Does anyone else wonder why in 30 years there's only been one Ron Paul (like) Congressman?

How common was it in the last 30 years for Ron Paul-like Congressman to get the party nomination but then lose? In 2010 I know of John Dennis (CA), Art Robinson (OR), Delia Lopez (OR), and BJ Lawson (NC?)
 
Check out Congressman George Hansen. I recommend checking out his tragic story as Ron Paul cited him in his resignation letter from the GOP in 1987.
 
Most of the answers seem to point towards the "system". So the next question is what to do about the "system"?

To keep doing what people are doing and have patience.

Its only been 3 years since Ron Paul and his message has reached the masses. To even have the GOP neocon establishment worried about a growing "isolationist" streak within this very short period of time is a huge success.
 
Fine question. How does one make society less shallow?

They seem to be doing the most in this cause by robbing us blind. Beyond that, well, the best attempt I know of is our own Constitution. Otherwise..?

That was the perceived solution in 1787.
 
No I don't wonder that because the reason why is simple: his complete package of beliefs is not desired by most American voters. SOME will like him being anti-war, SOME others will like him being anti-tax, but voters just haven't cared for his total package.

By 'total package' I'm even referring to his behavior in Congress. You can find many voters who would like their Rep. or Sens. to enroll in, rather than fight, the old-boy system so that they can have more power and thus more money back home. Then there's the misconception that passing legislation = he's doing his job. So all in all, the reason there aren't a lot of Ron Pauls in Congress is that simply most American's don't believe what he believes.

But there's been more than 1 Ron Paul-like member of Congress. How about: Justin Amash, Rand Paul, maybe Mike Lee, Goldwater, Goldwater Jr., maybe Jeff Flake
 
I often hear the saying "people get the government they deserve", and I think that's true here. From what I've seen, voters elect the guy they think is going to do something for them, whether it be entitlements, subsidies, stimulus checks, or whatever.

Ron Paul offers LIBERTY, and unfortunately, most Americans don't put much value on that. Being free means being responsible for yourself and working for your own rewards, and that doesn't sell. People want to be handed things on a silver platter, as if just by the virtue of the fact you're an American and live in "the richest country in the world", that means you're entitled to live like you're rich. Americans today want a Greece-like society, where the government hands out all the riches even if it means we'll be dead broke in less than a decade.

Now I'm making myself angry. :o
 
I often hear the saying "people get the government they deserve", and I think that's true here. From what I've seen, voters elect the guy they think is going to do something for them, whether it be entitlements, subsidies, stimulus checks, or whatever.

Ron Paul offers LIBERTY, and unfortunately, most Americans don't put much value on that. Being free means being responsible for yourself and working for your own rewards, and that doesn't sell. People want to be handed things on a silver platter, as if just by the virtue of the fact you're an American and live in "the richest country in the world", that means you're entitled to live like you're rich. Americans today want a Greece-like society, where the government hands out all the riches even if it means we'll be dead broke in less than a decade.

Now I'm making myself angry. :o


Yet another "system" reason. The system marches onward.
 
Americans have been brought up to believe that bigger government is a good thing. It is also natural for government without proper checks and balances to grow larger with time. To most Americans the idea of more government to fix probems is common sense. So people like Ron Paul who say lets shrink the government end up with a minority opinion.

And the media and status quo try and destroy anyone who challenges big government.
 
You forgot Rand...now there are two of them

Possibly also Amash & Lee. Could also make a stretch case for Kucinich. But I think that maxes it out. 4 or 5. But 2010 was a crack in the dam. Rand is priceless.
 
Last edited:
Naming two or three other Congressmen who have served for 2 years or less raises the liberty percentage from .001% to .0015% over the last 30 years, further solidifying my point. There ARE deeper issues at heart.
 
Uhh.... not really.... he voted for government run healthcare. He's good on some issues, just like some Republicans are. But overall, he often votes for bigger government, just like they do.

But I think Dennis actually believes that big government can be accountable, transparent, and peaceful. And can provide infrastructure that provide large economic returns to the people. He's not into big government to steal people blind and create a police state grid. He and Obama are far far apart ideologically. Obama is a criminal tool and knowingly chooses that path.

Dennis voted against the bailouts:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_dennis_kucinich_on_the_democrats_bailout_betrayal/

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/6995
 
Last edited:
Hardly anyone mentions John "Jimmy" Duncan (R from TN). He was against the wars, against the Patriot Act, against all the bailouts, is very fiscally conservative, and has had one of the most Ron Paul like voting record for well over a decade. You will be hard pressed to find another politician (other than Dr. Paul) that has had a solid voting record with the consensus of this board over the past 20 years that is for sure! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Duncan_(U.S._politician)
 
Last edited:
I'm more shocked that the number isn't zero. Ron is a statistical improbability.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top