POLITICO -- on Benton's email
- Thread starter HOLLYWOOD
- Start date
Some Historical Perspective for Ron Paul Activists
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on May 15, 2012 12:47 AM
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.
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on May 15, 2012 12:47 AM
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
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.
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on May 15, 2012 12:47 AM
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.
wizardwatson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 8,077
Agreed.
People will calm down. The movement is older than Ron Paul, but a HUGE number of people came on board because of Ron Paul including myself. But a lot of people I think have bought into this kind of Ron Paul fairy tale where everyone in the country "sees the light" all at once, Ron Paul becomes president, returns us to sound money, kills the Fed and we all live happily ever after.
It's weird because when I was in Iowa in '07 standing in the parking lot in Des Moines where Paul came out to talk to like thirty of us or so that gathered, I don't remember anyone really having this "zeal" that he was going to win. We knew then that he was kind of a protest candidate and we were all kind of empowered to be part of his campaign at all, but no one was really like "HE WILL WIN", that seems to be something that has gotten front seat in 2012.
Anyway, I'm here for the long haul. I haven't been active in the 2012 campaign except on these forums really as have had issues I've been dealing with but I look forward to helping out with more longer term strategies as they present themselves.
DerailingDaTrain
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,738
What the fuck happened to Jesse?
He went from "we're not out" to lying down down for the establishment.
He went from "we're not out" to lying down down for the establishment.
Barrex
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,576
Whining and posting endlessly on RPF will not change anything. Get all of your concerns and formulate a letter and got there:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/contact-us/
***I still can not understand that fallacy that grassroots can not cooperate with campaign and that contacting campaign it taboo.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/contact-us/
***I still can not understand that fallacy that grassroots can not cooperate with campaign and that contacting campaign it taboo.
mport1
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,050
We've been trying to contact about the campaign about various matters for years and have realized it is mostly futile.
My sentiments exactly.
HOLLYWOOD
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 22,314
Here yah go... this pretty much sums it up by a very popular ally.
Ben Swann @Fox19BenSwann
Following
Jesse Benton email to Paul supporters.. we're not gonna win but keep sending money? http://www.facebook.com/benswannrealitycheck
- 6 Retweets
Last edited:
Badger Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,718
"Ignore the campaign and their requests. "
Fine by me. They can do what they want and we'll do what we have to do to gain for them what they think they can sweet talk Romney into.
Just remember this, if Rand wants our support in 2016 he'll have to earn it. This is about an ideal now more so than the Paul family. This is not North Korea. Leadership is not handed down from father to son like the corner grocery store. You have to earn it.
Fine by me. They can do what they want and we'll do what we have to do to gain for them what they think they can sweet talk Romney into.
Just remember this, if Rand wants our support in 2016 he'll have to earn it. This is about an ideal now more so than the Paul family. This is not North Korea. Leadership is not handed down from father to son like the corner grocery store. You have to earn it.
i've been saying on the forums for months that we have to leave behind planking and better rules,
and even if its very difficult to end the FED outright we could call for between 20 and 100 audits
in a years time, and make it catigorical why there is a Bill of Rights. a strongly worded balanced
budget amendment would indicate where the GOP is on the debt issue, and we need to look at
the bloat in the federal budget. if there is more spine and backbone to the party platform, cool.
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
Jesse is speaking much different. in halted bursts of three to five words weighing the next. He is under some kind of threat. This is not a get your words in order kind of stumbling.
Rev9
Rev9
Eisenhower
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 368
Benton pretty much is confirmed for an establishment puppet double agent at this point.
KingNothing
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,662
But we weren't going to win this time around, or in '08 and we all contributed anyway. This is no different. We're building something that will last much longer than one election.
Krzysztof Lesiak
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 681
Fuck this, it's amazing how the enthusiasm level has plummeted in the course of only two days. Benton has made me lose trust that American politics is salvageable for the better.
Krzysztof Lesiak
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 681
Let's get this page to go viral so we get Benton to either immediately stop with this stupid shit and issue a clarification/ do a Q & A with supporters or to resign.
http://www.facebook.com/FireJesseBenton
http://www.facebook.com/FireJesseBenton
BSWPaulsen
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2011
- Messages
- 873
Good job Benton. Really impressive way to try to pull the plug on the campaign.
The people that think this is some Art of War attack are overthinking this. The level of coordination between the grassroots and campaign isn't sufficient to have them galvanized by this announcement. No, on the contrary, it's going to depress motivation.
Dr. Kervorkian would be proud of Benton.
The people that think this is some Art of War attack are overthinking this. The level of coordination between the grassroots and campaign isn't sufficient to have them galvanized by this announcement. No, on the contrary, it's going to depress motivation.
Dr. Kervorkian would be proud of Benton.
As much as I would have liked to see a delegation of hundreds of Paul delegates go and storm Tampa in an effort to overturn rules and run Romney out of town, while having the convention turn into a coup - likely turning violent, I also understand that the liberty movement is a long-term strategy to redefine the GOP.
It took William Jennings Bryan nearly 20 years to effectively turn the Democratic party from a bastion of laissez faire to the party of nanny-staters. It took Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush Sr., etc around 20 years to turn the non-interventionist, small government Republicans into a party of Trotskyist neoconservatives (after they failed at getting Henry Jackson elected president as a Democrat). I fully expect it to take just as long, if not longer for Paul and his disciples to turn the GOP into a freedom-loving libertarian party. And it very well could be that the answer ends up lying elsewhere (3rd party or even the Democratic party).
That doesn't mean that Paul supporters should give up on 2012. They should push to make as large an impact as possible, and demonstrate their strength by ensuring Romney suffers an embarrassing defeat. So embarrassing that anyone that suggests ignoring Paul's views in the future will be laughed at themselves. And the next cycle starts from an even stronger position.
We'd all like to see the short-term solution. But this is (and always was) going to take a long time.
It took William Jennings Bryan nearly 20 years to effectively turn the Democratic party from a bastion of laissez faire to the party of nanny-staters. It took Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush Sr., etc around 20 years to turn the non-interventionist, small government Republicans into a party of Trotskyist neoconservatives (after they failed at getting Henry Jackson elected president as a Democrat). I fully expect it to take just as long, if not longer for Paul and his disciples to turn the GOP into a freedom-loving libertarian party. And it very well could be that the answer ends up lying elsewhere (3rd party or even the Democratic party).
That doesn't mean that Paul supporters should give up on 2012. They should push to make as large an impact as possible, and demonstrate their strength by ensuring Romney suffers an embarrassing defeat. So embarrassing that anyone that suggests ignoring Paul's views in the future will be laughed at themselves. And the next cycle starts from an even stronger position.
We'd all like to see the short-term solution. But this is (and always was) going to take a long time.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,479
Exactly. Tampa could be a complete circus, and if it involves Ron, it will be blacked out. If the media had to, they would televise Romney giving a speech in a small room of his supporters and call that coverage.
Similar threads
