled stance that shows significantly more integrity than Paul– who has time and again hidden his libertarian agenda in favor of using his far more popular stance on Iraq as the sole means of garnering support.
curtisschweitzer
December 31, 2007 at 11:41 pm
wow He speaks what every rational human on earth believes and he hasn’t back down on one statemnt he has made unlike john McCain who wants to give away our soverignty to illegal immigration
david
January 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm
david–
Its tiresome to find comments like yours inasmuch as they don’t really address the issues but just hurl insults. Obviously rational people can disagree on these matters– there’s no need for breathless exclamations like the above– especially when they aren’t backed up with any factual evidence, as is the case with your comment.
curtisschweitzer
January 5, 2008 at 12:29 am
[...] Paul that examines some of the less savory portions of Ron Paul’s political past. I’ve touched on these issues before (more accurately, some of Paul’s racist supporters have attacked me before), but the [...]
ron paul’s checkered past, and dangerous future « empty rhetoric
January 8, 2008 at 2:51 pm