Paulism and Paul
I’ve just been over at the Target Center checking out Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic. I have some video that I’m hoping to upload once I find a spot where it’s possible. For now a photo:
Two contrasting observations from talking to people. One is that a lot of people, typified by the Bill McGaughey for congress sign and former Rep. Bob Barr’s presence outside in the hallway are trying to build on the enthusiasm Paul’s campaign generated to garner supporters for other non-mainstream political causes. The other is that for some the movement really does have a personality cult aspect. Paul hasn’t made a presidential endorsement, and a lot of folks are genuinely just waiting for him to tell them what to do and have no intention of trying to make up their own minds. Voting Barr seems overwhelmingly like the most logical option to me, but I guess it’s not really up to me.
34 Responses to “Paulism and Paul”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Non-mainstream candidates serve mainly as protest votes, and protests only function properly when performed en masse. This is one of those situations where group think is actually rational.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Voting Barr seems overwhelmingly like the most logical option to me, but I guess it’s not really up to me.
Oh Matt, what a little trouble-maker you are! Is your John McCain hat still fooling the Republican yokels?
As long as you are trying to dazzle credulous Ron Paul rubes with your mischievous “logic”, why don’t you go all out and just tell them they should vote for Obama? After all, when some Democratic dissidents voted for Nader in 2000, even helping to give Bush the election, it didn’t help move the Democratic Party one bit in their direction, but produced an even more “centrist” approach from Kerry in 2004.
So if the goal of Paul supporters is to move the Republican Party and the nation in their direction, perhaps they should take a lesson from the abject failure of the Naderites, and conclude the only way to do it is to leap to the other party entirely. At least in the Democratic Party they will find a strong antiwar contingent that they can help strengthen and build into a powerful major party coalition to be reckoned with.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
In all fairness to the Ron Paul rEVOLUTIONARIES, I think they are probably correct to hold out and not quickly endorse Barr.
The reality is, whether you like it or not, Ron Paul has been a pretty consistent anti-empire libertarian, whereas Barr is nothing more than a crass opportunist. While always a fiscally conservative Republican (whatever that means), his libertarian bona fides on crime, drugs, and the like are recent “conversions” Furthermore, for the anti-Empire (a position he is far more advanced on than Obama), American-first fans of Paul, Barr offers very little substantively.
While the rEVOLUTION is a bit funny, I think they are at least right to not jump on the Barr bandwagon. He is a fraud.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Rally for the Republic” is the usual English translation of the name of France’s Gaullist party. Sort of appropriate that it’s being borrowed by another personality cult (in this case centered a far more pathetic individual).
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“Rally for the Republic” is the usual English translation of the name of France’s Gaullist party
To be more precise: it is the name it got after Chirac trensformed it into an electoral juggernaut and his personal vehicle to the highest function.
Maybe not a personality cult, but at least a “culte du chef”.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Merci, I stand amended.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
If he wasn’t going to endorse McSame, he’s have run for the Libertarian nomination (again).
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Look, I understand the temptation to get excited about the Ron Paul nuts. They’re outside the bad old party, and they’re distinct from the military-industrial complex agenda we love to hate. They could even help McCain’s margin of loss grow.
But the fact is that we’re still seeing a fanatical sect with big rallies and a religious belief in wacko economics, not to mention having a few disagreements with us about, oh, health care, education, urban policies, civil rights, . . . .
Not long ago, perhaps, the Neocons, Christian fundamentalist right, or supply-siders, too, would have seemed just entertaining lunatics on their way to tearing apart further the party that Nixon and Kissinger had already disgraced. And hey, they’ve together run the country for a generation.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The cult of personality is the main aspect driving Ron Paul’s supporters. I’ve had at least three Paul supporters tell me — I’m not exaggerating here — that Ron Paul is “the greatest thinker in modern times.” Not just greatest political thinker, no, that’s not good enough. Apparently, Ron Paul’s intellect is superior to Wittgenstein’s and Goedel, to use two examples.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Bob Barr’s candidacy proves, once and for all, that the Libertarian party is basically the place for Republicans who smoke pot. Or else they’re sincere, but stupid. I say this as someone who occasionally votes for left-libertarians who happen to run on the Libertarian ticket. There are some occasional good candidates and serious ideas, but collectively they’re a joke.
So insofar as Paul’s followers are actually interested in his agenda, I can understand why they are basically just hanging fire. They need a new party, or something.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I don’t think the comparison to Nader works.
Nader’s run for the green party was clearly and unambiguously bad for the green cause because from a green perspective, Al Gore was the best mainstream presidential candidate ever to run and George W. Bush was absolutely the worst.
The greens cannot even claim that tipping the 2000 election to Bush rather than Gore will lead to the nomination of greener candidates in the future. Al Gore won the Nobel prize for his environmental advocacy. Neither Kerry nor Obama were chosen because of their environmental views.
The Libertarian position is completely different. First and most important, there are many reasons to prefer Obama over McCain from a libertarian perspective: Gitmo, Iraq, Unitary executive theory.
But secondly, the power of the religious right comes from their constant threat to stay home if their demands are not enthusiastically met.
From a libertarian perspective, Sarah Palin is proof that a McCain administration would be totally in hock to the religious right. The only way that the libertarians could get what they want (out of Iraq, restoration of civil liberties, end to warantless wiretap, gitmo, etc) would be to side with Congress.
From a libertarian perspective, keeping McCain out of the White House and three more Scalia/Thomas type Supreme Court Nominations from creating a radical right majority on the court is a victory.
The Democrats did not need to make any concessions to the Naderites because the people who defected from the Dems to support Nader in 2000 have made it very clear that they will never support him again.
The Republicans would have to make concessions to the Paulists if they defect as they can very credibly threaten to keep doing it until they get the same level of respect that the religeous right does.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
So if the goal of Paul supporters is to move the Republican Party and the nation in their direction, perhaps they should take a lesson from the abject failure of the Naderites, and conclude the only way to do it is to leap to the other party entirely.
No, because then the GOP will assume NOT that it lost those votes because it was too in favor of war and spending (thus moving it in our direction) but that it lost those votes to the Democrats because it didn’t hand out enough welfare goodies.
If we protest vote for a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, what are dissatisfaction with the Republicans is about will be very clear. If we vote for Obama, we will likely be interpreted as sending the message that we want more left-wing, social welfare state government.
Does anyone think that the Naderites would have been more successful in pushing their agenda had they voted for Bush?
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Personally I still have hope that Obama will reach out to Paul supporters in a meaningful way in the coming months. He needs to make the protection and restoration of constitutional rights one of his main talking points. Freedom activists can understand as well as anyone that the next president will be either McCain or Obama. Given what’s at stake (ie our military policies) that choice ought to be pretty easy.
I wish Paul could endorse Obama but don’t see it happening as it would harm Paul’s credibility as a conservative, while having support from Paul might hurt Obama in some way.
Agreed with above comments that Barr/Root cannot be taken seriously as a principled libertarian ticket–this is a ticket appealing to disgruntled Republicans with libertarian tendencies. It’s a shame that Baldwin and Barr couldn’t work something out as being divided doesn’t help either one get a movement going.
Too bad Pat Buchanan isn’t running as a 3rd party candidate this year as this election cycle would be perfect for Buchanan’s message…and of course that would sink McCain.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:55 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
February 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
??? bookmarked ???????????. ????????????????!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
……………………Great site………………………….
March 1st, 2009 at 3:04 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 13th, 2009 at 7:02 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:04 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Great site. Good info
cheapest brand viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 7:10 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra