Nick Gillespie Washington Post Op-ed : Five myths about Ron Paul

tsetsefly

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
3,039
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ron-paul/2011/12/07/gIQAu3vOiO_story_1.html

Five myths about Ron Paul
By Nick Gillespie, Friday, December 9, 7:18 PM

Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates. The 12-term Texas congressman ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1988 and was widely seen as a sideshow in 2008, despite finishing third in the GOP field behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives? Let’s take a look at what “Dr. No” — a nickname grounded in his medical career and his penchant for voting against any bill increasing the size of government — really stands for.

1. Ron Paul is not a “top-tier” candidate.

At some point in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the mainstream media became more obsessed than usual with designating certain GOP hopefuls as “top-tier candidates,” which translates into “people we want to talk about because we find them interesting or funny or scary.” Or more plainly: “anybody but Ron Paul.”

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has been accorded top-tier status from the start, but otherwise it’s been a rogues’ gallery. As their numbers soared, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and pizza magnate Herman Cain enjoyed stints in the top tier, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich is now ensconced in that blessed circle.

Back in August, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) was designated “top tier” after winning Iowa’s Ames Straw Poll.Paul was not, despite losing to her by only about 150 votes. And when Paul won the presidential straw poll of about 2,000 attendees at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in Washington in October, the contest’s organizer pronounced him “an outlier in this poll.”

Yet Paul is doing increasingly well in national and state-level polls. He’s running in second place in Iowa ahead of the Jan. 3 caucuses and third in the New Hampshire primary — the first two contests for the GOP nomination. And now that Cain has dropped out, Paul’s stock is likely to keep climbing. The congressman is no less a top-tier candidate than anyone else in the race.

2. Ron Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian.

Yes, he once ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket and was accurately described by New York Times columnist Gail Collins last month as against “gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn.” But Paul parts company with many libertarians on many issues.

These include immigration, where he favors ending birthright citizenshipand reducing the number of newcomers until the welfare state is dismantled. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.

In theory he supports free-trade agreements, but in reality he votes against them, dismissing them as “managed trade.” He’s known for adding earmarks to spending bills he votes against, thus bringing home pork while maintaining his “Dr. No” credentials. As a result, says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute, Paul is “an imperfect messenger” for libertarians’ small-government gospel.

3. Ron Paul’s call to “end the Fed” is crazy.

Paul’s 2009 “End the Fed” manifesto pretty much gives away the plot in the title. But the book sold well and drew respectful notices not just from folk singer Arlo Guthrie and actor Vince Vaughn, but also from the likes of media magnate and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes. “History,” Forbes wrote in a review of Paul’s book, “will judge that Paul had it right when it came to the Fed and its often misbegotten monetary policies.” David Stockman, the former Republican congressman and Reagan budget director, has said that “our monetary system is out of control” and that Paul is the “one guy who understands it.”

Far more important is Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, which has been introduced three years in a row and hasn’t passed, but had more than 300 co-sponsors in the House in 2009. Paul introduced a new version in January that has 195 co-sponsors drawn from both parties. That sustained interest and the ongoing controversy over the Fed’s role in bank bailouts — and the fact that both the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movement have cast a gimlet eye on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke — strongly suggest that auditing the nation’s central bank is an idea whose time has come.

4. Ron Paul is anti-military.


Unlike his fellow, er, top-tier candidates Gingrich and Romney, Paul served his country in uniform, as an Air Force captain. However, his forthright opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his insistence that military spending can be cut without endangering American lives, have led some to conclude that his foreign policy non-interventionism equals unilateral disarmament.

While the Pentagon brass might oppose his defense cuts, the troops seem to like what he is saying. According to his campaign’s analysis of Federal Election Commission reports from the third quarter of this year, Paul has raised more funds from active military personnel than all other GOP competitors combined, and even more than President Obama.

Paul, who has said that “we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home,” wants to radically change defense policy and withdraw troops from war zones and bases around the world. He is clearly against the military-industrial complex, but if soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are opening their wallets to support his White House bid, he can’t accurately be called “anti-military.”

5. Ron Paul has strong youth support because he wants to legalize drugs.


A medical doctor by training and a grandfather, Paul leaves no doubt as to whether drugs — and cigarettes and trans fat, for that matter — should be legal. “Why shouldn’t you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body?” he told an audience of 1,000 University of Iowa students in October. Yet the devout Christian is no libertine, telling the same crowd, “You also have to assume responsibility for any bad choices you make, and you can’t go to your neighbor or to your government to bail yourselves out.”

Paul’s popularity among younger voters — he’s routinely described as a “rock star” on the college circuit — stems from the idealism of his politics. Kids rally behind his faith in the future, belief in the individual and confidence in bottom-up decision-making. He may look a lot like Timothy Leary, the countercultural guru who famously held a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Paul’s 1988 presidential bid, but he’s not talking about turning on, tuning in and dropping out.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking to post this. Was a good article that has rebuttals to myths about the campaign should hammer on.

Also love the line that Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of the GOP candidates. [which you left out, see below]

"I get no respect!!!"

First part of article:
Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates. The 12-term Texas congressman ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1988 and was widely seen as a sideshow in 2008, despite finishing third in the GOP field behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives? Let’s take a look at what “Dr. No” — a nickname grounded in his medical career and his penchant for voting against any bill increasing the size of government — really stands for.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking to post this. Was a good article that has rebuttals to myths about the campaign should hammer on.

