Why harp on Ron Paul? ask my interlocutors. Do I hate liberty? Do I not realize that he's the closest thing there is to a libertarian candidate?
Well, for one thing, there's not much point in my arguing with a John Edwards supporter.
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
"I know! Isn't it marvelous?" they reply, and that's the end of the discussion.
In fact, I will, in the run-up to Iowa, be digging into the economic policies of all of the major candidates, and presenting my thoughts for your delectation. Ron Paul is up first for two reasons: first, because so many people seem convinced that he ought to make my heart go pitter-pat; and second, because the nuttiness extremity of his policies makes for interesting discussion.
There's really very little variation between most of the candidates this election; we're mostly arguing about dry bureaucratic tweaks to the same fundamentally wrong-headed policies advocated by everyone. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has an entirely different set of fundamentally wrong-headed policies, which makes him slightly more amusing to talk about. Ron Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less. Thus we waste little time getting tangled up in subtleties.
Anyway, why not just bite the bullet and support him, imperfect as he is? I did as much for the execrable George Bush in 2004, after all. Well, actually, you just answered your own question; I've overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate before, with less than salutory results. George Bush supported low taxes, a semi-decent entitlement reform, etc., etc. It's just that little of that stuff happened, and a lot of bad stuff did.
The fact that Ron Paul doesn't want to do those bad things, but instead advocates an entirely different group of bad ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and pulling every American solider back behind our borders, doesn't comfort me. Nor does the fact that Congress will stop him, since Congress will stop him from doing nearly all the things I like, such as reforming Social Security--just as they stopped George Bush from doing the things I liked. They won't stop him from refusing to negotiate new trade deals, and doing his best to scupper the ones we've got, for example. Nor will they likely block him on immigration. And I'm pretty sure they can't keep us from whisking all of our troops home from everywhere tomorrow, which sounds fun in a bold, sweeping sort of way--but I am inherently suspicious of bold, sweeping changes to our foreign policy.
All of which is irrelevant because if Ron Paul somehow did garner the Republican nomination, the only tangible result would be a Goldwater-style landslide.
I'm confused. You said you were going to examine the intricacies. Instead, you pointed out what you do and don't like about the man's proposed policies- and wipe them all off the board for discussion by saying Congress would somehow stop him from doing each and every one. This is just an opinion, and a shallow one at that. Why don't you actually do what you said you were going to at the top of the article and explain why his economic policies would or wouldn't fail? At this rate, you're just going to tell us which candidate you do or don't like based upon... well... absolutely nothing!
Megan, the congress is the next replacement. Once the hawks are out of the White House the cronies in the Congress are going to get the boot next.
Something’s changing in this country, we want our freedom back.
Wow, that's a small moment in my life I'll never get back. Thank you for your idiotic and vapid opinion...Retard.
why is abolishing the fed a bad thing?
pulling troops home is way better than keeping them abroad and whether you agree with the idea or not this is necessary for fiscal responsibility. I personally think they should privatize Iraq before leaving, but other than that America has no needs for troops anywhere.
What do you need trade deals for when you have someone who believes in free trade? The point of free trade is to trade freely, not to make massively protective deals that are called free trade. He'll go as far as to trade with Cuba etc. What problem do you really have here considering he'll have more open trade with more countries than any past admin?
He doesn't have any serious plans to curtail immigration other than cutting subsidies, which is a good thing. Why do you want to keep these?
Megan,
You need to investigate the facts!
There are some logical inconsistencies in what you write, Megan.
Ron Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less. Thus we waste little time getting tangled up in subtleties.
Well, obviously not. I find that Ron Paul makes much more sense and his nuanced stance on many things is much more appreciated for its reasonable approach when you hear him elaborate beyond a sentence or two. Ironically, it's the condensing of his positions into single phrases of hearsay that cause the POV that you seem to have.
I've overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate before, with less than salutory results. George Bush supported low taxes, a semi-decent entitlement reform, etc., etc. It's just that little of that stuff happened, and a lot of bad stuff did.
Well, if we refer back to Caplan's piece that you cited, we see that this isn't very good reasoning on your part. Bush did "bad" with matters he was most able to influence....namely in foreign policy. The tax cuts were easy with a sympathetic congress but that's about it. The many things he failed to do were because of checks of balances.
Unless you feel Paul's foreign policy positions (the real ones...not the simplistic hearsay!), then you're not making much sense. FP is one area where Paul would have the most influence. The things like abolishing the Fed (a bit of an exageration BTW), wich you are very hung up on are not going to happen on his whim and most likely will not happen at all.
Paul's trade position is simply obtuse. It's not "wrong" in the way that Edwards is wrong. Paul's just being a purist and I agree that he should loosen up on that stance. Then again, if he were able to simply abolish tariffs and special interest barriers as he wants to, we wouldn't need agreements.
I don't really agree with him on immigration. But I don't see much difference in anyone's stance on this. His views aren't much different than any of the front runners. But he does have the right attitude about it when he says that immigrants are scapegoats and that if the economy was stronger and more open, we wouldn't feel threatened by immigrants. He's right.
Megan, I think you are onto something new! Sound bite journalism! You are so enamoured with sound bite politicians that dont have to back up their claims and have an excuse for it since they only have 30 second soundbites that you've adapted it to your journalism where you have no excuse.
My old-fashion internet-savvy son tells me I shouldn't even read internet journalism unless it is backed up with links in the text(sorta like footnotes in the old days). Otherwise he claims it is just a lame opinion that the author cannot back up. But what does he know?
I'd prefer to just be confused about what is wrong with bringing our troops home from all over the world than to admit my ignorance.
Wow, I've been interested in your discussion of Paul's economic policies. This is starting to look like you've run out of good arguments - Just an opp for a cute strikethrough.
Whatever. The very things you find nutty and extreme about him are sitting smack dab in the middle of the Constitution. The rest of us find your reluctant Keynesianism nutty. But hey, it's a free country. People can believe what they want, right?!?!
Wow... I guess they'll just let anyone write at the Atlantic. Megan, Journalism requires at least some investigation on your part. If we wanted to read poorly thought out editorial, we'd watch Fox news...
Nor does the fact that Congress will stop him, since Congress will stop him from doing nearly all the things I like
Megan, you've missed the obvious behind the "Revolution": a President Paul would have the avid (heck, rabid) support of the most vociferous constituents on the planet. We would flood our congressional offices with letters, petitions, phone calls, faxes, demanding that the US Congress co-operate with the changes and reforms that we the people want. It's our right and our duty, as spelled out in our founding documents.
Politicians always cave to the demands of the people that have the power to keep them in, or boot them out, of office. For me, that is the most exciting prospect of the Ron Paul Revolution: we take back the White House for universal liberty, and force Congress to comply.
Another thing, Megan,
Why the different levels of faith in collective bumbling?
On domestic policy, you seem more for less top down, clumsy control that creates side-effects and consequences that require further "solutions" that then create even more problems because the cause is still engrained in the "cure".
From methodological individualist stand point, foreign policy is no different.
I understand your position, and there are probably many people in this nation just like you. They've been in chains so long, that the prospect of freedom--change--can be scary. Sometimes change is good. Ron Paul 2008.
And yet ANOTHER thing, Megan,
domestically, Paul would do something wonderful even if none of his proposed reforms went through:
He would veto virtually everything...which would temper Congress to make bills veto-proof and that means getting bills down to a level where enough Republicans would help override a veto.
In case you haven't noticed, spending has slowed down since the Dems took over Congress....not because the Dems are stingy but because Bush found his veto pen. The mutual rubber stamping is gone.
Paul would take that to another level. Less military spending + trimmed down appropriations bills and a virtual halt on silly new "laws" would reap enormous benefits on a fiscal level.
Why do we even bother with dilettante hacks like McArdle?
It's not surprising that people who are corrupt are against a good person who wants to make America good again.
Seriously getting rid of the Fed is nutty. I mean its not like we are in some sort of credit crunch right now.
Its not that he should make your heart go pitter patter so much as he is bring the level of debate up a notch. It should be refreshing to any serious economic journalist that a presidential candidate knows what M3 IS let alone wants to bring to light the fact that the Fed fails to report to the people what they are doing to it.
I disagree with the "Goldwater-style landslide" remark. (Actually I disagree with just about everything but I'll stick with this one thing) Hillary wouldnt stand a chance in a debate with Ron Paul. Her voting record on the war is atrocious. The absurdity of our foreign policy is apparent, and all we need is a nominee who has the guts to say so in front of the people. There are too many irresponsible people in this country to even think about something like national healthcare. It's a pipe dream, and it doesnt mesh with the idea of personal responsibility at all. Hillary knows next to nothing about any of the issues Ron Paul has made his bread and butter. Especially currency devaluation.
OK, our ideas are so radical I concede that we can be considered as radicals! But is that not the essense of being Americans? Who thought we had a chance back in 1776 and 1812? Americans were known as true risk-takers and few countries have changed the world like we did. Is that phase of our history truly finished? Are we no longer revoluntary in our orientation to life's challenges? What we are doing in our political realm is not working. It is making life harder for all of us and things will only deteriorate if we continue down this path. Insanity is repeating the same thing only and over and expecting different results. Standing up with Ron Paul and demanding a new path and new leadership is exactly what this revolution is all about. Who knows? This may very well be the last chance preserve what made America great and worth living in. Join us, your voice could make the difference in whether this revolution succeeds or fails.
Wow....did I miss something? For yours and the Atlantic's sake, I hope so. Otherwise, my respect for the Atlantic and (what I thought was it's superb) journalism has plummeted.
I suggest you know something about Ron Paul before writing about him.
ronpaul2008.com
John V
Actually, since Congress would want to make their bills veto proof every piece of legislation that came from Congress would have more pork than a pig roast. I think your optimism is somewhat misplaced at least until mid-terms.
"the nuttiness extremity of his policies"
If all you have, at base level, is smears and name-calling, you're no better than the Neocons that oppose Dr. Paul.
The lamestream media is on the tumble. I hope you have another job lined up.
You need to investigate the facts!
What's up with the Paulinistas constantly assigning us homework?
Megan. I am ashamed of your Irish last name and your lack of coherent intellectual arguments. You are a disgrace to your ancestors. I will give you a very simple question that even you may be able to answer. In the great scheme of things just how does any other candidate running have a plan that will increase individual liberty? Do you realize that Judicial Watch has named four CFR candidates Hillary Obama Rudy and the Huckster in their top ten list of the most corrupt politicians? These candidates are owned by the corporate fascist. See who donates to them. It is not individual Americans like the donors to Ron Paul. That is what this Revolution is about. Ron Paul is the people's candidate representing the Constitutional values that once made us proud to be Americans. We are energized by the prospect of FREEDOM. If you think we are free you are mistaken. Our liberty has been abolished. The Bill of Rights is replaced with the 'Patriot Act". Secret Tribunals exist that ignore the Writ of Habius Corpus. Our telephones are tapped. This administration has an inability to define torture and a vague definition of an "Enemy Combatant". Tomorrow it could be you. These are tools of despots. Even your criticisms are naive. You scoff about abolishing the Federal Reserve without reflecting that it is not Federal and is nothing more then an unconstitutional cartel of bankers that have hijacked our monetary system to the detriment of the American people. View "Freedom to Fascism" and educate yourself. You are against bringing our troops home? This is an unjust undeclared war that has no end in sight. If you look at the history of mankind most wars have not been fought to preserve Liberty as our first Revolution but to further the agendas of the elite. That is the purpose of this war and the purpose of our troops that are stationed around the world. You folks that are clinging to the Old Media propagandist views had better get use to the idea that you and your kind are irrelevant. The internet and the free exchange of ideas has debunked your lies and disinformation. The voice for Liberty is being heard around the World. It is an Idea whose time has come and Nothing can stop it. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Freedom!
P.S. My comma key broke.
H Man,
well, that's a cynical way of looking at it. I'm not so sure that it would happen that way. It's not happening right now. Bush's standards for a veto are much lower than Paul's and the Dems have been had to rework appropriations bills to get them to pass.
I'm may be more optimistic than you but I don't think I'm being very overly optimistic. I'm big believer in the virtuous effects of gridlock on a congressman's tendency for chutzpah
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, no Democrat would stand a chance.
Any other Republican would start out with 70% of the voters against them on Iraq, and be dead in the water on election day.
Ron Paul has already proven an ability to appeal to liberals, progressives, libertarians, and independents, along with hardcore Republican conservatives.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party on the majority side of the biggest issues: against the Iraq war, against illegal immigration, for smaller government, for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for civil liberties, for the Constitution, and against ruining our health care system by turning it over to the government.
No other candidate in either party has such broad appeal, or anywhere near his integrity or consistency.
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
Megan, You can't be serious. Any thinking person who has been paying attention would know that Dr. Paul is diametrically opposed to those disingenuous accusatory positions.
The only thing I can figure is that you are just using "Ron Paul:" in the title of your article to drive up readership because the rest is just a makeweight of blathering vacuous nonsense.
I was considering getting a subscription to the Atlantic. Thanks for putting me off.
Ron sez: "constantly assigning us homework?"
Based on the content of McArdle's column, some assigned homework on her part would be in order.
Anyone that's done even a modicum of homework on the topic would know that getting rid of the Federal Reserve is the best thing that could happen to Americans right now.
Start with Murray Rothbard, one of Ron Paul's mentors:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/tmb.html
Come on now; you aren't being fair to Megan!
She used a big word in her first sentence:
"interlocutors"
Thus, she framed the article with her intelligence, so we'd all see that she's really smart and not just an name-caller.
Ron Paul's ideas are indeed radical and nutty because he calls for a return to responsible government! It would be GOOD to do so, but still radical in this day and age.
Megan,
wow! what an analysis! I'm confused though... were you attempting to figure anything out or just rambling on and on about your arbitrary unfounded opinions?
Come on now; you aren't being fair to Megan!
She used a big word in her first sentence:
"interlocutors"
Thus, she framed the article with her intelligence, so we'd all realize that she's really smart, a thinker, and not just a name-caller.
Ron Paul's ideas are indeed radical and nutty because he calls for a return to responsible government! Return to responsible government would be GOOD to do but very radical in this day and age.
Don't you think Congress would feel strongly compelled to go along with much of Mr. Paul's agenda if he were elected? The media have spent so much time harping on how "radical" he is that, if elected, it would be seen as nothing other than a clear mandate for "radical" change. In other words, people would not be electing someone like Mr. Paul in order to maintain the failings of the status quo.
Our representatives or senators would be forced to recognize that fact, for fear of being thrown out after the next election. And we all know how much they want to keep their jobs.
WOW! what a lot of words to say nothing. There isn't one sentence in there that referes to a verifiable position (of any candidate). What absolute drivel.
“he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!"
For those interested, yet more Rothbard on the force and fraud that Dr. Paul and his supporters oppose:
"Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
I thought this was a pretty decent explanation actually.
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
Any thinking person who has been paying attention would know that Dr. Paul is diametrically opposed to those disingenuous accusatory positions.
Yes, well, any thinking person who has average reading comprehension would know she's talking about John Edwards with that line.
Anyone that's done even a modicum of homework on the topic would know that getting rid of the Federal Reserve is the best thing that could happen to Americans right now.
First off, my name is not and has never been Ron.
Second, I don't have an opinion on the Fed either way, but I am intellectually sophisticated enough to know that people who do a modicum of homework may come to differing conclusions. For that reason, I don't assume that people who disagree with me do so because they are uninformed, although of course some of them actually are. Yet every time one of these threads becomes infested with gold bugs, they (unlike the regulars with whom I often disagree, like brooksfoe, liberalrob, and Freddie) insist that if only we would educate ourselves, we could not help but agree with them.
Yet many refuse to offer even a shred of education for our benefit. One would think that if the arguments were so devastatingly overpowering, it would be relatively simple to just type (or cut and paste) them in to win converts, rather than posting exhortations to "do more research!!!"
Even the Rothbard link you provide is more heat than light; the guy may be a genius, but his argument is basically name calling: the fed as "Grand Counterfeiter."
Do you work at being wrong or does it come naturally?
Your misstatements and down right lies about what Ron Paul stands for makes me wonder did a man named Ron break your heart in the passed. Was there a mean Mr Paul at school growing up?
I'll give you one thing, you're consistent. Consistently wrong.
If you really want to discredit Dr. Ron Paul, endorse him. I can see no greater way you could harm his creditability.
I am intellectually sophisticated enough to know that people who do a modicum of homework may come to differing conclusions.
The history of the Federal Reserve is one of force and fraud, even in its founding. I'm not sure how we can have differing opinions on fact.
It's like saying we can have differing opinions on whether or not it's raining as the rain is falling.
his argument is basically name calling: the fed as "Grand Counterfeiter."
It is. Having the power to create money out of thin air, using the money to fund things like the so-called "war on drugs" and the so-called "war on terror" and then holding us accountable for the debt is fraud.
It's not name-calling to call a thief a thief when the thief's actions are quite apparent to anyone that wishes to look.It's name-calling to offer a stunningly uninformed opinion of a man's opinions but calling him "nutty".
My apologies for calling you 'Ron'. The b and n keys are next to each other.
Hey Megan - Its refreshing to hear talentless hacks such as yourself admit that you have no principles and have "overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate" in the past. You "bit the bullet" and supported G Dubbs in 2004 because you know your limits as a stooge for the Atlantic and it’s too damn hard to consistently and articulately defend positions that may be unpopular. How about this - take a look at this country’s balance sheet. Just dig an inch deep into why our dollar has been so volatile over the past year and write about that. Tell me what you think will happen if today’s assassination leads to more instability in the middle east and $125 per barrel oil. What happens if we enter a recession with housing in its current state and people start to lose their jobs – what will happen to our dollar? Do a1/2 an hour of research and tell me we can afford to have 700 bases oversees – tell me that my children need to pay billions in aid to Pakistan to have 50% stolen and that this adventure in Iraq has done anything but tie our hands fiscally and strategically. You’re the worst. Ron Paul 08.
Wake up and see what is going on around you! This country's love of war is going to continue to cause US citizen's sons and now daughters, to be killed in warfare. There isn't a damn thing going on in the rest of the world which could make these sarifices justifiable. Wake the hell up!
Ron Paul is the only one who will stop the bloodshed. As well, I support his other views. GO RON PAUL!!!!!
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
"I know! Isn't it marvelous?" they reply, and that's the end of the discussion.
Perhaps if the author employed a basic grasp of economics and history, she could engage Edwards supporters on those points. Edwards claims to be a champion of the unwashed masses while promoting policies that would reduce their purchasing power (taxation, inflation and managed trade) and make them utterly dependent on DC politicians for health care.
It doesn't take a Socrates to examine the flaws and conceits in Edwards' program. However, it does require a bit more mental acuity than is shown in the author's knee-jerk reaction to Ron Paul. Simply saying "I like reforming Social Security and negotiating new trade deals, and I don't like bringing the troops home or abolishing the federal reserve" without even attempting to explain the reasons why is hardly convincing. No wonder she can't get a foot in the door with the Edwards people -- both sides state their opinions as a priori truths. I found the comments to this article to be far more cogent and thought-provoking than the article itself.
I guess I can understand the temptation to dismiss Ron Paul as "irrelevant", the better to shirk journalistic responsibility for actually analyzing his positions. But the principles of liberty have deep roots in this country and cannot simply be dismissed with a snort and a wave of the hand.
The Atlantic is a real mixed bag these days.
The demagoguing populist was to describe Edwards, not Paul.
Other than that, not an accurate statement in the whole bit, unless you count Megan's opinions as accurate. They do, in fact, describe how she feels, even if she's misguided and not understanding of how the President and Congress check and balance each other. To compare what Bush has done to what Paul will do is where nuttiness comes in. Bush can't be held accountable for ALL his actions because A) Cheney tells him what to do and B) Congress is supposed to stop him.
Paul's intention is to check Congress and return power from the Executive to where it belongs. So he'll wield his veto pen like a sword but he won't institute any unconstitutional executive orders and signing statements. Best of both worlds. Why she doesn't get this, I have no idea.
I have no idea why someone with an English degree and a Chicago MBA gets a blog to cover the economics beat for the Atlantic. I guess that born and raised on the Upper West Side has something to do with it. Anyway, The Economist must have saw something in you, so I respect that.
Cutting to the chase, Megan, you don't have children do you? Or, specifically, boys of an age within 5-7 years of being draft eligible.
It's not name-calling to call a thief a thief when the thief's actions are quite apparent to anyone that wishes to look.
How true. So...because the government extracts taxes with the threat of force, it must be the biggest thief of all, right? Now, that's a cute rhetorical point, but it doesn't actually answer the more difficult question of how to fund government or what the tax system ought to look like. Calling the fed names doesn't answer the question of what the monetary system ought to look like, either.
because the government extracts taxes with the threat of force, it must be the biggest thief of all, right?
Absolutely. And many times, thieves work in concert with each other.
how to fund government or what the tax system ought to look like.
The greater concern is how to let people keep the fruits of their labor first and then worry about how to maintain the welfare system known as the government.
Unlike others, I'm not necessarily opposed to fractional reserve systems as long as the interests of you and I are first and not the interests of the middle men. People have been trading, and making their lives better, for thousands of years without the "help" of the Federal Reserve scam.
you are a poopyhead and a big dumbhead
Megan,
I have read some of your other stuff on Ron Paul and economics, and while I disagreed with your conclusions, I still found the pieces thoughtful. This post, on the other hand, seemed hasty and ill-considered.
The first surprise came when I read that "Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less." The situation is quite the opposite. First, Paul's ideas are normally alarming at first, and then only upon reflection and research, do they seem so completely reasonable as to almost sound obvious (e.g eliminating the Dept of Education). Second, it is most other candidates who spout high-concept inanities (e.g "I will protect Social Security", "The children are our future"). Paul rarely says these things. He actually drills down on the real fiscal situation and makes concrete statements. He is actually the opposite of a soundbite candidate. Unless you are willing to devote a solid block of time to understanding his philosophy, it is very easy to be seduced by the media's cries of nuttiness.
You then link your mistake in voting for Bush to a potential mistake in voting for Paul. But that is a logical falsehood. Just because Bush worked out poorly, does not mean Paul is destined to a similar fate. Certainly, it terms of personality and policy, they are almost opposites, but even if they weren't, to make a voting decision against Paul based on regrets you have about Bush is just dumb.
And finally, you fear "bold, sweeping" changes to foreign policy. In my mind, Paul's suggested changes are more of a "reversion to mean" rather than some sweeping new idea. He wants to unwind the "bold, sweeping" changes of the Bush presidency and return us to the humble foreign policy that Bush himself proposed during his candidacy and then abandoned.
Megan, unless you are quite pleased with the status quo in this country, you need to take another look at Ron Paul. He is the only candidate proposing positive, fundamental changes to the economic and political structure of this country. He wants to unwind a litany of mistakes that we have made as a country over the last couple of decades, and he is the only candidate with the wherewithal to do it. If that is too "disturbing" for you, so be it, but neither you nor I will likely get a chance like this again in our lifetimes.
Megan,
It's always an enjoyable few minutes distraction from more serious matters to read the latest kooky things you've dreamed up. While I don't doubt your sincerity your delightfully impracticable extremism, coupled with your complete lack of support, makes your tin-foil hat ramblings more of an amusing curiosity than a serious contribution. Since all the polls show that you have no chance whatsoever of winning the Pulitzer, we can all discount anything you say as irrelevant. Please excuse the complete lack of specifics in my post, but I'm just trying to adhere to current professional media standards for political discourse.
p.s. I'm sure your tiny group of frenzied, wacko supporters will now attack me for simply stating the unvarnished truth. That means they must be Nazis and by association you must be one, too.
Megan,
You've written nine blog entries today.
I suggest you spend some time on quality rather than quantity.
"All of which is irrelevant because if Ron Paul somehow did garner the Republican nomination, the only tangible result would be a Goldwater-style landslide." -MM
I would assume that if his positions are all irrelevant, there would be no need for you to outline them. Since you will spend time outlining irrelevant topics, you're POV is irrelevant. Who, besides the mentally ill or a liar, would spend their time writing irrelevant minutia?
Now I know to add you to my bookmark folder with Wonkette and DailyKos so when I want to send nonsense to my friends, I'll have a steady source.
Nice opinion piece. My opinion is that you are wrong. You did however cleverly sum up the state of all the other platforms in this election as "the same fundamentally wrong-headed policies advocated by everyone".. everyone except Ron Paul. Hmmm, well, its either vote or not vote, I chose vote... so let's see Ron Paul's platform or "the same fundamentally wrong-headed policies advocated by everyone"... still thinkin on this one :)
My opinion is that she (Megan) is right, but for the wrong reasons.
Quote of the Week.
God help America if we revert to the monetary system of the hegemonic British Empire. The pound was such a terrible currency back then, economic growth was aenemic and purchasing power was just terrible....
Whenever I read Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Monthly or Jonah Goldberg of National Review, I wonder how their writing would fare on an open market, without their publications' imprimatur.
I don't think they'd do too well.
Oh, what a weak and apologetic argument. "Blah blah, I'm picking on Paul because he has a different set of bad ideas, the others have the same set...blah blah". Yes, we get it.
Nice plattitude at the end, too. You can't back that up. In fact, this is the second article of yours that I've read which makes broad, sweeping, and pejorative claims, but offers no support. And no one cares if you think bringing our troops home is a bad idea. The troops think its a good idea. They're the ones getting killed every day.
Weak.
And don't you think nuclear weapons have changed our security situation just a wee bit? Our continuing occupation of Europe and Asia is based on a pre-nuclear conception of war, as if having ground forces abroad will help us fight the next World War Two. If we did bring all our troops home we would still have thousands of nuclear warheads to utterly obliterate anyone who actually tries to invade us.
Open your mind to the strategic potential of nuclear warfare. It makes most of our current wars and deployments obsolete.
I just love reading newbies like FZappa, who--if I may borrow a trick from some of our other newbie friends--needs to do his research before spouting off about how our gracious hostess' writing would fare without the benefit of being published in a magazine.
Carrying it a bit further, it might benefit him to discover the history of Megan McArdle as a brand and see how it is that she came to have the job she currently does.
No sinister conspiracies involving Woodrow Wilson were required.
I guess I just don't understand how these sites work. It seems that every time I read the coments, someone has to let me know that they where here first so I should just go away. It feels like the LOCALS ONLY approach. If your surfing on MY beach go away. If you surfed on to MY site go away (unless you agree with me).
Rob says, "Yet every time one of these threads becomes infested with gold bugs, they (unlike the regulars with whom I often disagree, like brooksfoe, liberalrob, and Freddie) insist that if only we would educate ourselves, we could not help but agree with them."
As soon as it's deemed that I am not a "local" it becomes ok to smear me with a label such as "gold bugs", paultards, etc. So just how does this work, am I supposed to comment or not?
Having said this I would like to say why I often tell people to go do their homework (obviously I'm going to comment wether you like it or not). I am not speaking for any other Ron Paul supporters just myself and my opinion. I ask that people do their homework for several reasons depending on the situation. First, there are a few times when I believe I might actually talk someone into considering Ron Paul's positions. Other times it's simply to point out a person's ignorance on a subject. I am not a teacher and I don't feel that I could do nearly as good a job of informing anyone on Ron Paul's positions. We are on the internet and the information is there for anyone to find with just a few clicks of their mouse.
As for as the majority of comments that I read that appose Ron Paul they seem to come from two directions.
First, the Socialist/Democrat position. I understand this fairly well. The belief is that it's not fair for a few greedy people to hord the wealth to the detriment of the masses. They seem to believe that the government is the answer and that it should be given the power to redistribute the wealth.
Second, the Neocon/fascist position. These people seem to either believe that we are under dire threat from Terror and need to police the world to keep us safe. Of course there are others who believe that we should just go and bomb the h#ll out of everyone and "redistribute their wealth" Of course the scariest of the neocons are the supporters of Hagee such as Huckabee, and McCain.
As for the Socialist/Democrat position I used to agree with them to some extent. However, I now believe that the only way our nation will remain free and prosperous is with free market principles, limited government, and with fiscal and personal responsibility.
In regards to the Neocon/Fascist position. I do understand that some people have been scared into this position. Most of this group that I have met seem to be decent, honest people. They are afraid and mabey they have a right to be. However, I truly believe that our foreign policy is disastorous and will eventually lead to more attacks here as well as lead to the deaths of more and more victims overseas. As for the ones who believe (they rarely say it out loud) that we should steel the wealth of other nation for our own benefit, what can I say. There have always been people like this about. They are the ones using the fear factor on the first group. What can I say about the Hagee supporters? When I say that they are the scariest of the bunch I mean it. Anyone who can believe that we should bomb Iran for Isreal (the chosen people) to give a kickstart to the rapture is dangerous. I'm glad they are not in the majority I think we would be in big trouble if they were. This is definatly one issue that people need to wake up about. This is a very large movement and is growing larger. As I stated earlier Hackabee and McCain are supporters they have spoken at his rallies (to the waving of Israely flags and chears for the bombing of Iran).
Well thanks for letting me rant. I hope that's OK with you locals. And please remember, this is just MY opinion and not that of Ron Paul or his campaign.
Ron Paul President 2008!
Ron Paul's supporters to the rest of us:
"We are borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Tell that to hundreds of thousands of dead innocents under the Neocon democracy-or-else program.
Saying that Ron Paul is the king of sound bytes is like saying that War and Peace was a nice pamphlet.
"You need to investigate the facts!
What's up with the Paulinistas constantly assigning us homework?"
Rob Lyman,
What's with people like you constantly neglecting the basic duties of journalists? This woman's job is to provide truth based upon fact. Instead, she's created her own opinion with no sources. To think Megan gets her own column, it's worse than The New York Times combined with Ann Coulter.
Could you please expand on why abolishing the fed would be "nutty" and "extreme"? Do you even understand what the fed is and does? Show us why this private banking system is necessary and prove Ron Paul wrong. What's so hard about that?
LOL!
What is inflation and why is M3 a secret? What is the CPI and why should we trust it? Why is Ron Paul wrong? You obviously don't know or you are too lazy to articulate your position :P
Brad, I'm sure we old-timers are all delighted to have you. But the insistence on "do your research" or "read up on it" (and, for that matter, "you're a dumb cunt") is annoying as hell. It shows either laziness or inability to make an actual argument yourself. It also betrays intellectual arrogance: do the many Paul supporters here really believe that well-informed and thoughtful people of good faith can't possibly disagree with them, so disagreement must be the product of either ignorance or corruption? Whither such confidence in people who apparently cannot defend their point of view without repeated appeals to a vague unspecified authority which will open all of our eyes, if only we dare to look?
The comments section here is an unusually informative one; it's why I keep coming back despite having work to do. The arrival of Ron Paul's supporters have drastically reduced the quality and made this place look a lot more like DailyKos or LGF or any one of a hundred other blogs stuffed with dittoheads of one stripe or another. This is not to say that all Paul’s supporters behave badly. But if you compare the Ron Paul threads with, say the “fage Gaugin” thread from earlier this month (in which I received a genuine if somewhat cursory education in modern art), you’ll find that the locals, in this case, have something to be complaining about.
