Perry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 3,298
I didn't want to put this in bad media reporting although it is somewhat anti-Paul it is an honest opinion. What I really enjoyed here were the comments on the article itself. I will not pick & choose comments but will post them all as they are. Good stuff. I love to see the public come to Pauls defense.
Now for the reader comments.
More comment-
Source: The Atlantic
Why harp on Ron Paul? ask my interlocutors. Do I hate liberty? Do I not realize that he's the closest thing there is to a libertarian candidate?
Well, for one thing, there's not much point in my arguing with a John Edwards supporter.
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
"I know! Isn't it marvelous?" they reply, and that's the end of the discussion.
In fact, I will, in the run-up to Iowa, be digging into the economic policies of all of the major candidates, and presenting my thoughts for your delectation. Ron Paul is up first for two reasons: first, because so many people seem convinced that he ought to make my heart go pitter-pat; and second, because the nuttiness extremity of his policies makes for interesting discussion.
There's really very little variation between most of the candidates this election; we're mostly arguing about dry bureaucratic tweaks to the same fundamentally wrong-headed policies advocated by everyone. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has an entirely different set of fundamentally wrong-headed policies, which makes him slightly more amusing to talk about. Ron Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less. Thus we waste little time getting tangled up in subtleties.
Anyway, why not just bite the bullet and support him, imperfect as he is? I did as much for the execrable George Bush in 2004, after all. Well, actually, you just answered your own question; I've overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate before, with less than salutory results. George Bush supported low taxes, a semi-decent entitlement reform, etc., etc. It's just that little of that stuff happened, and a lot of bad stuff did.
The fact that Ron Paul doesn't want to do those bad things, but instead advocates an entirely different group of bad ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and pulling every American solider back behind our borders, doesn't comfort me. Nor does the fact that Congress will stop him, since Congress will stop him from doing nearly all the things I like, such as reforming Social Security--just as they stopped George Bush from doing the things I liked. They won't stop him from refusing to negotiate new trade deals, and doing his best to scupper the ones we've got, for example. Nor will they likely block him on immigration. And I'm pretty sure they can't keep us from whisking all of our troops home from everywhere tomorrow, which sounds fun in a bold, sweeping sort of way--but I am inherently suspicious of bold, sweeping changes to our foreign policy.
All of which is irrelevant because if Ron Paul somehow did garner the Republican nomination, the only tangible result would be a Goldwater-style landslide.
Now for the reader comments.
Comments (115)
I'm confused. You said you were going to examine the intricacies. Instead, you pointed out what you do and don't like about the man's proposed policies- and wipe them all off the board for discussion by saying Congress would somehow stop him from doing each and every one. This is just an opinion, and a shallow one at that. Why don't you actually do what you said you were going to at the top of the article and explain why his economic policies would or wouldn't fail? At this rate, you're just going to tell us which candidate you do or don't like based upon... well... absolutely nothing!
Posted by James | December 27, 2007 10:56 AM
Megan, the congress is the next replacement. Once the hawks are out of the White House the cronies in the Congress are going to get the boot next.
Something’s changing in this country, we want our freedom back.
Posted by David | December 27, 2007 10:59 AM
Wow, that's a small moment in my life I'll never get back. Thank you for your idiotic and vapid opinion...Retard.
Posted by Remy A | December 27, 2007 11:01 AM
why is abolishing the fed a bad thing?
pulling troops home is way better than keeping them abroad and whether you agree with the idea or not this is necessary for fiscal responsibility. I personally think they should privatize Iraq before leaving, but other than that America has no needs for troops anywhere.
What do you need trade deals for when you have someone who believes in free trade? The point of free trade is to trade freely, not to make massively protective deals that are called free trade. He'll go as far as to trade with Cuba etc. What problem do you really have here considering he'll have more open trade with more countries than any past admin?
He doesn't have any serious plans to curtail immigration other than cutting subsidies, which is a good thing. Why do you want to keep these?
Posted by Aaron Smith | December 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Megan,
You need to investigate the facts!
Posted by Jan Cunningham | December 27, 2007 11:14 AM
There are some logical inconsistencies in what you write, Megan.
Ron Paul is the master of high-concept politics: he's full of simple prescriptions that can be stated in a sentence or less. Thus we waste little time getting tangled up in subtleties.
Well, obviously not. I find that Ron Paul makes much more sense and his nuanced stance on many things is much more appreciated for its reasonable approach when you hear him elaborate beyond a sentence or two. Ironically, it's the condensing of his positions into single phrases of hearsay that cause the POV that you seem to have.