Also love the line that Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of the GOP candidates. [which you left out, see below]

"I get no respect!!!"

First part of article:

DIdnt do it on purpose I went to the print version to copy paste it and it had left that out, I added it now! It is a great article! Reason also has daily stuff on paul and how bad the other candidates are!
 
Well, from my personal meetings with beltway libertarians at Reason events etc, many are still not on board with Paul or they begrudgingly say they will support him but disagree with many of his positions particularly immigration and gay-marriage etc....but beltway libertarians are weird and many are gay so that may have something to do with it....same with Cato. Can't really blame them for that position.
 
Last edited:
Doherty especially has come around to Ron much more so than 2008. I think they're disgusted with the idea of President Gingrich.
 
lol, so these beltway libertarian types disfavor policies like "get rid of the welfare state, then let a lot of immigrants in" and "government should get out of the marriage business"... ?

Sounds like these beltway libertarians aren't so... libertarian.
 
lol, so these beltway libertarian types disfavor policies like "get rid of the welfare state, then let a lot of immigrants in" and "government should get out of the marriage business"... ?

Sounds like these beltway libertarians aren't so... libertarian.

Beltway libertarians always seem to be more Objectivist or Friedman oriented rather of than the Austro-Libertarian variety. They also seem to have difficulty separating personal views and the role of government (if we are to have one).
 
lol, so these beltway libertarian types disfavor policies like "get rid of the welfare state, then let a lot of immigrants in" and "government should get out of the marriage business"... ?

Sounds like these beltway libertarians aren't so... libertarian.


If we got rid of the welfare state, why shouldn't we let all non-criminal, healthy immigrants in? If that defines a beltway libertarian... I'm a beltway libertarian.
 
Beltway libertarians always seem to be more Objectivist or Friedman oriented rather of than the Austro-Libertarian variety. They also seem to have difficulty separating personal views and the role of government (if we are to have one).

This is a pretty broad generalization. Libertarians come in many flavors. Of particular note, and possibly relevant to what you're talking about, is the schism that occurred in the late 70's and early 80's. Rothbard and Koch split the Libertarian Party along both organizational and ideological lines. The LP never recovered from that.

I'm not sure what a 'beltway' libertarian is.

As an objectivist, I support Ron Paul completely. I think my strong support for Ron Paul is quite like Ayn Rand's strong support for Barry Goldwater in 1964. I think that the ARI objectivists who do not support Ron Paul are being highly irrational, as they have been in the past about so many things.
 
I saw Nick G. in an interview a couple days ago, he was not wearing the black leather jacket. That's one myth that is now busted. ;)
 
Beltway libertarians are those that live and work in or around DC..aka within the "495 beltway"...they are at reason, cato, and a few other think tanks and conservative social scenes. They represent a farily different strain of libertarians, in 2008 at least, many scoffed at Ron Paul and Reason at times was not supportive etc...
 
It includes all their misconceptions. whatever, I do not consider it a positive piece, but they aren't pro Paul so to speak, so it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Reason sent Gillespie to write that article?















cae1cfb9-6840-4fa3-98e9-8b9268597a54.jpg
 
A lot of the anti-beltway thing is rooted in BS and works both ways. For a time there certain "paleo" libertarians ( I don't see why the purity thing is a such a big deal to other libertarians who have to qualify their libertarianism) were saying all kinds of lies like that all reason and cato employees were pro-war, which is just ridiculous. And it was mostly people who have a hardon for Pat Buchanan, who was never libertarian in any sense. Then of course you had the cato types saying unfair stuff about Ron Paul. A lot of it wasn't even about Ron Paul but more about Rockwell/Rothbard and certain Ron Paul "supporters" went out of their way to protect Rockwell at the expense of paul and vice versa. Then you had the whole cosmotarian thing which somehow implied that anyone with no personal objections to gays or drugs or admiration racist meant that "beltway cosmotarians" were all a bunch of coke fiends having gay orgies and all this nonsense. Meanwhile, for all the "pro-war" reasonoids objecting to the wars and working to free innocent people from death row, you have the paleos writing op-eds supporting police brutality and big government.

Heck, a lot of the people here HATE libertarians and go out of their way to talk about how conservative they are. I think Nick was doing a favor to those, by including a few more conservative beliefs. making RP a little more palatable to certain brands of conservatism.

personally, i disagree with RP on a few things, too. But he gets the big things very right. I'm not going to say that makes me any "more" libertarian than Ron Paul, but anyone who says it makes me "less libertarian" than Ron Paul is freaking nuts. FWIW, I am libertarian and disagree with conservatism. But you need a big coalition here in politics.

As far I know, Doherty was never anti-Paul. Some other reason people only really turned after the newsletter thing, and they were mostly anarchists who don't care about voting who sided with paul but didn't want libertarianism to be equated with race based police brutality and stuff like that.
 
It includes all their misconceptions. whatever, I do not consider it a positive piece, but they aren't pro Paul so to speak, so it is what it is.

The only misconception is the earmark issue, but Reason isn't really radical enough to toe the taxation is theft or thieving the thieves lines, but it was pretty positive.
 
Back
Top