Lew Rockwell Blog on Ron Paul's New Strategy-a Must Read
- Thread starter stu2002
- Start date
MelissaCato
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,150
Good read.
Great article. It is indeed more about the movement than the election. Paul's positions will extend beyond 2012. Beyond 2016. Because if either Romney or Obama get elected, our freedoms and liberties will continue to dwindle until the next election, only growing support for the libertarian movement.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,673
Some Historical Perspective for Ron Paul Activists
Some Historical Perspective for Ron Paul Activists
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on May 15, 2012 12:47 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112112.html#more-112112
I've been somewhat surprised by the absolutely hysterical reaction among some RP activists to Ron Paul's announcement that he's shifting resources toward winning more delegates instead of blowing it on straw polls in new primaries. In some of the forums, alleged "supporters" are hurling insults at both Ron and his staffers.
I remember how after 2008, some people I talked to pledged to "never give money ever again" to Ron Paul because he "wasn't serious" about winning. These people think elections are all that matter, but that's not how political and intellectual movements work. The election of numerous libertarian candidates will be a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, of the success of a libertarian movement. The population still isn't there. Although it will be.
It's absolutely unbelievable that some people who claim to be champions of freedom are now viciously badmouthing a man who can claim much credit in making libertarianism a household word — as it now is — and has been instrumental in building the most important challenge to central banking and the warfare state in a century. All of this is in addition to taking control of the GOP machinery in numerous states and cong. districts.
I might also note that I turned on the tele the other day and there was Ron Paul talking about central banking. Note to newcomer activists: I know it's hard to believe, but before RP's 2008 run, there was once a time when libertarians weren't on TV regularly talking about Austrian free-market economics and the evils of war. I swear it's true. Cross my heart and hope to die.
Politically, Ron Paul is doing what the Religious Right successfully did 20 years ago when it became a major force in the party, and he's rebuilding the intellectual infrastructure of the American right wing in a way similar to what Buckley did in the 1950s. Except, where Buckley only pretended to be for the rule of law and limited government, Ron Paul is the real thing. And Paul's even doing it without CIA money, unlike Buckley. RP's the continuation of the old libertarian movement that existed in opposition to war and the New Deal before it was hijacked by the conservative apologists for the state.
Except now, instead of being composed of a few dozen guys who could all have met in a small hotel ballroom, the movement for peace and freedom is a huge nationwide movement.
Anyone who, like me, teaches people in their twenties can already see a huge change. The ideas of libertarianism have a credibility they have not had in decades, if not not since the late 19th century when Herbert Spencer was a best-selling author in America.
Those of us who have been involved in the libertarian movement for more than ten years can see a huge difference, and those who have been around for decades undoubtedly see even more. Nevertheless, I can understand that a younger person, or a person who has never been politically active before, might view one presidential election as some kind of end-all-be-all of the freedom movement, but it's not.
The Ron Paul phenomenon isn't even close to being done re-shaping the American political landscape, yet amazingly, some people seem to think that not running TV ads in California somehow signifies a lack of seriousness on the part of the Paul campaign. Only a complete lack of experience and historical perspective could lead one to such conclusions.
Some Historical Perspective for Ron Paul Activists
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on May 15, 2012 12:47 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112112.html#more-112112
I've been somewhat surprised by the absolutely hysterical reaction among some RP activists to Ron Paul's announcement that he's shifting resources toward winning more delegates instead of blowing it on straw polls in new primaries. In some of the forums, alleged "supporters" are hurling insults at both Ron and his staffers.
I remember how after 2008, some people I talked to pledged to "never give money ever again" to Ron Paul because he "wasn't serious" about winning. These people think elections are all that matter, but that's not how political and intellectual movements work. The election of numerous libertarian candidates will be a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, of the success of a libertarian movement. The population still isn't there. Although it will be.
It's absolutely unbelievable that some people who claim to be champions of freedom are now viciously badmouthing a man who can claim much credit in making libertarianism a household word — as it now is — and has been instrumental in building the most important challenge to central banking and the warfare state in a century. All of this is in addition to taking control of the GOP machinery in numerous states and cong. districts.
I might also note that I turned on the tele the other day and there was Ron Paul talking about central banking. Note to newcomer activists: I know it's hard to believe, but before RP's 2008 run, there was once a time when libertarians weren't on TV regularly talking about Austrian free-market economics and the evils of war. I swear it's true. Cross my heart and hope to die.
Politically, Ron Paul is doing what the Religious Right successfully did 20 years ago when it became a major force in the party, and he's rebuilding the intellectual infrastructure of the American right wing in a way similar to what Buckley did in the 1950s. Except, where Buckley only pretended to be for the rule of law and limited government, Ron Paul is the real thing. And Paul's even doing it without CIA money, unlike Buckley. RP's the continuation of the old libertarian movement that existed in opposition to war and the New Deal before it was hijacked by the conservative apologists for the state.
Except now, instead of being composed of a few dozen guys who could all have met in a small hotel ballroom, the movement for peace and freedom is a huge nationwide movement.