I've overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate before, with less than salutory results. George Bush supported low taxes, a semi-decent entitlement reform, etc., etc. It's just that little of that stuff happened, and a lot of bad stuff did.
Well, if we refer back to Caplan's piece that you cited, we see that this isn't very good reasoning on your part. Bush did "bad" with matters he was most able to influence....namely in foreign policy. The tax cuts were easy with a sympathetic congress but that's about it. The many things he failed to do were because of checks of balances.
Unless you feel Paul's foreign policy positions (the real ones...not the simplistic hearsay!), then you're not making much sense. FP is one area where Paul would have the most influence. The things like abolishing the Fed (a bit of an exageration BTW), wich you are very hung up on are not going to happen on his whim and most likely will not happen at all.
Paul's trade position is simply obtuse. It's not "wrong" in the way that Edwards is wrong. Paul's just being a purist and I agree that he should loosen up on that stance. Then again, if he were able to simply abolish tariffs and special interest barriers as he wants to, we wouldn't need agreements.
I don't really agree with him on immigration. But I don't see much difference in anyone's stance on this. His views aren't much different than any of the front runners. But he does have the right attitude about it when he says that immigrants are scapegoats and that if the economy was stronger and more open, we wouldn't feel threatened by immigrants. He's right.
Posted by John V | December 27, 2007 11:15 AM
Megan, I think you are onto something new! Sound bite journalism! You are so enamoured with sound bite politicians that dont have to back up their claims and have an excuse for it since they only have 30 second soundbites that you've adapted it to your journalism where you have no excuse.
My old-fashion internet-savvy son tells me I shouldn't even read internet journalism unless it is backed up with links in the text(sorta like footnotes in the old days). Otherwise he claims it is just a lame opinion that the author cannot back up. But what does he know?
I'd prefer to just be confused about what is wrong with bringing our troops home from all over the world than to admit my ignorance.
Posted by Bob | December 27, 2007 11:16 AM
Wow, I've been interested in your discussion of Paul's economic policies. This is starting to look like you've run out of good arguments - Just an opp for a cute strikethrough.
Whatever. The very things you find nutty and extreme about him are sitting smack dab in the middle of the Constitution. The rest of us find your reluctant Keynesianism nutty. But hey, it's a free country. People can believe what they want, right?!?!
Posted by Kurt | December 27, 2007 11:22 AM
Wow... I guess they'll just let anyone write at the Atlantic. Megan, Journalism requires at least some investigation on your part. If we wanted to read poorly thought out editorial, we'd watch Fox news...
Posted by tony | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM
Nor does the fact that Congress will stop him, since Congress will stop him from doing nearly all the things I like
Megan, you've missed the obvious behind the "Revolution": a President Paul would have the avid (heck, rabid) support of the most vociferous constituents on the planet. We would flood our congressional offices with letters, petitions, phone calls, faxes, demanding that the US Congress co-operate with the changes and reforms that we the people want. It's our right and our duty, as spelled out in our founding documents.
Politicians always cave to the demands of the people that have the power to keep them in, or boot them out, of office. For me, that is the most exciting prospect of the Ron Paul Revolution: we take back the White House for universal liberty, and force Congress to comply.
Posted by Chris | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM
Another thing, Megan,
Why the different levels of faith in collective bumbling?
On domestic policy, you seem more for less top down, clumsy control that creates side-effects and consequences that require further "solutions" that then create even more problems because the cause is still engrained in the "cure".
From methodological individualist stand point, foreign policy is no different.
Posted by John V | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM
I understand your position, and there are probably many people in this nation just like you. They've been in chains so long, that the prospect of freedom--change--can be scary. Sometimes change is good. Ron Paul 2008.
Posted by Colin | December 27, 2007 11:28 AM
And yet ANOTHER thing, Megan,
domestically, Paul would do something wonderful even if none of his proposed reforms went through:
He would veto virtually everything...which would temper Congress to make bills veto-proof and that means getting bills down to a level where enough Republicans would help override a veto.
In case you haven't noticed, spending has slowed down since the Dems took over Congress....not because the Dems are stingy but because Bush found his veto pen. The mutual rubber stamping is gone.
Paul would take that to another level. Less military spending + trimmed down appropriations bills and a virtual halt on silly new "laws" would reap enormous benefits on a fiscal level.
Posted by John V | December 27, 2007 11:31 AM
Why do we even bother with dilettante hacks like McArdle?
Posted by Tamsin Rosenberg | December 27, 2007 11:31 AM
It's not surprising that people who are corrupt are against a good person who wants to make America good again.
