News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[ThomasT]

When you say, "(government) programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy", that money has to come from somewhere. It has to be first taken out of the economy ...

Insofar as that money is payroll and withholding taxes, then it's not contributing to the general economy unless the government in some way puts it into the general economy. Welfare programs are one way to do that, and the degree to which that benefits the general economy (ie., the desirability/necessity of federal welfare programs as opposed to no federal welfare programs) is an open question.

But you suggested that my assertion (that federal welfare programs benefit the general economy by infusing hundreds of billions of dollars into the general economy) implied that "the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally" -- and I still don't get how that is implied in a basic framework of private enterprise and private sector ownership of businesses (including publicly owned and traded companies).

In my view, state and local governments and private sector businesses, organizations, and people don't have the resources (or are unwilling to use their resources) to deal with the problems addressed by federal welfare programs, and that abolishing most/all federal welfare would have disastrous effects. Paul suggests otherwise. So, I disagree with him on that.

 

[lpetrich]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.

Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

 

[turbo]

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

That level of support doesn't even begin to translate to the broader GOP primary electorate. Paul's support is not deep enough to get the Republicans worked up, in part (IMO) because some of his Libertarian views may seem too "liberal" to the base. He might have a better level of support if he changed his party affiliation to Dem.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't know why I'm even chiming in so late, but...

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. If not him, then Obama. Although I don't agree with him on everything, to me he is a symbol that a candidate can deviate from party lines and still be viable. I am tired of the status quo and I am tired of every candidate being a puppet in the hands of their party.

 

[mheslep]

Aside from scaling back the US military, what or which of Ron Paul's view's could be considered liberal?

 

[Dotini]

For one, Paul would scale back the War on Drugs, because he and most libertarians do not feel it is the role of government to say what a person can or cannot put into their body.

He is anti-authoritarian, and favors maximizing personal liberties. I think most liberals like the idea of personal freedoms and liberties, but are more ambivalent about authority.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[mheslep]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground. Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance. I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.

 

[ThomasT]

The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground.

Yes, I think this is Paul's essential message, and why he's attractive, at least initially, to lots of voters.

Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance.

Yes, I think this is true.

I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of an old crackpot.

We diverge here. I don't think Paul should be labeled a crackpot. His positions are consistent with what he says he believes. He's a strict constitutionalist, a libertarian, and a devout Christian. There's nothing crackpotty about any of that, imo.

But I do happen to very much disagree with Paul's stated positions wrt several issues.

 

[Galteeth]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.

Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

Caucuses depend on people "making deals". It is a format that favors prepared, committed activists. The casual voter who doesn't have strong convictions is unlikely to get far in a caucus meeting. Paul's people are passionate, well organized, and won't accept a compromise at a caucus that doesn't get them something. As far as the zeal, is it that hard to understand? There is a small but significant group of people who believe in the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression. When I first heard about Paul in 2007, although I didn't agree with everything he said, it was the first time a politician really spoke to me. The enthusiasm is also contagious once you engage with other activists.

 

[turbo]

How many people here have actually attended caucuses? They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.

 

[mheslep]

How many people here have actually attended caucuses?

I have, a couple times.

They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.

Upfront we see the involvement of highly informed people, either on politics or on the issues or both. So we have a trade off between the small but informed group and the necessarily less informed electorate at large. It is the upfront period where the smaller informed group is the better choice, IMO. Keep in mind the smaller group is always placed in check by the knowledge that, to enable success, they must choose someone that has a chance to win their own general election. The process needs these groups to weed out the non-serious. For instance, it's not commonly known but there some 40 people running for US President.

 

[PatrickPowers]

I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years

That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"

 

[turbo]

That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"

That's a thought that many entertained. What happened? So much damage in so little time... He wanted to be a "war president", and what did that get us apart from a horrendous of loss human lives and a wrecked economy.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.

You know, I commonly hear the argument against Paul that people agree with the spirit of his ideas but feel they're not pragmatic.
It seems to me that recently we've has too much short term pragmatism; in other words ignoring long term systemic problems because in the short term the shift would be difficult or impractical. But the country is in a position where the military is over-extended and the deficit and growth of government is out of control.
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.

 

[mheslep]

...
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.

Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.

 

[Galteeth]

Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.

Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.

But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative." I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy, but it should try to manage the world political situation?

 

[mheslep]

Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.

But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.

Refusing to do a lend lease equivalent is textbook isolationism: no action taken until another country attacks the US inside its borders, even at the consequence of condeming a close ally to certain destruction. Though one can certainly argue the US military is overused and overextended, that does not excuse a pretense that the defense of the US is not relevant until the Red Coats burn the White House, as I contend Paul does.

Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative."

Yes, more libertarian than conservative.

I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy,

Not sure what you mean by 'manage' the economy. I don't think the federal government can, or should, manage the private economy as its not granted those powers in the Constitution. It does have the power to print money and thus manage interest rates.

but it should try to manage the world political situation?

False dilemma. I don't want the US to police the world with its military (nor can it), but this does not always force the option of doing nothing. Example: support Iranian dissidents. Give speeches actively supporting them when they are in the streets. Send them communications gear. Iran tests a nuclear weapon, US cuts off their gasoline supply.

 

[ThomasT]

Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.

Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.

So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.

 

[Gokul43201]

Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11344135/1/ron-paul-leapfrogs-romney-in-iowa-polls.html

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/g...ost-likely-to-beat-obama-in-latest-iowa-poll/

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/romney-and-gingrich-lose-paul-gains-in.html

This may just be the fad of the month, but it's still a whole lot more than just a handful of determined activists swaying straw poll numbers.

 

[skippy1729]

Ron Paul could be a big problem for the Republicans. He will win some delegates along the way. The nightmare scenario would be Romney 40% of the delegates, Newt 40% and Paul 10%. I don't think either Romney or Newt could toss him a bone bigger than say, agreeing to an audit of the Federal Reserve without poisoning their own campaign. His ego will demand more. A truly deadlocked convention could bring about a ticket of Republicans smart enough to have stayed out of the primaries; maybe some combination of Chris Christie, Condy Rice, Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal. The democrats would be back to square one in dirt digging. On the other hand, Paul might run as a third party and give the election back to the president. It is going to be a very interesting year.

Skippy

 

[Galteeth]

Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.
Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.

So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.

On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.

Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.

 

[mheslep]

Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):
...

I don't know who would say that or why, given Paul earned multiple 2nd and 3rd place primary finishes in 2008. What I do hear is that Paul has no hope of winning the nomination, and I agree, especially given his fickleness on questions of running as an independent while still under the GOP flag.

 

[turbo]

Just my opinion, but Ron Paul is too liberal for a GOP that has been driven far-right by the Tea Party. He is in the wrong party, and can't hope for enough primary support. If he runs as a third-party candidate, he will peel away votes from both Obama and the eventual GOP nominee, IMO. Democrats who have had enough of "foreign adventures" might pull the lever for him, as will Republicans who are actually conservative and hate the way that their party has been bought by corporate interests.

The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy, and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy and blocking reasonable regulation on the big banks. We are in interesting times. Old Chinese curse, BTW.

 

[mheslep]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

 

[skippy1729]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

Yes, this is precisely why if the Republicans were insane enough to nominate him I would vote for any rational third party candidate; lacking that alternative, I would vote for IMO the worst president in the history of the republic.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, this is precisely why ...

You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?

 

[skippy1729]

You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?

This scenario presents the president with a difficult decision. While it is impossible to predict someones reaction, based on the whole of his foreign policy statements, I think Ron Paul would wash his hands and let the nuclear devastation proceed. I believe Newt would have tried stronger measures against Iran but would cooperate in a preemptive non-nuclear strike as a last resort.

Skippy

 

[ThomasT]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

I don't think it's crackpottery, precisely because it follows logically from his stated ideals (which ideals are not, per se, crackpotty).

On the other hand, I very much agree with you that Gingrich's take on things is much more sophisticated than Paul's.

Obviously, Iran does represent a (potential) threat. And the US does, imo, need to be involved in dealing with that threat. Besides, they've got lots of oil, and, imo, it would be a great thing if the US could control a significant portion of it.

I see both Israeli and US (conventional) bombing of Iran in the future. Extensive bombing. And extensive economic sanctions. And anything else that can be done short of nuking them to get them to abandon their pursuit of nuclear military capability.

 

[ThomasT]

On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.

Yes, I agree with you that the primary problem is America's oil dependence. But that dependence might well, unfortunately (and pardon the pun), be a fact for at least the next century. So, today Iraq and Iran. Tomorrow Venezuela and Canada, and wherever else there are proven oil reserves greater than America's.

Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.

These are good points, except for the fact that an Iran with military nuclear capability is an imminent threat to Israel, and that represents an imminent threat to America's interests in the region.

In effect, America is at war with the Islamic (theocratic) dominance of the Arabic ME.

I expect that conventional bombing of Iran will begin sometime within the next year or so.

 

[CAC1001]

The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy,

How is not raising taxes "shifting money" to anyone?

and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy

I don't think anyone is championing cutting taxes for wealthy folks, just that raising taxes on them isn't going to generate the revenue needed to fix the problems, especially considering that too many times in recent years, the government has only increased spending further after raising tax revenues.