A Note to Ron Paul Supporters, Opponents, and Those In Between
Jason Kuznicki on Jan 5th 2008
I’ve been coy on what I really think about Ron Paul, and I am going to continue being coy. This isn’t because I’m hiding what I think, but because what I think is actually pretty complicated, and because I don’t want to hurt anyone else’s feelings by clumsily thinking aloud. Some clumsiness I’m willing to share, below the fold.
Ron Paul is far, far from a perfect candidate, as Tim Sandefur and others have repeatedly noted. I’m not sure whether Paul’s support for creationism is an automatic dealbreaker for me, as it is for him. (Side question: Which candidates would Sandefur support? Presumably not Huckabee, who also is a creationist, but… why then did Sandefur support George W. Bush, whose policy recommendations are identical to Ron Paul’s, and who hides his own thoughts on the issue like any “good” politician should? And is Bush really fooling anyone about what he really believes?)
The only reason that Ron Paul matters in this race — the only reason — is that he declares, loudly and clearly, that today’s Republican Party has gone wildly off the rails. And obviously it has. It used to stand for small government and free markets. Now it stands for big government and federalizing everything. And there’s a segment of American conservatives, mostly young and idealistic, who maybe aren’t even old enough to remember Ronald Reagan personally, but who sense that what they’re getting in today’s GOP is nothing like what the party’s history seems to have promised. Understandably, they’re upset. They’re not about to vote Democratic, mind you, even though many people right around my own age look at the Clinton years and marvel at how our standards have fallen in the meantime. (Note to self: Many of the Paulites don’t even remember Clinton all that well, let alone Reagan.)
So below a certain age, the small-government return-to-normalcy vote goes to Ron Paul. No one else is even seriously competing for it, and I’ve got to hand it to him: Paul very often says all the right things. People who hear his message aren’t about to settle for any of the other Republican candidates.
A little older in this same small-government return-to-normalcy demographic, and the trend is distinctly toward the Democrats. (More for Obama than Clinton, I’d guess, and firmly in spite either their records or their promises. Politics doesn’t always make sense, does it?) Older still among the live-and-let-livers, and there’s just the wise (or cynical?) apathy of those who’ve seen too much of either party in the White House. The Ron Paul phenomenon just passes them by: It’s almost entirely about the political homelessness of young, smaller-government voters.
And nostalgia for the party they never really had the chance to vote for. Again and again, they call him grandfatherly. Which makes perfect sense, in a way: Given the GOP of today or the GOP of 1960, plenty of people would take the latter, and that’s more or less what Paul delivers, complete with both the good and the bad. I have the sense that for many of the young Paulites, the bad of that era is, when you break it down issue-by-issue, either a) less bad than the bad of this era or b) never going to get enacted anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. (See Bryan Caplan for some thinking roughly along those lines.)
At least, that’s how the Ron Paul kids I know think. And I know quite a few. Privately, they’re disgusted by the racists, the creationists, the theonomists, and the other assorted glommers-on. They are, to the very last, forward thinking and tolerant on social issues. In the federal government, they want someone who thinks the federal government should leave their personal lives, their property, and their money alone. As to local government, they want exactly the same thing: To be governed as little as possible. (No, Paul himself doesn’t feel likewise about the local stuff. But there’s such a thing, you know, as a Pareto improvement.)
Ron Paul’s younger supporters are so over racism that they have a hard time even getting concerned about it. This may itself be a reason for concern, but that’s how it stands, and that’s why the older folks don’t seem to get their insouciance about it. They youngsters are well aware that biblical law hasn’t a chance in hell of being enacted in the United States. They tolerate the cranks, because they believe in something really, really powerful: Limited government. And no one else does.
Ron Paul is the only one offering anything like that message, and the younger generation of libertarians — the folks who’ll be running the Cato Institute when I’m in retirement — well, they’re still young. And idealistic. They badly want to do something, anything, to get the message out. Direct support of a candidate often seems like the way to go, particularly for first-time voters and for those who haven’t already soured on the political process. (Again, I might invoke Bryan Caplan, but I won’t.) I know where they are, kind of: There was a time when I felt this way about Harry Browne, just with a lot less realistic hopes. (Confidentially, I never really had any.)
So what do they get for that enthusiasm? Eleven thousand votes in Iowa. It’s a good number, but of course a distinctly limited one. It puts things into perspective, particularly the road ahead.