Posted by DanEllis | December 27, 2007 11:34 AM
Seriously getting rid of the Fed is nutty. I mean its not like we are in some sort of credit crunch right now.
Its not that he should make your heart go pitter patter so much as he is bring the level of debate up a notch. It should be refreshing to any serious economic journalist that a presidential candidate knows what M3 IS let alone wants to bring to light the fact that the Fed fails to report to the people what they are doing to it.
Posted by Dakota | December 27, 2007 11:40 AM
I disagree with the "Goldwater-style landslide" remark. (Actually I disagree with just about everything but I'll stick with this one thing) Hillary wouldnt stand a chance in a debate with Ron Paul. Her voting record on the war is atrocious. The absurdity of our foreign policy is apparent, and all we need is a nominee who has the guts to say so in front of the people. There are too many irresponsible people in this country to even think about something like national healthcare. It's a pipe dream, and it doesnt mesh with the idea of personal responsibility at all. Hillary knows next to nothing about any of the issues Ron Paul has made his bread and butter. Especially currency devaluation.
Posted by Iconoclast421 | December 27, 2007 11:54 AM
OK, our ideas are so radical I concede that we can be considered as radicals! But is that not the essense of being Americans? Who thought we had a chance back in 1776 and 1812? Americans were known as true risk-takers and few countries have changed the world like we did. Is that phase of our history truly finished? Are we no longer revoluntary in our orientation to life's challenges? What we are doing in our political realm is not working. It is making life harder for all of us and things will only deteriorate if we continue down this path. Insanity is repeating the same thing only and over and expecting different results. Standing up with Ron Paul and demanding a new path and new leadership is exactly what this revolution is all about. Who knows? This may very well be the last chance preserve what made America great and worth living in. Join us, your voice could make the difference in whether this revolution succeeds or fails.
Posted by Owen Adams | December 27, 2007 12:03 PM
Wow....did I miss something? For yours and the Atlantic's sake, I hope so. Otherwise, my respect for the Atlantic and (what I thought was it's superb) journalism has plummeted.
I suggest you know something about Ron Paul before writing about him.
ronpaul2008.com
Posted by Evan | December 27, 2007 12:05 PM
John V
Actually, since Congress would want to make their bills veto proof every piece of legislation that came from Congress would have more pork than a pig roast. I think your optimism is somewhat misplaced at least until mid-terms.
Posted by H Man | December 27, 2007 12:10 PM
"the nuttiness extremity of his policies"
If all you have, at base level, is smears and name-calling, you're no better than the Neocons that oppose Dr. Paul.
The lamestream media is on the tumble. I hope you have another job lined up.
Posted by Jamie | December 27, 2007 12:11 PM
You need to investigate the facts!
What's up with the Paulinistas constantly assigning us homework?
Posted by Rob Lyman | December 27, 2007 12:16 PM
Megan. I am ashamed of your Irish last name and your lack of coherent intellectual arguments. You are a disgrace to your ancestors. I will give you a very simple question that even you may be able to answer. In the great scheme of things just how does any other candidate running have a plan that will increase individual liberty? Do you realize that Judicial Watch has named four CFR candidates Hillary Obama Rudy and the Huckster in their top ten list of the most corrupt politicians? These candidates are owned by the corporate fascist. See who donates to them. It is not individual Americans like the donors to Ron Paul. That is what this Revolution is about. Ron Paul is the people's candidate representing the Constitutional values that once made us proud to be Americans. We are energized by the prospect of FREEDOM. If you think we are free you are mistaken. Our liberty has been abolished. The Bill of Rights is replaced with the 'Patriot Act". Secret Tribunals exist that ignore the Writ of Habius Corpus. Our telephones are tapped. This administration has an inability to define torture and a vague definition of an "Enemy Combatant". Tomorrow it could be you. These are tools of despots. Even your criticisms are naive. You scoff about abolishing the Federal Reserve without reflecting that it is not Federal and is nothing more then an unconstitutional cartel of bankers that have hijacked our monetary system to the detriment of the American people. View "Freedom to Fascism" and educate yourself. You are against bringing our troops home? This is an unjust undeclared war that has no end in sight. If you look at the history of mankind most wars have not been fought to preserve Liberty as our first Revolution but to further the agendas of the elite. That is the purpose of this war and the purpose of our troops that are stationed around the world. You folks that are clinging to the Old Media propagandist views had better get use to the idea that you and your kind are irrelevant. The internet and the free exchange of ideas has debunked your lies and disinformation. The voice for Liberty is being heard around the World. It is an Idea whose time has come and Nothing can stop it. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Freedom!
P.S. My comma key broke.