(Mind you, I've been a Ron Paul fan since 2000 or so, when I first heard of him.)
You need to do some reading. To call "libertarian" views "wrongheaded" merely reveals your base ignorance.
There are few, if any, arguments against "libertarian" economic and philosophical views that will withstand serious scrutiny (as opposed sound-byte scrutiny). On the other hand, a precocious three-year-old could demolish the bases for "socialist" and "regulatory socialist" models, as are advocated by all major party candidates besides Mr. Paul.
Before spouting off, in addition to doing some serious reading, try taking a few upper division economics, economic history, and economic philosophy classes.
Rob Lyman you sophisticated intellectual you. God you are smart. I’m a newbie to and my first taste of the McArdle brand made me sick to my stomach, so I probably will never try that crappy brand again – kinda how a market works, right? Hey do me a favor – you’re a smart guy, see if you can answer these questions for me. How does the Fed cut rates and keep us out of housing led recession without destroying the value of our dollar and inciting inflation? Does the Fed care more about the economy than inflation and does the fact that its an election year play into it? If the Fed does sacrifices the dollar, what will that do to my savings – if the govt is bailing subprime borrowers, can I get bailed out? If I think a recession is an efficient mechanism to reset asset prices, how do I vote to change our monetary policy? Why is a small group of men with no better information then the rest of us determining the integrity of our currency – why isn’t the market? I think these will be the questions of 2008 – can you help me?
"Second, I don't have an opinion on the Fed either way..."
At least Mr. Lyman admits he is completely ignorant of United States monetary policy. I guess such subjects should be left to deeper thinkers, like Megan McArdle.
Just kidding.
Brad: if you're wondering what my problem is, look no further than Addison.
tc,
no, I can't help you, because I don't know the answers to most of your questions. I haven't taken a position on the Fed's existence and policies because--wait for it--I haven't done my research (really! That is indeed the actual reason). Now, if your intent is to inform me, and help me decide to agree with you, then you might try offering argument and information instead of sarcasm and a plain assumption that your answers to those questions are the only answers.
Rob,
"Calling the fed names doesn't answer the question of what the monetary system ought to look like, either."
Try reading "Man, Economy, and State" and "American's Great Depression"...then let me know if Rothbard has ever provided any ideas on what the monetary system ought to look like...
Rob, thanks for the well writen response. I now understand why so many regulars get pissed when the Ron Paul supporters come in droves. However, I feel that the frustration goes both ways. I know I get frustrated trying time and again to explain fairly simple positions to some inteligent people.
For instance one of my good friends falls into the catagory of fascist/neocon. She is an intelligent person, grade school teacher, mother of a great set of twins. However, she has been scared to death by Glen Beck and his fear mongering. I have talked with her untill I was blue in the face and she still believes that Iran is about to blow up the world. I have however at least convinced her that Iraq was not behind 9/11. At least a little progress there.
Again I would say that some of the rudeness comes from frustration. You know frustration=anger=lashing out. I would like to appologize for my fellow Ron Paul fans however, I really can't speak for anyone but myself.
By the way, what DO you think of this Hagee? is he as dangerous as I believe? if you don't know much about him, I would be glad to do a little cutting and pasting. Thanks again.
-----comment summary-----
Yeah, your just calling names you jerk!
You don't even know what M3, CPI and the Fed are! You don't know how many dems would vote for Paul. You just go around saying other people don't know stuff!
Boy the quality of the lamestream Atlantic just went down 3 notches!
Only Libertarian policies can be rationally defended. You just assert that your socialist policies are better without knowing that. They aren't. Paul's are better.
btw, I thought your other posts were good but this is beyond the pale
-------end summary------------
Good grief. Look at what you've written. Get hold of yourselves.
Mr Lyman - start here “econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html" and then go here "hussmanfunds.com" for our current predicament (I do not work there – John Hussman is highly regard and provides good insight into how smart money thinks about monetary policy). Some good info to start. Unbiased and well known investors like Bill Gross and Warren Buffet have opinions and they will give you both sides of the issue (google w/ inflation and their names in quotes). Ron Paul’s stance on the Fed is dead on. I found Paul when the SIV super fund was proposed, followed by Bush’s subprime bailout (google lead me to him when I research those topics). I had no idea who this guy was, now I’ve donated and converted co-workers and family into Ron Paul supporters. The web makes its soooo easy, just forward one of his many videos. There is a lot of misconceptions out there about Paul, hence why I take time out of my day to reply to mainstream media blogs.
As a fellow regular here, I too cringe at some of the more abrasive comments coming from enthusiastic RP supporters discovering this blog for the first time. It's not unlike the feeling I get when my husband similarly responds with a "Reply to All" to some populist, protectionist forward of my brother's. I'm irked by the fact that I'm associated with someone who has disregarded tact when engaging in supposedly persuasive discourse.
Having said that, it is damn frustrating to read post after post of Megan's which reveals that she's relying on second-hand reporting of Ron Paul's positions instead of simply reading them for herself. It's not a matter of 'assigning homework,' it's wishing that she'd either do the research or refrain from posting so damn much about someone that she's clearly not willing to invest any time in researching. If she would at least humor us poor RP fans with some indication that she's read more than the coverage by the NYT or WP then I'm sure the name-calling and so-called comment spamming would decrease significantly.
The reason RP supporters are so vastly different in their approach is because we actually support Ron Paul, as opposed to many voters who are picking their candidates more with a process of elimination (for example, my father-in-law likes to say he supports ABH, Anybody But Hillary). It also doesn't help that any coverage of Ron Paul from a major media source, including big-name bloggers, like InstaPundit, tends to describe him in terms that connote fringe craziness and unelectibility. These factors, as well as the inherently broad spectrum of people who ascribe to individualism, all contribute to this phenomenon of annoying, but impassioned supporters who are currently bedeviling Megan, and anyone else who dares speak ill of Ron Paul.
Wow, I guess the hate storm is to be expected when you poke the radicals, but someone has apparently gone so far as to post under my name. The 1:50 PM post is not me. I wonder if anyone bothered posing as any of the other semi-regulars.
I know I get frustrated trying time and again to explain fairly simple positions to some inteligent people.
Hey, I feel your pain, I'm a conservative/libertarian/fascist gun nut hunter who lives in Portland, OR.
And, in fairness to the many frustrated Paul types, our gracious hostess has not explained her objections to Paul as thoroughly as she might, and has used somewhat inflammatory language herself.
If by Hagee, you mean Pastor Hagee and not General Hagee (former Commandant of the USMC), I don't know much. If he really advocates war as a way to bring on the End Times, he's a loony, and most Americans will see that. On the other hand, maybe his message has been distorted by the media, a phenomenon that Paul supporters should be familiar with.
It's interesting that you worry about Hagee but not (apparently) about Iran, where the risk of such apocalyptic fantasies reaching the highest levels of government is much greater than in the US.
Are we Americans so arrogant as to think that we are immune to the passions that have given rise to tyranny and despotism elswhere? Wake up, people! We are like the proverbial frog in the pot, oblivious to the slowly rising teperature of the water.
You may not yet have felt the pain of loss for your freedoms. You wore your seatbelt or your motorcycle helmet anyway. You bought that water-saving toilet or that compact flourescent light bulb to save money or the environment, not because there are no longer five-gallon flush or incandescent alternatives. Hopefully you are not a biggot, so "civil rights" legislation that replaces your freedom of associastion isn't much of a burden either. But what happens when they come for something you really care about?
What if they outlaw guns, gambling, homeschooling, herbal remedies, unpasturized milk, real Christmas trees, contact sports, double cheeseburgers or whatever? You need to think about the answers because they are already coming. In some cases, they are already here.
This election is a rare opportunity to reverse this deeply disturbing trend, this death march to collectivist oppression. One man in the field of pesidential candidates wants you to be treated as an individual, not a member of a special intrest group. He doesn't even think in terms of ethnicities or voting blocks. When he looks at you, the only colors he sees are red, white and blue.
Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. is unusual to be sure, the way that a diamond in a pile of rocks is unusual. He is the squarest of the square, but he fights for your right not to be if you so choose. He is the Air Force veteran who opposes the military draft, the Yale-trained physician who supports alternative medicine, the devout Christain who fights for your right to be Bhudist or nudist or free-range organic foodist.
A Ron Paul administration might be a little scary, with lower or no taxes, there would be less government services. Mostly the government would just protect you from force and fraud. Returning to a constitutionally limited government that would neither be strong enough to steal from you or for you just might give you more freedom than you are comfortable with. A free nation would look a little more like a jungle, but it would also look a little less like a zoo.
Maybe Dr. Paul doesn't fit your idea of what a president should look or sound like. Maybe you want a leader who looks good on television, and are willing to put up with extra-constitutional executive powers, preemptive undeclared wars, trans-fat bans, CAFE standards, smoking bans, central bank monopolies, SWAT raids on cancer patients, inflation, forced vaccinations, domestic spying, mutual defense treaties, lobbyist-written legislation, and IRS audits. You are free to feel that way. That's your right, but when the government thugs come goose-stepping down your street it might be too late to ever change your mind.
Wow. The depth of facts in this essay overwhelms me.
You totally blasted him for wanting to get rid of the federal reserve!
Move over Cicero, Einstein, and Webster..you fucking rock!
Seated beside Lapin in the ornately gilded Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) studio was Pastor John Hagee, the author of an incendiary new book purporting to show that the Bible predicts a military confrontation with Iran. By then, Hagee's book, Jerusalem Countdown, had sold nearly 500,000 copies. It had occupied the No. 1 position on the Wal-Mart inspirational best-seller list, showed up on Wal-Mart's list of top 10 best sellers for seven weeks, and made the USA Today top 50 best-seller list for six weeks.
Hagee, who serves as head pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN. He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the release of his book last January, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a lobbying organization intended, he says, to be a Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With CUFI, which Hagee has said will cause a “political earthquake,” the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.
While Washington insiders wonder and worry whether President Bush really is bent on a military strike against Iran, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts, and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration.
This is the Hagee I was posting about. Not Micheal W. Hagee. I am also a gun owner/hunter. I just got back from a whitetail muzle loader trip into the very cold deep woods of Norther Michigan near where I live. I served in the US Army 5/21st infantry and was in combat twice. Having seen war and death up close and very personal I can NEVER agree with preemptive war. We have 10,000 nuclear weapons at our disposal. So I do not feel threatened in any way by Iran. We also have the best and most powerfull navy, air force and armed forces in the world. Anyone who advocates for violence is in my opinion wrong, this of course includes Iran.
Posted by Rob Lyman "The comments section here is an unusually informative one; it's why I keep coming back despite having work to do. The arrival of Ron Paul's supporters have drastically reduced the quality and made this place look a lot more like DailyKos or LGF or any one of a hundred other blogs stuffed with dittoheads of one stripe or another. This is not to say that all Paul’s supporters behave badly. But if you compare the Ron Paul threads with, say the “fage Gaugin” thread from earlier this month (in which I received a genuine if somewhat cursory education in modern art), you’ll find that the locals, in this case, have something to be complaining about.
Have you ever considered that the quality of the comments are directly proportional to the quality of Ms. McArdle's initial post?
My guess is that when she isn't engaging in ad hominem attacks, people feel that there is no reason to react in such a manner as you've observed on the Ron Paul threads.
For me the real question is, if Ms. McArdle is capable of intelligent journalism, then why is she now trolling in the gutter? The answer? Because the action is the reaction. She engages in this tactic in order to discredit Dr. Paul by using his own supporters' frustration against themselves. Call it the Paultardian Effect, if you will.
The trick is not to fall for this trap, but to expose it for what it truly is.
It may 'feel good' for Ron Paul supporters to belittle Ms. McArdle, but to do so undermines Dr. Paul's message of love.
It may be frustrating to resist 'fighting the good fight,' but it is the only way to overcome the divisive hatred engendered in these so-called displays of journalism. These people live in fear of peace and harmony, yet do not have the least clue as to why.
I forgive you Ms. McArdle, as you obviously do not know what you do, and therefore cannot be held accountable for it. Or who knows, maybe you are fully aware? Either way, I still forgive you. You cannot taint my love of humanity by making me hate you.
No matter how hard you try.
Geoff said: "the hate storm"
Holding a journalist's feet to the fire for inaccurate data and sloppy reporting isn't "hate".
If she didn't want feedback, she'd have turned comments off.
I'll respond like your Edwards supporters: "Bring home our troops from around the world? get rid of an unelected corporation's control of our monetary system? 'That sounds marvelous!'"
I agree with the following
"Megan. I am ashamed of your Irish last name and your lack of coherent intellectual arguments. You are a disgrace to your ancestors."
I am sorry you fell on your head when you were little . Get well soon
GO RON PAUL
Obviously, you read, "Everything I need to know, i learned in kindergarden", cuz you didn't report a damn thing. Go back to school and learn your craft. Are you a journalist or just a hack. It appears to be the latter.
ACTUALLY REPORT SOMEHTING IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE.
RON PAUL 2008. JOIN THE REVOLUTION.
Yes, Mr. Lyman, I simply cannot understand the almost hysterical (and sometimes simply "hysterical") rage against the policies, if not always the person, of Ron Paul. What is it that frightens them so much? Why the rage? What is he proposing that is so terrible that they are willing to continue a bloody war in that religious cesspool in and around Israel? Why aren't they angry at the countless parasitic lobby-fed bureaucrats in Washington and the taxes, open and hidden, placed upon them without their consent, and why aren't they angry about the degenerating state of our own nation? -- a degeneration which manifests itself in such cities as Philadelphia, which now has almost 500 homicides a year, and over 1,000 homeless. Where comes their complacency which generates such anger at freedom? I wonder if even a psychoanalyst could hazard a guess.
Snooze
A bimbo with no understanding of economics or geopolitics levies a "kook" charge at the only principled politician to be seen in decades.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, made the snarky comment.
Snooze
Rob Lyman said:
I think that's a characteristic of virtually all adherents of any political philosophy (or in fact anything at all) you could name. Myself included. It's a continual puzzlement how any relatively sane, thinking individual could disagree with my views: either I am doing a poor job of explaining my common-sensical, reasonable thinking, or those who disagree with me are simply willfully being obtuse. That's the centrifugal force of human nature, pulling tribes apart from each other.
Here's my question for the Ron Paul supporters, then: how do you reconcile your support for Paul with his past history of racist statements (which he claims were written by others) and refusal to distance himself from them? All the brilliant policy proposals in the world will not ameliorate the harm caused if we elect a closet bigot to the White House (again).
Kos post on Ron Paul's bigotry
Christina:
Are you saying that Instapundit and Kos (and Megan) are lying about Ron Paul? Is there not truth to their coverage?
I'm sure Mike Gravel's supporters weren't thrilled with his coverage either. That doesn't mean the coverage was WRONG.
Personally, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over whether you do or don't support my candidate. However, arguing against a candidate on the basis of what Congress will or will not go along with seems rather silly. If Paul were to win, then that would prove that something is changing politically in this country (at last). I would expect to see new faces running for Congress on a similar Libertarian platform - and doing well. Things won't change over night, but it's about time we got the process started.
Geoff - I wrote the 1:50pm comment.
My name is actually Geoff. I didn't think you held a trademark on the name so I took the liberty to refer to myself using my shortened first name. If it makes it easier for you I can use my formal first name.
But my comment still stands: Megan really needs to shoot for quality - not quantity.
Megan,
Two things struck me as I read your article:
First, you cite Paul's extremism as a reason to like discussing him, and imply (rather inarticulately) that's a reason not to support him. You are certainly entitled to your opinion (ill-informed though it might be). The only thing I can do is quote Brother Barry M.: "Extremism in defense of Liberty is not a vice..."
Which brings me to my second point. You feel that if Paul got the nod, the GOP would suffer a wipeout of Goldwaterian proportions. There are lots of reasons to call into question your ability to read the electoral numbers; but let us assume you are right. The funny thing is, I can not find a conservative alive who was there, and thinks that nominating Goldwater was a mistake. Maybe they were wailing about it in the wake of the Great Society; I wasn't alive then. But the true movement conservatives all... all of them Megan... now recognize that Goldwater led to Reagan, and allowed us to run the Fifth Columnist Rockefellers and Scrantons out of the party, into the middle of the road, with all the rest of the roadkill.
Which is exactly where this column belongs... right next to the dead rats.
I don't know why people are wasting their time critiquing a candidate who they claim is fringe and without merit.
The very fact that more and more people are pointing their finger at Ron Paul and saying he isn't popular or relevant makes him, by definition, more popular and more relevant.
But people who smear him won't understand that simple fact anyways. For if they did understand this - they'd actually debate him on the issues instead of ridiculing him like they did for no reason to other kids as they grew up.
A response to the ridiculous post re: Ron Paul's "racism". That birdie don't fly. Get another parrot.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Whomever wrote this article does not know what they are talking about. Either Ron Paul becomes president or welcome to the new police state. Look at www.letsroll911.org and scroll down to the jet going into the wall with the orange spot next to it. Start clicking on the links. They slowed it down to very slow. Then go to Google video and watch "Alex Jones 9/11 Road to Tyranny", then "Alex Jones Endgame", then "Alex Jones Terror Storm", then "Alex Jones Police State", then "9/11 Mysteries", then "Loose Change recut edition", then "Aaron Russo Freedom to Fascism". Better do it before the new laws prevent us from watching stuff like this on the internets.
Dear Miss McArdle,
Even though I am a big Ron Paul supporter, I liked your article. I, too, have wondered what a Ron Paul Presidency would be like. What will congress do with Dr. No waiting with the veto stamp?
My imagination and research has provided on outcome not nearly as dire as that which you portray. I envision a congress that will ensure the constitutionality of a bill prior to sending it up, a congress that has heard what I think could well be called *the message of the people* and will act accordingly, if not for their desire to represent the voting public, then for their desire to be reelected.
And don't you think it odd that you said the congress will stop Ron Paul? Our current and recent chief executives have been bent on expanding the power of that branch of government. Ron Paul sings a different tune: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358
I wish you had backed up your statement regarding the (gradual) abolition of the fed with some real opinions. Seriously, this is not criticism. I am completely ignorant on the issue, but as far as it goes I trust Dr. Paul. I have ordered some books on Mises economics but they are not here yet.
Last point, to the people who missed it the first time: the line about *demagoguing populist* is the author addressing a John Edwards supporter - about John Edwards.
Thank you again for the article and hopefully it will make more people think.
I am not one of the "regulars" so I know my opinion doesn't mean much here. I would like to add a few thoughts that came to my mind while reading these comments and reflecting on some people I have met.
The first being that many different political ideologies have come together to support Ron Paul. I have talked with people I would have never thought I had anything in common with. Folks that supported John Kerry, whom I was vehemently against, I now work with to help Paul get elected. One of my canvassing friends is a gentleman who supported Jerry Falwell for goodness sakes. All races, creeds, sexual orientations, you name it have gotten behind the movement. And these are not disenfranchised angry misfits, but people from all walks of life- rich and poor.
I also wonder why the attacks on Ron Paul sound eerily similar. Usually the conversation starts out with "I agree with some of his ideas" and then rapidly deteriorates into "he can't win" and "congress will never let that happen". Finally the "nutcase" and "pautards" slurs end the conversation.
At some point these talking heads will figure out why RP draws such a diverse base. Maybe they will figure out that people are tired of being lied to. People are tired of candidates changing views to get elected. The electorate is tired of the political system being for sale to the highest bidder. People are tired of seeing tax dollars spent to prop up shady dictators and wasted on $1200 hammers. People are tired of inefficient government run by the worst liars and thieves society has to offer so they can sell their votes and profit from public office. Maybe some of us are glad to see an honest man with unwavering principles stand up and shout "enough is enough".
Maybe he is a kook and all of us "angry paultard misfits" are kooks too. All I know is that my vote this year will not be wasted on the lesser of 2 evils. I actually have the choice to vote for a man of real character and not a pampered overpriviledged rich boy.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass... You know nothing.
Megan for the sake of journalism, stop writing!
Wow, this article was a waste of 18 seconds of my life. You skipped everything you were going to talk about.
Dr. Paul is the prescription we need. Learn about his positions and policies and don't demagog the issues without knowing what you speak of.
You examined Dr. Paul's economic policies so thoroughly that I have deduced that you must have a PHD in Economics. I myself only have a bachelor's degree in Economics, and even though I'm pretty sure that absolutely nothing was examined in this article I bow to your great opinion. But hey, at least you didn't go to school and get a degree in journalism or English, cause that obviously wouldn't have helped your superior intellect. Actually, let me be frank instead of sarcastic now: The fact that you even have a job writing this bologna is bull.