I hope the Paul campaign has been and will continue to be an education all around, and that the new generation of libertarians will learn what can be learned from it, both the good and the bad. I hope they’ll keep having fun with it. And it certainly has been fun. I hope they will continue to educate themselves, to speak out, and to carry on in a struggle that is as old as human history, the struggle for individual liberty. I sure as hell hope they realize that it’s bigger than one man and one campaign. I hope they’ll question their hero from time to time, and I’m more than willing to play chief inquisitor, or at least co-counsel for the prosecution. I hope they’ll fight the good fight, and that they won’t give up.
Spoken, you say, like a true politician. Out with it already: Do I wish their man success? Do I wish that he were in the White House? Such questions! Please. Isn’t politics supposed to be the art of the possible?
Filed in The Bureau
Thank you, Jason, for your always engaging thoughts on these tough issues. Personally, I’m starting to vacillate all over again on this issue. I had come to the conclusion that I could not support Paul despite loving his stands on many key issues. To some extent, the matter is moot for me - I won’t be voting in the Republican primary in Michigan and he isn’t going to be the general election candidate. But that’s never been an issue for me before and I know I could at least lend my voice of support even if I can’t lend my vote. But if I’m going to do that, I might as well just focus on advocacy on those issues themselves rather than on a particular candidate. See how conflicted I am?
I’ll say this, though. Over the last few days, as I read the new GAO report on the Federal budget for FY 2007, which shows that the long term Federal debt is now up to a staggering $53 trillion (up $33 trillion since 2000), it has me once again rethinking my previous conclusion. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who recognizes that we need not just a slight restraining of growth in government but a wholesale, radical restructuring of government to save us from the fiscal abyss. We can debate and disagree on the small stuff, but that’s a really big thing and he is the only candidate from either party who takes it seriously.
Jason, I don’t mean to nitpick, but our money IS our property, so long as we acquired it by honest means. Otherwise, you really hit the nail on the head about Ron Paul and most of his supporters. Thanks.
Why do I keep reading more ridiculous articles every day? Ron Paul was about 4000 votes behind the 3rd and 4th candidates in Iowa. Which is just 3%, which translated to not getting 1 more delegate. Why do you make it sound like he doesn’t have every chance of winning? He earned 10% of the votes in a very conservative state. (Source: CNN) That is after the Mainstream Media continues to not cover his candidacy.
The most coverage I’ve seen was two days after he rose the most money in one day of any candidate. Ever. I think that last fact is very important. Let me rephrase it another way: Ron Paul has raised more money in one day than any other candidate in the entire history of American politics. Most of it all came from individual contributers as well.
So, go ahead. Don’t focus on soon-to-be President Paul. As Gandhi once said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I’m with Ed on this. I’ve struggled with the Ron Paul issue very hard, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I simply can’t in good conscience support him. I love him for all of the same reasons Ed does, but there’s too many things about him that make me uncomfortable. He doesn’t support gay marriage, for one. his anti Roe position, put forward in the form of “returning the issue of abortion to the states” is not an argument I find terribly convincing. But the final straw for me is his anti 14th Amendment stance. Here in New Hampshire I’ve been bombarded with his latest adds declaring his desire to amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship, a position that I find absolutely disgusting.
Paul’s stances on limited government are indeed inspiring. But I simply can’t group myself among the thongs of his enthusiastic supporters. I won’t be voting in the primary this Tuesday. As far as the general elections are concerned, I’ll figure out what I’ll do when that time comes.
So, who is better? Honest question. It’s easy to put Ron Paul down without offering an alternative, but who is better? It’s sad, but the fact of the matter is that nobody is better. None of the other candidates even come close to comparing. They aren’t even in the same ballpark.
Most of the issues you disagree with him on, I’m willing to bet it’s because the position has been skewed, or the entire truth hasn’t come out. For example, I notice someone says he doesn’t support gay marriage. Thats not true, he doesn’t support the government being involved in any marriage, gay or straight. He feels this is not an issue for the federal government, that the federal government should treat people equally regardless of these things.
And honestly, what the persons THEORY on how the universe was created is an issue for this election? Are you serious? You know what, that makes you NO better than those evangelicals you would complain about, as they also vote on such an issue. When in reality this shouldn’t even be close to mattering. Who cares? It’s not like Ron Paul is basing his positions based on any theory here. Think about it for a minute, do you really want to be the kind of person who votes on religious based issues? Because thats what you do if such an issue matters. It goes both ways ya know.