Anyone who, like me, teaches people in their twenties can already see a huge change. The ideas of libertarianism have a credibility they have not had in decades, if not not since the late 19th century when Herbert Spencer was a best-selling author in America.
Those of us who have been involved in the libertarian movement for more than ten years can see a huge difference, and those who have been around for decades undoubtedly see even more. Nevertheless, I can understand that a younger person, or a person who has never been politically active before, might view one presidential election as some kind of end-all-be-all of the freedom movement, but it's not.
The Ron Paul phenomenon isn't even close to being done re-shaping the American political landscape, yet amazingly, some people seem to think that not running TV ads in California somehow signifies a lack of seriousness on the part of the Paul campaign. Only a complete lack of experience and historical perspective could lead one to such conclusions.
kill the banks
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,942
well big overreaction by some but most vets stayed inline ... i know Ron speaks the truth so i read the email as just that ... no more wasting money on the beauty contest and full steam ahead on delegates and reforming the GOP ... let's get it done !
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
To put things in perspective:
To keep things in perspective:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112112.html
To keep things in perspective:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112112.html
Constitutional Paulicy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,454
This was posted earlier and it was a great read. I suggest everyone take the time to read it.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
Yes, but it still doesn't explain what Benton did.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
So, Ron Paul wasn't actually running for President, or at least, he wasn't running as hard as he could have....because he was running and educational campaign?
Everybody who knew this was coming raise your hand. 2012, meet 2008.
FSP-Rebel
Mr. Republitarian
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 11,528
Ron has said he didn't see himself in the oval office. The way I see it is he did us all a favor by running and getting everyone involved again in the hopes that we'd all become active in our local gop and take them over, then the state apparatus. Whether he was running an ed campaign or not, you can't fault him in his commitment to liberty. W/o the campaign of '08 (which many scoff at), we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today. We'd be either hunkering down or dining at the libertarian party cafe. And 0 control of the gop.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,973
Well that would explain some of his debate and interview commentary that played well to us and to independents and democrats, but not to "typical republican voters". That said I don't know why we stuck to a Rand Paul strategy while running a Ron Paul campaign.
Tim724
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 346
Why are we in obituary mode?
I made a similiar point on DP about Jack Hunter's recent essay: the piece that Collins linked would be fine if it were released after the convention was over and Romney had won. However, it reads like a retrospective obituary and that is exactly the attitude that is pissing so many of us off - we are in the final lap of a long race and we have the campaign talking about how we lost and acting like animals sniffing around the dead body that is the presidential nomination. This is massively discouraging more RP votes and delegates from the remaining states. Can't we wait just a little longer until the damn race is over for that kind of talk?
Many of us are pretty sure that this defeatist talk from the campaign is a result of serious dealing that has been done with Romney and the establishment. However, I am pretty convinced that a stupid deal was made or at least it was made stupidly too early. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I believe the recent announcements have significantly undermined the campaign/movement without a corressponding reward. Benton can go to hell...he's too young and dumb for his position and is probably trying to make a career for himself in the GOP establishment.
I have a generous donation record (somewhere near maxing out, but not quite), but why would I give to a moneybomb for a campaign that's folding up? Sorry, my wallet is closed tomorrow. I don't believe it will go toward anything except insuring the last few paychecks for those losers on the campaign staff.
I made a similiar point on DP about Jack Hunter's recent essay: the piece that Collins linked would be fine if it were released after the convention was over and Romney had won. However, it reads like a retrospective obituary and that is exactly the attitude that is pissing so many of us off - we are in the final lap of a long race and we have the campaign talking about how we lost and acting like animals sniffing around the dead body that is the presidential nomination. This is massively discouraging more RP votes and delegates from the remaining states. Can't we wait just a little longer until the damn race is over for that kind of talk?
Many of us are pretty sure that this defeatist talk from the campaign is a result of serious dealing that has been done with Romney and the establishment. However, I am pretty convinced that a stupid deal was made or at least it was made stupidly too early. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I believe the recent announcements have significantly undermined the campaign/movement without a corressponding reward. Benton can go to hell...he's too young and dumb for his position and is probably trying to make a career for himself in the GOP establishment.
I have a generous donation record (somewhere near maxing out, but not quite), but why would I give to a moneybomb for a campaign that's folding up? Sorry, my wallet is closed tomorrow. I don't believe it will go toward anything except insuring the last few paychecks for those losers on the campaign staff.
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
If this goes like it did in 2008, the fact that people who asserted he was running an educational campaign were berated and banned for undermining the "fact" that he was In It To Win It will be entirely forgotten, and everybody who honestly believed he was in it legitimately will be considered naive, if not foolish for not believing what he actually said.
It's complicated.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
Nothing anybody can say will ever convince me that we weren't close. If the campaign could have pulled off a win early on...Iowa or Maine....the whole game would have changed. Knowing that we couldn't deliver a single state to him is crushing. He deserved that.
opinionatedfool
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,340
It's nice to see you coming out of the woodwork, Matt!
Similar threads