Megan, I'm willimg to bet your Parents are mortified with the trash that you just wrote. Big city girls seriously don't get the respect they want for smashing the real people. I'm ashamed! Use your head girlie, don't just write what you think your publishers want to hear. You will get nowhere with that attitude. I really wish you luck with your career! Maybe just grow up a little Meggie.
Ron Paul Supporters -- let's see if you can VOTE with the same energy that you BLOG. Posting to the internet is easy -- showing up to vote takes physical action. Can you walk your talk?
WOW! Look at all this Ron Paul support! I don't see many people siding with the journalist here. This is a beautiful thing, America.
Now let's get out there and VOTE in the coming weeks and months and make all these journalists and pollsters eat their words!
Let's hold back the attacks! I think what Megan has done here is something that Tucker Carlson and a growing number of other "journalists" (I'm allowed one attack, aren't I??) have begun doing recently.
At present, there is simply no way they can present Ron Paul in a positive light without getting the boot...here we have a piece that, although on the surface seems anti-RP, a number of the points she makes regarding the good doctors's ideas are presented in a way that just might make a few people take notice...
"The fact that Ron Paul doesn't want to do those bad things, but instead advocates an entirely different group of bad ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and pulling every American solider back behind our borders, doesn't comfort me."
I dare say that if I was trying to decide who to vote for, that little snippet (despite her opinion) would be enough to win my vote, and I think many others.
So, fellow "Dr. No" supporters, let's lay off poor Megan for a bit...if I didn't know any better she's trying to show her support under the Neo-Con radar...
yeah megan,
You actually want to have a federal reserve!!!!!!
you think that's a good idea!??
I have spent the last three hours...(I like Rob Lyman have been working) reading EVERY comment on this page. (Something I rarely do on Ron Paul articles since there are so many.)
I can't articulate my comment as many here have so fluently with large words and handy sayings (I am only 20 and I went to a public school in Texas, but this is no excuse for my ignorance)
What I do know is after speaking with MANY Ron Paul supporters is that his campaign is an amazing conglomoration of races, sexes, sexual orientations (I myself being homosexual), and religions.
What I do know is that many of his supporters are just angry. (as they should be) The media will not give him any coverage without adding the tag line "long-shot", "out there", etc. Our government has lied to us on countless occasions on which we all can agree. (i.e. the Iraq war which had NOTHING to do with 9-11 yet was sold to us as such)
My vote has not been set. My mind has not been made up. But when I look at the other candidates I see no difference. No "values" as Huckabee would like to run on. I see empty promises from the Clinton/Edwards/(Romney if I am not mistaken) campaign. (Universal healthcare? Come on? where will that money come from?) No clear and definate END to our sensless involvement in Iraq, just promises that "soon" it will be over. Yes, we completely destroyed their gov't going over there... ya know I have read all of your comments.. ALL of them... all the way through... I clicked the links and read the articles... and I started this article with doubt but as I typed (I swear) I think I have made up my mind. I vote for Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I vote for your right to disagree with me. I vote for my privacy and my right to do whatever the hell I want in my house as long as it doesn't hinder your rights to do the same in yours. I guess what I am saying is I have decided to Vote for Ron Paul... Unless someone could show me my err.. Show me a candidate who will supply me with all those needs.. I've looked.. I really have... (not just here of course) but someone simply saying "kook" or "fringe" doesn't stop me from holding my views. Well guys.. welcome your newest memeber to your Revolution.
I am sure the views of History's greatest initially sounded crazy and unatainable, and Ron Paul's Ideas do come off as crazy in today's "Gov't please take care of me" society.
I am ready to take responsibility for my actions. I am ready to be American.
I want a refund. This article isn't worth my two cents.
Dear Meg. You're simply falling into the norm when faced with such a charismatic as Dr Paul:
"The Hegelian dialectic has never failed because to understand it requires the total breakdown and reconstruction of everything you've ever known. This is a relatively simple process, although it doesn't sound it. It sounds terrifying. Especially when a person has invested their entire life and evolution of thought into the 'stock' of reality. When you inform them that reality isn't what they thought it was, you blow out their stock. It can render an ignorant person's life meaningless. They have to disbelieve simply to justify their own existence."
The Good Doctor is here to give us a shot of reality. Peace be upon the world and God help us if the gangsters in Washington aren't unmasked soon.
I've finally got it. I know why Ron Paul supporters appear so nutty! Its a three-parter:
1 - Ron Paul is nearly bulletproof in terms of the classic routes of attack (hypocrisies, voting out of line with principle, corruption, lying) and he's often far too well-read on most subects to be refuted in terms of plain fact (FP, economy, history)
2 - SO...the only way the media and the other candidates can attempt arguing with him or refuting him somehow is to set up strawman arguments he's never made and positions he's never taken ("Isolationist," "racist," "he would destroy public education," "he'd give every airline passenger a gun at the door," etc.) and attack those positions. When THAT fails, they call him and his supporters "crazy," "nutty," "from the land of oz," etc. in an effort to discredit them from the level of equal debate in the first place.
3 - THEREFORE...Instead of debating actual policy and what would be best for the country, Paul and his supporters are constantly forced to start from square-one: "FIRST OFF...we're not crazy...he's not an isolationist...he's actually not a neo-nazi...that isnt what he's advocating...etc"
Holding onto the illusion that no one knows who Ron Paul is and their deceitful attacks will stick in the minds of the uninformed, Paul's detractors constantly revert back to number 2...for the simple reason that everyone knows number 1 is true. This requires Paul's supporters to keep going back to number 3, and scramble to get the word out about his REAL POSITIONS whenever there's a chance to get a word in edgewise.
Perhaps this is why Paul's supporters appear so avid and fired up all the time- theyre too busy (and frustrated) with the task of scraping off the mud others have hurled at their candidate so we can finally sit down and talk politics...a talk Paul's critics know they'll likely be outclassed should they have it.
Rudy learned as much...he's been fairly silent ever since.
Dr. Paul is the prescription we need.
Ron Paul is the cure for what ails us as a nation. He's two capsules of Tylenol for our national headache. He wants to make the Fed's pain America's gain. Ron Paul believes that an apple a day will keep the abortion away. Hello, America? You're sick. But, have no fear--the good doctor, Ron Paul, is here.
Anyone else got any Ron Paul medical puns?
The Good Doctor is here to give us a shot of reality.
Ah. Thank you, Ron Paul supporter. You've inspired me.
Ron Paul is the injection for America's dejection. He's the dopamine for our mopey memes. His prescription will put our cancer into remission. His dosage will lift us out of our socialist dotage.
Feel free to chime in.
Aparently some folks cannot begin to fathom the kind of moral and intellectual integrity Ron Paul possesses.
The man has the most consistent record of upholding and defending the Constitution of any politician of our time. Of course, that's so rare that it seems bizarre when you first see it.
I recommend more research. Investigate first, then write.
Here's a useless factoid. The FED, created in 1913, has NEVER been independently audited. As such it is the only private--yes it IS private--bank which has not.
Who is Ron Paul?
73
JAR
I am not a Ron Paul supporter but this article was terrible. It must of been written to anger the Ron Paul supporters with a easy to attack BS article. How could the Atlantic editors let this piece be attached to thier brand. It amazes me what garbage journalism we have today.
Go Obama!!!!
Julian
1: There are other lines of attack. I've been aware of him well-before he ran. I found his oddness interesting. He was one of the only politicians to be given a 100% from the John Birch Society with great consistency. He seemed interesting as a throw-back to earlier Republicans. Viable or trustworthy in any position of power? No, not hardly.
2: As far as I know I only mention positions he's actually taken based on his website and interviews. I find these positions totally unrealistic, implausible, backward, and foolish on their own merits.
3: Paul's supporters do this because they can't answer the real questions or skepticism about his ideals. Instead they ignore them or try to do something that to outsiders can look like claiming water isn't wet or ducks aren't birds.
Paul is running for the Republican nomination, but he sees pretty much every Republican Prez from Lincoln to Dubya as a tyrant. Why should Republicans vote for him? Paul has consistently been known as an ideologue unable to agree on rather basic things with other Congressmen. Why would such a man do well as President? Paul is seen as a defender of the Constitution, but he wishes to eliminate Constitutional Amendments going back to 1913 and also eliminate birthright citizenship which goes back to the Civil War-era Amendments. (The Constitution is not the Holy Bible, new Amendments that happened since the first 10 still count.) Paul has supported a level of non-intervention and non-alliance that is essentially unprecedented in the modern world. He favors withdraw from organizations even genuine isolationist nations like Bhutain joined years ago. Tell me how such plans would not harm our relationships with other nations. If Paul supporters were able or inclined to answer real questions I might feel differently about them.
As for Paul himself I don't per se dislike him as much as it sounds. He is likely a fine Representative for his Texan district and his ideas are not awful so long as they're in the hands of a single Representative. As a President they're a joke and it's almost intellectually dishonest to treat them as if they're not a joke.
As for why many Paul supporters look crazy it's more
1: An insistence many of them have that their guy is beyond reproach in all details. Almost no other candidate has supporters that naive.
2: A belief that any disagreement with Ron Paul is a sign of stupidity or immorality.
3: Just the generalized black/white thinking that it's the white knight Paul versus the black-forces of neoconservatives and crazy media.
4: A willing admission that they look him up on search engines three or more times a day because they're just that fascinated by him.
5: A belief that saying "the Constitution" a million times must make everyone genuflect or hold their tongue in shame for ever doubting Paul.
> Why should Republicans vote for him?
Because hes 30 year record is precisely what Republican voters have been saying they've wanted for 80 years.
Republican voters have always compromised though, taking a "good enough" Republican. Einsenhower, for example, who warned of the Military Industrial Complex, while simultaneously creating it with his overthrow of Guatemala's and Iran's Democracy for US business interests. Reagan who doubled the national debt in 8 years.
Paul, believe it or not, is precisely what I want as a president. You think I want to elect a fascist like Giuliani? And he is a fascist - this fairy tale about Al Qaeda coming to kill us all, it's ludicrous when you know the history of the Middle East, and I do. I know exactly what the motivations of Al Qaeda is, and Paul does too. Anybody that has even taken a cursory study of the history of US foreign policy in the Middle East does. BinLaden himself explained in staggering detail a list of reasons he ticked off explaining what the Middle East's beef was. Hating us for our freedom wasn't in there.
"Oh - but binLaden might be lying about his motivations" - which would be odd, because I assume binLaden WANTS something, and the most effective way to explain what he wants is to tell people.
So why would people vote for Paul? Maybe it's because he doesn't tell these same tired old lied about EVERYTHING. Maybe it's because he doesn't treat his supporters like morons that don't know anything that isn't on television. Or maybe it's because he's the only damned Republican running. Every other "Republican" is a big government, spend spend spend, statist. I've just seen the Federal government grown by 30% under Bush, I've seen the national debt grow by 40% under Bush, and we're nation building in 2 nations now.
How can you call yourself a Republican, and vote for one of these other frauds? Are you nuts?
What?
Is HOMEland security too small for you? (Homeland is a Nazi term BTW).
Worried about those Al Qaeda sleeper cells (the concept of sleeper cells was invented by Stalin BTW - they never existed).
Get a clue. These guys aren't any more Republican than Hitler was a good Catholic Christian, which he endlessly proclaimed himself to be. Paul may have his faults, but they are absolutely NOTHING compared to the faults of the competition.
Before I leave though, I want to share something with you.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
That's an inflation calculator.
Start plugging in numbers randomly with the amount of $100. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 to protect the value of the dollar.
See how good they've been at it, and see if you think Paul is "nutty" after fooling around for a few minutes with that little experiment.
Try 1800-1900 and 1900-2000 for an especially good education on just how crazy paul is. This country has abolished the central bank before you realize.
Megan,
Some people talk, others talk about talking, and still others talk about doing something. Some people do something about all the talking, while others do something about all the people doing something.
The same insight into econimcs, the issues, and the election can be derived from either your report or my brief statement above.
I hope for the sake of The Atlantic, your writing prowess eventually rises to the "Green Eggs and Ham" or "Hop on Pop" level.
For those of you who want something to talk about while doing something about it, please sign up to take out the FED and the IRS.
http://www.libertytax08.com
P.S. Megan, in case you didn't understand what I was saying, I'll break it down in terms you can understand. "Go Ron Paul. Paul is tall. See Paul Win. Win Win Win."
-------------
- Money is the life blood of a campaign.
- Ron Paul's campaign has only just begun.
- Grassroots support the campaign - campaigns do not support the grassroots.
- After Ron Paul is nominated, how do we fund the general election?
- Small donation drives, massive donation drives, they all serve purpose.
- Our collective efforts raising all the money scares the %$@# out of the bad guys.
- Stopping the mass donations now is dangerous.
- Clinton has $90 Million and it's growing - if we stop raising money, we lose, period.
- There is no need to stop Donation Events to start non-donation events. Do them all.
http://www.libertytax08.com
Everything has purpose. Don't let the infiltrating opposition keep you from donations. The other candidates will lose for five reasons.
1. They don't have a record like Ron Paul.
2. They don't have a clear message and goal.
3. They don't have passionate and loyal grassroots campaign supporters.
4. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the U.S. Constitution.
4. They don't have a battering ram of donations beating down the door week after week and month after month.
They are now scared, Ron Paul has them out gunned and we have our grassroots opposition demoralized. Do not give them a moments rest or recovery.
It is time to make a stand. That time is now. Commit to a donation, the old media is irrelevant, we do not raise money for attention, we raise money because it is our battle cry for victory.
Go forth and PLEDGE for your freedom. Liberty is normally paid for in blood, how less we now pay for ours. Promote the donation drives or we will fail for it is the tangible evidence of our will.
---------------
I am finished talking about doing something now. All the best to us all. Even you Megan.
find a documentary called the money masters (its on google) and you'll know why paul wants to eliminate the federal reserve... maybe learning what you did'nt know that you did'nt know will change the way you see the issue of the fed
Dana
"Well, for one thing, there's not much point in my arguing with a John Edwards supporter." You pretty much lost me there. Apparently some people can't look at facts in a unbiased way. P.s. learn some writing fundamentals please.
"Because hes 30 year record is precisely what Republican voters have been saying they've wanted for 80 years." Richard Wicks
The Robert Taft wing of the party perhaps, but they got Goldwater in '64 and he lost. Lost bad too. And Paul is not even a Goldwater as Goldwater was quite hawkish. I think you might need to go back to Hoover to find a truly non-interventionist Republican.
Anyway in the last 20 years I don't recall mainstream Republicans desiring someone who'd repeal the income tax, withdraw from most international organizations, and avoid foreign intervention. Or on the flip-side who would likely start trading with Cuba. (Goldwater was militantly anti-Communist) Republicans were generally as much for Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I, etc as anyone.
"You think I want to elect a fascist like Giuliani? And he is a fascist - this fairy tale about Al Qaeda coming to kill us all, it's ludicrous when you know the history of the Middle East, and I do."
I don't think this word means what you think it means. Fascist isn't merely "anyone I dislike who says alarmist things" or "An agressive Italian who had a series of mistresses." I desperately don't want Giuliani to be the nominee and if Paul was the only way to avoid him being the nominee I'd actually consider him. However he's not and either way Giuliani was not Fascist. A fascist would've likely closed down the New York Times, or at least driven it from the city, and had opponents killed. Fascism is totalitarianism on a nationalist basis. Casually throwing the "f" word is what I associate with Leftists, don't play that game.
"How can you call yourself a Republican, and vote for one of these other frauds? Are you nuts?"
Plonk. This is where Paulistas are always going to lose people. When you insist that those unimpressed by your guy are nuts you look nuts.
I didn't say I was Republican though. I'm a non-libertarian conservative. Among other things I believe in prudence, tradition, rights that go beyond the Constitution, and the general maintainence of the rule of law. I do not believe in revolution and I'm skeptical of untested social experiments. For our era Paul's ideas would contain a great deal of both. We have not tested what his level of withdraw would do to a superpower as the US was not really a superpower, in the way it is now, during Hoover or Coolidge's era. We have not tested what withdrawing from numerous international organizations, many of which we helped found, would do. I don't want a "Ron Paul Revolution" or most any revolution. As a conservative-type a revolution is almost the exact opposite of what I want. I would only accept revolution if the state mandated the citizens do things that go against basic natural law or human dignity, non-revolutionary options were not available, and there was a reasonable chance a revolution would work. (States like Albania under Hoxha or Romania under Ceaucescu being examples of regimes where revolution was more or less justifiable)
This is just an extremely poorly written article. I'm guessing George Will is this idiot's mentor?
Megan as you've probably read from the comments your in a minority and just because you secured a osition in the media does not mean you are of an more intelligence or authority than others. If many of the suggesting Dr. Paul offers are not considered you might be out of a job yourself when the economy crashes, unless your planning on putting your faith in the Amero:)
Megan,
Are Ron Paul supporters crazy, or is it just crazy to be hopeful in the midst of corrupt America today?
Ron Paul is a change in direction. All other candidates are tweakers. His supporters represent every segment of American society. He is the grassroots candidate. To call him crazy, is to insult the American citizen.
So Megan, when were you thinking we might be able to get out of Germany?
Worst article ever. Applied for Fox news recently? If not, you should. You'd fit right in.
I would be curious to hear an actual explanation for your description of Paul's policy proposals as "fundamentally wrong-headed." What, for instance, is right-headed? Moreover, what is your objection to the removal of American troops from South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.? What conceivable purpose do they currently serve? Protecting Germany from the Red Army?
Concerning your comments on the potential efficacy of a Paul presidency that encounters the antipathy of congress, I think your discussion is marvelously myopic. By vetoing and threatening to veto the sort of "omnibus" spending bill we just saw passed, President Paul would force the two complacent, complicit parties to actually confront each other on issues on which they disagree, rather than allowing the the current habit of comprimising around mutual earmarks.
I'm astounding that you consider this article "digging into" economic policies? You didn't even scratch a surface.
The truth is, above all, however, that Dr. Paul provides an opportunity for real change because he has integrity, intellect, and an appreciation for the proper, limited role of our ever-more bloated government.
I don't always agree with everything Paul says, but at this point a vote against Ron Paul is a vote FOR Komrad Rodham and big more government. The fake Republicans (Romney,Giuliani,McCain,Huckabee) don't stand a chance. Their views lost in the midterm election and they will lose in the presidential election. America needs a change of course, a return to constitutional government, and that is what Ron Paul represents. Lets face it the radical fringe ideas are coming from the so called"top tier" candidates in the Republican party. Gearing up to bomb a country that has done nothing to you, is a pretty radical idea. America following the constitution, in other words America acting like America is not an unusual idea. Ron Paul can and will win, there's just no two ways about it. The support for ACTUAL conservatism in this country is too strong. Everytime I see writers try to bash Paul,the American constitution, and therefore America it just simply re-affirms in my mind that Paul is probably going to win. The poll numbers are simply flat out wrong.
Hey Megan....My son is a marine in Japan. Can you tell me when would be a good time for him to come home? He says he is bored and they hate him being there.
All your nice little Paulista insults aside how many of you actually refute what she's saying?
"They won't stop him from refusing to negotiate new trade deals, and doing his best to scupper the ones we've got, for example."
Do you think this is an unfair statement? Why or why not.
"Nor will they likely block him on immigration."
You think a person can't feel his ideas on immigration are economically or legally untenable without being a nut?
"And I'm pretty sure they can't keep us from whisking all of our troops home from everywhere tomorrow, which sounds fun in a bold, sweeping sort of way--but I am inherently suspicious of bold, sweeping changes to our foreign policy."
You Paulistas think leaving Korea will really work when we have one of the world's most bizarre regimes, with a large if poorly equipped army, right on that peninsula? You think leaving all these places in a bold sweep has no potential for "blowback" in our relations with other nations?
Anyone who thinks abolishing the Federal Reserve is a bad idea needs to read the book "The Creature From Jekyll Island"
Come February Fifth, the Ron Paul patriots will be out en masse and shake this broken system up.
www.thisfebruaryfifth.com
wow. a "super intelligent" analysis by a condescending liberal. what's new?
Are you saying that Instapundit and Kos (and Megan) are lying about Ron Paul? Is there not truth to their coverage?
Notice that I specifically used the word 'connote,' to indicate that though there might not be anything factually incorrect, the descriptive terms sprinkled through their coverage is designed to marginalize Paul, intentional or not. To folks who know nothing about Paul's actual positions, such coverage is a turnoff. Why bother learning about a fringe crackpot who doesn't have a snowball's chance?
And I would hardly expect any kind of sympathetic wording from Kos, because he's a collectivist, so I didn't even bother to mention him, though I did say "big-name bloggers," so I can understand why you'd think of him. My frustration is more with so-called libertarian bloggers, such as Insta and Megan, from whom one would expect a more even-handed approach.