Hey, I’d love for a better candidate to come along. And if one does, let me know cuz I’m ready for it. But I am in agreement with atleast 90% of Ron Pauls stances, and the other 10% I can atleast see why he feels the way he does.
And for the record, Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional, as the judical system has no right at all to write any laws. That is the job of congress. At most, they could have only decided that it was a right.
To take it further, abortion is a criminal matter. Criminal matters fall into the jurisdiction of the state. Legal or illegal, it’s a criminal matter.
I am personally about 90% pro-life, 10% pro-choice. Meaning, by my choice I am pro-life. But I feel that was my choice, and I don’t feel the government has the authority to make that choice for others. However, at the same time I also see that the current pro-choice laws are wrong on other levels. My tax dollars shouldn’t be used to pay for them, and while the point of life is debatable, once there is another life involved then I also recongize the rights of that life. I’m just unsure where that point is exactly, and the more complicated an issue like this, then the greater reason they government shouldn’t be involved, because at that point they are really making laws without understanding the topic fully.
Regardless of beliefs and stances, Ron Paul stands for getting the government to follow the law of the land, the constitution again. Which IMO should be the bare minimum of any legitmate candidate. As I see it, there is only 1 legit candidate for either of the 2 major parties, however some points should be given to Kucinich and Gravel for being way ahead of the others.
Well it’s clear you people aren’t paying attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EKLPNnZqhI
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPrv1bESUdI&feature=related
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORg2a9ABiB0&feature=related
I dare you to learn something.
It’s funny. I say all kinds of good things about Ron Paul, and I’m attacked by his supporters.
Badmedia, you’re right on one thing: There is no one better. There’s a difference (a fine one, maybe, but a difference) between voting for someone to prevent a greater evil, and voting for someone because you thoroughly support him. I’m not convinced I want to vote for him yet, but there’s something of that question here as well.
But there’s another thing I think you’re mistaken on:
And honestly, what the persons THEORY on how the universe was created is an issue for this election? Are you serious? You know what, that makes you NO better than those evangelicals you would complain about, as they also vote on such an issue. When in reality this shouldn’t even be close to mattering. Who cares? It’s not like Ron Paul is basing his positions based on any theory here. Think about it for a minute, do you really want to be the kind of person who votes on religious based issues? Because thats what you do if such an issue matters. It goes both ways ya know.
Suppose there were a candidate who believed that women could ride broomsticks through the air at night and consort with the devil.
“It’s never been proven otherwise,” he’d insist. “Besides, these are all just theories anyway.”
I wouldn’t want to vote for this person, and I wouldn’t want him leading the country. I consider creationism equally irrational.
I deal with the same thing every time I mention Ron Paul on my blog. There are a few people, including those who contribute to this blog, who can discuss the various issues involved and come down on different sides respectfully and then there are those on both sides who simply cannot imagine how anyone could possibly disagree with them. I certainly understand why Jim Babka and Perry Willis are supporting Ron Paul. Their arguments are serious and compelling and I’m not entirely convinced they’re not right. As I wrote, this question has become more difficult for me, not less. But they’re also reasonable enough to recognize that there are some equally serious arguments on the other side and they share some of those concerns even if they don’t consider them compelling enough to change their support. And then there are the true believers on either side, the “Ron Paul is crazy” crowd and the “Ron Paul is our savior” crowd, each behaving like true believers always do.
Suppose there were a candidate who believed that women could ride broomsticks through the air at night and consort with the devil.
My question would be, as it would be on the topic of creationism or astrology or any other crackpot opinion a presidential candidate may harbor — and they probably all harbor at least a couple — would be whether the crackpot opinion in question would affect how he or she behaved in office. If the answer is not at all then I couldn’t care less. Oh, sure, it would be mildly embarrassing to have an avowed believer in witchcraft or even an avowed anti-Darwinist in the Oval Office, but I long ago stopped expecting that my presidents wouldn’t embarrass me.
Good post Jason, I doubt there are many true supporters of Paul that haven’t struggled with an issue, or an answer, and you are right to say he is not the perfect candidate, but until we find a perfect candidate we are stuck with Ron Paul and a handful of perfectly imperfect candidates.
I think D.A. brings up a very important point, which I’ve wanted to confront Sandefur with since his “end of argument” post, and that is, RP’s personal views aside, his policy position on all matters dealing with creationism would be to take the Federal Government’s hands, tongues, and arms, out of the classroom. I certainly couldn’t imagine RP supporting a national curriculum, and I’m not sure I can say that about any other Dem or GOP candidate, which is a prospect that scares me much more than having a President who doesn’t find physical science to be the “be all and end all” of knowledge inquiry.