Posted by Elaine McKillop. Esq. | December 27, 2007 12:18 PM
H Man,
well, that's a cynical way of looking at it. I'm not so sure that it would happen that way. It's not happening right now. Bush's standards for a veto are much lower than Paul's and the Dems have been had to rework appropriations bills to get them to pass.
I'm may be more optimistic than you but I don't think I'm being very overly optimistic. I'm big believer in the virtuous effects of gridlock on a congressman's tendency for chutzpah
Posted by John V | December 27, 2007 12:18 PM
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, no Democrat would stand a chance.
Any other Republican would start out with 70% of the voters against them on Iraq, and be dead in the water on election day.
Ron Paul has already proven an ability to appeal to liberals, progressives, libertarians, and independents, along with hardcore Republican conservatives.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party on the majority side of the biggest issues: against the Iraq war, against illegal immigration, for smaller government, for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for civil liberties, for the Constitution, and against ruining our health care system by turning it over to the government.
No other candidate in either party has such broad appeal, or anywhere near his integrity or consistency.
Posted by Doug D | December 27, 2007 12:21 PM
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
Megan, You can't be serious. Any thinking person who has been paying attention would know that Dr. Paul is diametrically opposed to those disingenuous accusatory positions.
The only thing I can figure is that you are just using "Ron Paul:" in the title of your article to drive up readership because the rest is just a makeweight of blathering vacuous nonsense.
Posted by Nick Smith | December 27, 2007 12:21 PM
I was considering getting a subscription to the Atlantic. Thanks for putting me off.
Posted by Martin | December 27, 2007 12:22 PM
Ron sez: "constantly assigning us homework?"
Based on the content of McArdle's column, some assigned homework on her part would be in order.
Anyone that's done even a modicum of homework on the topic would know that getting rid of the Federal Reserve is the best thing that could happen to Americans right now.
Start with Murray Rothbard, one of Ron Paul's mentors:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/tmb.html
Posted by Jamie | December 27, 2007 12:25 PM
Come on now; you aren't being fair to Megan!
She used a big word in her first sentence:
"interlocutors"
Thus, she framed the article with her intelligence, so we'd all see that she's really smart and not just an name-caller.
Ron Paul's ideas are indeed radical and nutty because he calls for a return to responsible government! It would be GOOD to do so, but still radical in this day and age.
Posted by William | December 27, 2007 12:30 PM
Megan,
wow! what an analysis! I'm confused though... were you attempting to figure anything out or just rambling on and on about your arbitrary unfounded opinions?
Posted by Seth Thomas | December 27, 2007 12:31 PM
Come on now; you aren't being fair to Megan!
She used a big word in her first sentence:
"interlocutors"
Thus, she framed the article with her intelligence, so we'd all realize that she's really smart, a thinker, and not just a name-caller.
Ron Paul's ideas are indeed radical and nutty because he calls for a return to responsible government! Return to responsible government would be GOOD to do but very radical in this day and age.
Posted by William | December 27, 2007 12:32 PM
Don't you think Congress would feel strongly compelled to go along with much of Mr. Paul's agenda if he were elected? The media have spent so much time harping on how "radical" he is that, if elected, it would be seen as nothing other than a clear mandate for "radical" change. In other words, people would not be electing someone like Mr. Paul in order to maintain the failings of the status quo.
Our representatives or senators would be forced to recognize that fact, for fear of being thrown out after the next election. And we all know how much they want to keep their jobs.
Posted by Greg | December 27, 2007 12:36 PM
WOW! what a lot of words to say nothing. There isn't one sentence in there that referes to a verifiable position (of any candidate). What absolute drivel.
“he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!"
Posted by d | December 27, 2007 12:38 PM
For those interested, yet more Rothbard on the force and fraud that Dr. Paul and his supporters oppose:
"Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
Posted by Jamie | December 27, 2007 12:40 PM
I thought this was a pretty decent explanation actually.
Posted by greenish | December 27, 2007 12:42 PM
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
Any thinking person who has been paying attention would know that Dr. Paul is diametrically opposed to those disingenuous accusatory positions.
Yes, well, any thinking person who has average reading comprehension would know she's talking about John Edwards with that line.
Anyone that's done even a modicum of homework on the topic would know that getting rid of the Federal Reserve is the best thing that could happen to Americans right now.
First off, my name is not and has never been Ron.
Second, I don't have an opinion on the Fed either way, but I am intellectually sophisticated enough to know that people who do a modicum of homework may come to differing conclusions. For that reason, I don't assume that people who disagree with me do so because they are uninformed, although of course some of them actually are. Yet every time one of these threads becomes infested with gold bugs, they (unlike the regulars with whom I often disagree, like brooksfoe, liberalrob, and Freddie) insist that if only we would educate ourselves, we could not help but agree with them.