Though libertarianism is an admittedly big tent, I simply don't get how someone who self-describes as such can't find RP to be the candidate with the closest views to her own, unless she truly doesn't believe that government intervention is the cause of most societal problems, not the solution. And that is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
The only explanation I can come up with is that Megan, Glenn Reynolds, Tyler Cowen, etc, aren't really as confident in Americans (and the rest of the world) to behave responsibly as they would have you believe. Deep down they share the statist view of conservatives and liberals that correct behavior must be enforced by fiat. For government power to contract, as Ron Paul advocates, would have unpredictable and dangerous consequences.
I understand that many people actually believe that, I just don't understand why they call themselves libertarian.
Moreover, what is your objection to the removal of American troops from South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.? What conceivable purpose do they currently serve?
1) restrainting the imperial ambitions of China and Russia, thereby
2) limiting the need for Germany and Japan to re-arm, thereby
3) limiting the need for other countries in those regions to re-arm, thereby
4) preserving the peace of the world.
Now, there are good arguments that our troops should come home, but "they serve no purpose" is not one of them.
My son is a marine in Japan. Can you tell me when would be a good time for him to come home?
When he receives orders to that effect.
Lord, the Kool-Aid drinking Ron Paul zealouts are out in force today! Obnoxious poll-spammers and fellow travelers who are completely delusional about their moonbat candidate and his chances. He's the Howard Dean of 2008.
Bullying Congress? LOL ... riiiiiight.
Barry Goldwater would bitch-slap Ron Paul, regardless of Goldwater's son's views. Goldwater had a lot different views on things and was most certainly NOT an isolationist like Paul.
How did that "America First" thing work in the 1930s?
Ron Paul is not a racist. Sullying someone's name seems so easy to do for some people. Be wise and look into it more first.
freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721
lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
A little self-important are we?
OK, I'll play. Your theme implies you are schooled in Economics. Please describe how Ron Paul's fiscal policies are extreme. What percent of GDP should total govt spending be for maxiumum economic efficiency and long term solvency. In your esteemed opion, which candidate's policies best approach that ideal?
I did:
I don't want to hear "sources close to the campaign" spinning that those weren't his words and look at what he said about liberty in 2002 and how about this shiny thing over here. I want to hear Ron Paul's mouth repudiating these words that he totally disagrees with that were published using his name. I'm not hearing that.
If he's not a racist, it should be easy for him.
Christina:
It's OK, you can call him a Communist. Free speech and all that. Viva El Comandante Kos!
And rightly so. I wonder if that's really the case, however. Megan's objections are (when she gets around to stating them) mostly economic-policy in nature. I don't get the sense that she objects to Ron Paul on many other grounds. If Paul were to hire her as his top economic adviser, I suspect her objections would fade remarkably quickly.
Anyone that wants America to keep being robbed by the "Federal" Reserve either does not understand monetary policy or is working for the big banking interests that control our contry and want David Rockefeller's New World Order to supplant the United States of America. You should be ashameed.
Dear Megan,
Congratulations!
I will add you to the fast growing list of "journalists" with ZERO credibility.
Keep up the "great" work.
Very very wrong Megan and further, there is no substance to your argument. In all your articles you have not once explained why Paul proposals are "nutty". BTW, you are also wrong that if Paul won the nomination there would be a Goldater Landslide; There would be a landslide, but Ron Paul would assuredly be the next US President.
You make interesting points of contention. You supported Bush, but were disabused because he didn't do anything he said he would. You like some of Paul's ideas, but he would never be able to implement them because of Congress. You are going to analyze the other candidates as well.
In all of this I seem to hear an apathy that anything good can come of any candidate with the current state our government is in. You are hoping, perhaps, for some small changes and don't trust sweeping changes.
So how about a post of what you would like to see happen in the next administration. Let's get your stand on things. What are your expectations? If we had that, we could read your column and see where you are coming from and why you feel the way you feel about candidates and issues. Without that, you're just carping to carp. Let's have some honest dialogue. We are arguing viewpoints here, after all. People like me support Paul because we support his ideas and his visions of government. What are your ideas and visions? Obviously you think Paul's are nutty. So you must think mine are nutty. So what are yours? I'll reserve the right to not think they are nutty because you are an American and you still have a right to your viewpoint.
You've heard our viewpoints, let's hear yours. Not about the candidates and why you think they are "such and such" but your viewpoints on what you would like to see government do - the issues you would like addressed and how they should be addressed properly.
Okay?
OK, again, I used specific terminology that you have misinterpreted. Communism is a subset of collectivism, but as you well know, not all collectivists are communists. Just like not all individualists are objectivists.
But my point is simply that Kos does not share Ron Paul's basic philosophical view of the world, so hoping that he would give Ron Paul sympathetic coverage is a waste of time.
Man, that's quite a slam on Megan's intellectual integrity. I'm not going that far.
As you say, Megan has done a poor job articulating just what specific policy proposals of RP's she finds distasteful, but we do know that she thinks that without the massive deployment of US armed forces around the globe catastrophe is imminent. She also thinks that the presence of a central bank is necessary for sustained economic growth and stability. Neither of those positions are libertarian.
Well, I'm coarse and uncouth (and occasionally shrill). And a Koslectivist. A thousand pardons. She's started posting details of her economic objections so now we'll see. I still think that if RP hired her and accepted all her advice on economic matters, she'd be more likely to support him despite his military policies.
If the laundry list of Megan's non-economic objections was really that long, I'd have expected her to be more vocal in her disdain.
Still waiting for you to do that "dig into their economic policies" thing you were talking about. Let me know when you come up with some actual logical refutations of Ron's policies instead of just blindly saying that this or that is a "bad idea" because it's a "big change."
Megan, are you drunk? If you're not, then I must be.
Look, our government simply doesn't listen to the people any more. Anyone who pays attention between election years would notice this. And we don't even know if the voting system works any more, but that's another issue.
Then, there's the issue of an impending economic disaster. Deny it if you will, but things are looking grim. Perhaps the thought of this is too disturbing, and the resulting cognitive dissonance is behind all the denial.
And it's evident that the political hacks in Washington have no intention of ever "winning" the War on Terror, or any other War on Whatever. Poppy for Medicine? No way. Let the Iraqi exiles run their country, like we promised? Absolutely not.
The fact is, RP is the only candidate who would dare to even utter things like "corporate socialism" or "inflationary monetary policy" or "empire". And you have to at least articulate the problems before proposing solutions -- nobody else has. All I see in other candidates are ether a) ignorance of the core problems, or b) complicity in a massive fraud against the American people.
And I think there are an awful lot of people out there who think this country is just going to merrily coast along the way we're going, and things will work out just fine. I hope they're right, but I'm not going to count on it.
Dr. Ron Paul is probably correct on foreign policy.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, believes that Dr. Paul's foreign is the only one that makes sense in this dangerous world. Those who disagree like faux news, Bill O Reallydumb or other "journalists" disagree, then perhaps they know more about geopolitics and terrorism than the former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit does.
From the Parade Magazine interview with Bhutto "What would you like to tell President Bush?" I ask this riddle of a woman.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
This is the same condescending tone I hear from all of the other journalists that attempt to discredit Ron Paul. It's extremely transparent and reminds me of drunken college debates. There is no logic behind anything asserted here --only the unsuccessful attempt of a journalist to create the writer's voice she will never obtain. In the end, this article is worth nothing more than the lousy salary she received for writing it.
Megan, you've made a huge fool of yourself over the past few days. Stop, take a few breaths, and think on what he word "journalism" is supposed to mean.
too many comments to get through now... dont know if anyone has already called you on a blatant and designed misinformation campaign. if not, i am.
Debt-free US Bank Notes!
End Fractional Reserve Banking! No FED
Repeal Federal Reserve Act and National Banking Act
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Dearest Megan:
You've really jumped the shark here.
You are either secretly hoping to stir up support for Dr. Paul, or you are under pressure from your publisher to put out anti-Paul pieces, or else your writing has deteriorated substantially.
I have read your work since the early the days of Assymetrical Information (janegalt.net), which was my intoroduction to the blogsphere. Back then you wrote great stuff. I agreed with you maybe 60% of the time, but you were articulate and informed, and interesting to read. This post is an un-substantiated slash at Ron Paul. I am dissapointed.
The Ron Paul revolution is real. I have been a fan of his for 10+ years, but I am astounded at the people I know and have met who are already stauch supporters - 25 year old internet entrepreneurs, retired mechanical engineers, unemployed artists (many of whom are self-described Democrats, or even socialists) - and I realize that I am preaching to the choir. I live just outside of the DC beltway, and I see many more Ron Paul bumper stickers and lawn signs, than every other candidate combined.
I have't read your blog much since you left The Economist. I stumbled upon this post/thread because I wanted to email you to ask your recomendations about cookware. What DO you recommend for someone outfitting a kitchen from scratch, as far as sauce pans, frying pans, etc? You always wrote great posts about kitchenware, but I have had a hard time searching you old site.
Thanks again, and keep trying. I know there is potential in you that can be freed in a Ron Paul America.
Ron Paul 2008
"Ron Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less."
Um yea, like:
- Lets follow the Constitution.
- Lets only spend the money we have.
- Lets put the people ahead of the Government.
- Lets not war and kill people.
- Lets do what the people want.
- Lets be a democratic republic instead of a fascist dictatorship.
No, I'd only have to go back as far as Nixon.
Fuck the Neocons. Nobody wants them, and the only reason they vote for them is out of childish FEAR of a boogeyman called "terrorism".
And the Democrats? Shit, the "leaders" for the Democratic race for president are Neocons.
"No, I'd only have to go back as far as Nixon."
There are many kinds of foreign policy that are not neoconservative, but also not non-interventionist.
Nixon was interventionist. He intervened in both Cambodia and allegedly in Chile. He also took a generally pro-Israel line and was involved in Mideast issues. Nixon's foreign policy was not neoconservative, but it's what's termed "realist." He intervened when he felt it was in US interest and not for any idealistic or humanitarian reasons. He intervened in Cambodia based on goals for the Vietnam War. If he intervened in Chile, which is generally accepted though how much is debated, he did so to thwart it becoming a Soviet ally.
Paul is not running as a "realist" in the Nixonian mode and I'm not sure I've ever heard him mention Nixon. A "realist" could support say a coup against Chavez as being in our strategic oil interests as well as anti-Islamist interest due to Chavez alignment with Iran. However Paul, so far as I know, would not do such a thing. (A neoconservative, if principled, would also not support such a thing as Chavez was elected and is not genocidal)