What I see in RP, as I’ve now resigned myself to the fact that the party elites will not allow his candidacy to gain the traction that it deserves, is promise for the future. In that sense, I think you overly simplify the importance of the movement, and Sandefur greatly errs in spending so much time debasing it (especially for someone who won’t outline an alternative, and who has many other worthy causes he could be devoting that time and space to.)
RP’s supporters are not exclusively “young idealistic conservatives,” and few of them would vote for Reagan if he was running today (see massive expansion of military.) In fact, I’ve met a number of RP supporters who might easily end up voting for Obama, if it means keeping Clinton or Giuliani out of the White House. (My personal preference amongst the major candidates would be Paul 1st, Obama 2nd, but, let me mind you, that’s about akin to saying “chocolate ice cream 1st, steer manure 2nd.”) The message may be spread primarily by the young small government types (it is a GOP primary afterall,) but it is clearly embraced by so many of the disenfranchised who have never had a voice in politics.
As Iowa proved, the politics of past generations, best represented by the phone poll, has been to chose from Party Elite Choice A, and Party Elite Choice B, but RP supporters will not abide this system. Empowered by the information age, we will flock together our online hours, and $100 contributions in order to force our candidate into the spotlight of the complicit and reluctant corporate media, and we’ve done a pretty darn good job for our first real run. (Though there are probably some Deaniacs who could make a good case that this is the second run.)
This may very well be the last President selected by my father’s generation, and Dr. Paul’s success shows that the party elites can’t keep the people down forever. For that, my thanks will never be enough, and I wish him the best of luck in tomorrow’s primary!
Personally, I don’t really know or care about 90% of what Paul believes. I think many of his positions that I have heard are ill-considered, like abolishing the Federal Reserve or withdrawing from the UN. Nevertheless, I will vote for him. Here’s why:
From several experiences dealing directly with politicians of various stripes, from the school board up to the level of national office, I’m convinced that party is only an indicator of which types of intevention the candidate thinks is appropriate. As a group, they are almost universally arrogant. I’m not talking here theoretically; I’ve formed this opinion from personal one-on-one interaction in a variety of settings from hospital waiting rooms, to council meetings, to screening committees, to classrooms. All of them, Republican or Democrat, know your business better than you do.
The system as it stands is corrupting, and has become completely resistant to restraint, at least by our exisiting political class. Most of the difference between the parties is so much surface froth designed to distract the public from the fact that, as governing bodies, their main interests are rewarding their campaign contributors of various stripes, and seeing which party can outdream the other in its next great scheme: universal healthcare, creating democracies in barbarian lands, monitoring all citizens to make us “safe”.
I think the political system is in desperate need of somone of integrity, even if a bit of a crank, and a fundamental paradigm shift.
Anyone who can’t see that Republicans, as soon as they obtained power in ‘94, happily began the same policies of government expansion and rewarding of backers, in EXACTLY THE SAME CORRUPT WAY, that the Democrats operated is blind. Hell, I’ve hired lobbyists, I KNOW what goes on. I can see their results.
All the discussions of creationism, abortion, etc. can become just so much more froth. We need a FUNDAMENTAL challenge to the system. We need unity from those who have the eyes to see this.
Perot did this in ‘92, without him Clinton would not have been elected. Balanced budgets would not have been such an issue, had he not garnered 18% of the popular vote. The tax bill of ‘93 that set us on the correct path for the ’90s would not have passed. No, he didn’t win. And I’m not a Perot fan. But that challenge shook the system enough to enable change. Not enough and it didn’t last for long enough, but remember the prosperity that followed fiscal discipline?
Give me any opportunity, even remote, even on the margins, to challenge this two-party strangle hold that is choking our democracy and I’ll seize it.
JeremyD wrote:
Absolutely brilliant and spot on! Good show.
I’m going to steal this quote and use it somewhere. Hope you don’t mind.
[...] I’m chagrined by the news. I’m concerned about the long-term perspective this might leave long after this campaign is over. As Jason Kuznicki rightly pointed out (because I too have met many of these young-Paulites), Paul’s young supporters are well-over racism. They are attracted to the positive message of this campaign — Ron Paul’s real message. [...]
Tim Sandefur is going to be supporting Rudy Giuliani. Just like all of the other Objectivists.
Tim Sandefur is going to be supporting Rudy Giuliani. Just like all of the other Objectivists.