Yet many refuse to offer even a shred of education for our benefit. One would think that if the arguments were so devastatingly overpowering, it would be relatively simple to just type (or cut and paste) them in to win converts, rather than posting exhortations to "do more research!!!"
Even the Rothbard link you provide is more heat than light; the guy may be a genius, but his argument is basically name calling: the fed as "Grand Counterfeiter."
Posted by Rob Lyman | December 27, 2007 12:43 PM
Do you work at being wrong or does it come naturally?
Your misstatements and down right lies about what Ron Paul stands for makes me wonder did a man named Ron break your heart in the passed. Was there a mean Mr Paul at school growing up?
I'll give you one thing, you're consistent. Consistently wrong.
If you really want to discredit Dr. Ron Paul, endorse him. I can see no greater way you could harm his creditability.
Posted by Michael Toth | December 27, 2007 12:51 PM
I am intellectually sophisticated enough to know that people who do a modicum of homework may come to differing conclusions.
The history of the Federal Reserve is one of force and fraud, even in its founding. I'm not sure how we can have differing opinions on fact.
It's like saying we can have differing opinions on whether or not it's raining as the rain is falling.
his argument is basically name calling: the fed as "Grand Counterfeiter."
It is. Having the power to create money out of thin air, using the money to fund things like the so-called "war on drugs" and the so-called "war on terror" and then holding us accountable for the debt is fraud.
It's not name-calling to call a thief a thief when the thief's actions are quite apparent to anyone that wishes to look.It's name-calling to offer a stunningly uninformed opinion of a man's opinions but calling him "nutty".
My apologies for calling you 'Ron'. The b and n keys are next to each other.
Posted by Jamie | December 27, 2007 12:52 PM
Hey Megan - Its refreshing to hear talentless hacks such as yourself admit that you have no principles and have "overlooked disturbing tendencies in a candidate" in the past. You "bit the bullet" and supported G Dubbs in 2004 because you know your limits as a stooge for the Atlantic and it’s too damn hard to consistently and articulately defend positions that may be unpopular. How about this - take a look at this country’s balance sheet. Just dig an inch deep into why our dollar has been so volatile over the past year and write about that. Tell me what you think will happen if today’s assassination leads to more instability in the middle east and $125 per barrel oil. What happens if we enter a recession with housing in its current state and people start to lose their jobs – what will happen to our dollar? Do a1/2 an hour of research and tell me we can afford to have 700 bases oversees – tell me that my children need to pay billions in aid to Pakistan to have 50% stolen and that this adventure in Iraq has done anything but tie our hands fiscally and strategically. You’re the worst. Ron Paul 08.
Posted by tc | December 27, 2007 12:52 PM
Wake up and see what is going on around you! This country's love of war is going to continue to cause US citizen's sons and now daughters, to be killed in warfare. There isn't a damn thing going on in the rest of the world which could make these sarifices justifiable. Wake the hell up!
Ron Paul is the only one who will stop the bloodshed. As well, I support his other views. GO RON PAUL!!!!!
Posted by Chris | December 27, 2007 12:55 PM
"But he's a demagoguing populist who wants to gut trade, jam taxes sky high, and spend the money on a ludicrous state-run health care program!" I cry.
"I know! Isn't it marvelous?" they reply, and that's the end of the discussion.
Perhaps if the author employed a basic grasp of economics and history, she could engage Edwards supporters on those points. Edwards claims to be a champion of the unwashed masses while promoting policies that would reduce their purchasing power (taxation, inflation and managed trade) and make them utterly dependent on DC politicians for health care.
It doesn't take a Socrates to examine the flaws and conceits in Edwards' program. However, it does require a bit more mental acuity than is shown in the author's knee-jerk reaction to Ron Paul. Simply saying "I like reforming Social Security and negotiating new trade deals, and I don't like bringing the troops home or abolishing the federal reserve" without even attempting to explain the reasons why is hardly convincing. No wonder she can't get a foot in the door with the Edwards people -- both sides state their opinions as a priori truths. I found the comments to this article to be far more cogent and thought-provoking than the article itself.
I guess I can understand the temptation to dismiss Ron Paul as "irrelevant", the better to shirk journalistic responsibility for actually analyzing his positions. But the principles of liberty have deep roots in this country and cannot simply be dismissed with a snort and a wave of the hand.
The Atlantic is a real mixed bag these days.
Posted by Timothy | December 27, 2007 1:02 PM
More comment-
Source: The Atlantic
