Why Ron Paul Can't Win

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
medic33 wrote:Read his stance on the issues. They all follow the constitution.

What does that mean? I hear everyone and their grandma throw around these terms like, “Constitutionalist”, “Strict constructionalist”, “Originalist”, “True conservative”, “Founding fathers intent”, “Constitutionamentanarianismalistalution”…

I don’t think that a majority of people who use these terms really understand what they mean. That they are just parroting the same drivel they see on those “Bush did 9-11” videos on youtube.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on this. The people who support Ron Paul understand the Constitution very well. Its the Democrats and Republicans who don’t seem to understand it. For God’s sake, look how they are running things. The government is so bloated and wasteful and they keep spending and spending. How can anyone look at the tax code and say that it’s fair?

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Here’s a chance for us to summarize all the reasons why Dr. Paul cannot win.

I’ll start.

I think his philosophy differs from the majority of American people. Most people don’t want to be self-reliant. They want to be cared for and to live a carefree existence, so long as they get to vote for whomever will administer the ‘goodies’.

People are also very short term thinkers: if you tell them that such policies have us promising 59 trillion dollars in benefits, they’re actually HAPPY because it sounds like paradise to them. They then go happily back to painting their toenails or listening to their I-pod.

In summary, Dr. Paul’s philosophy is designed for men (and women who are real women). The voters mostly have the minds of children.[/quote]

That’s nice, HH, but if he gets the Republican nomination, which his supporters are working tirelessly to ensure, he will be free and clear of the competition and the race will be his to win. It’s not about doing this, that, and the other thing. There are specific objectives that need to be reached, and if he passes them, he’s in - just like that.

I would suggest framing your argument for Ron Paul’s inability to win in the context of “Why he he won’t earn the nomination,” “Why he won’t win some state’s primary”, or, “Why he wouldn’t win in the general election”.

These are specific claims that can be analyzed scientifically. What you wrote above is too vague to be of merit to a formal discussion.

Remember people, it’s not about convincing the entire population of the country. At least, not at this stage. It all starts with two states: Iowa and New Hampshire. If he loses both, he’s almost guaranteed finished. If he wins, his momentum will be unstoppable. He’ll go on to earn the nomination and a landslide victory over Clinton.

When you frame the argument around the specific objectives that he is facing, his chances look a whole lot better.

There is no wishful thinking required to imagine a Ron Paul win in Iowa, where he is polling third, ahead of the top tier except for Romney and Huckabee. And in New Hampshire, his outlook is even better. Now, add in the voter turnout factor: There won’t be a single Paul supporter who misses the primaries. Can Huckabee and Romney make that claim? Probably not. It’s realistic to assume that he could win these primaries.

You see, this entire election is going to be decided next week. This is it, folks.

If he wins in both states, he’s going to be our next president. The rest of the year will be one giant inauguration parade for Ron Paul.

P.S. Ron Paul is right about the Civil War, but he cannot say all that he knows. The South had a right to secede, and there is no good reason why it shouldn’t have done so.

43

Strong Words of the day:

“Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.” �?? King Whitney Jr.

If there’s one unambiguous attribute the Paul candidacy embodies, it certainly is change. The question is, which category in the above quote makes up the majority of Americans?

44

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You do love those revisionist histories, don’t you? The wikipedia page you pasted is not vetted, is not accurate and is not “NPOV.” (“neutral point of view.”) [/quote]

There is no such thing as a “neutral point of view”. The concept is absurd. It doesn’t exist, never has, and never will, because it’s impossible, by definition.

If you’d like, we can debate this philosophically. In which case, you will lose - badly.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just saw his comments to Russert on the Civil War. The man is either ignorant or deceptive.

Lincoln did not start a war to free the slaves. The South seceded so they could protect their right to own slaves. Lincoln fought a war to bring the South back into the Union.

I cannot believe how so many people pretend this man is any more honest or honorable than every other slimy politician.

I am also amused by the various stories out there about Paul trying to bring home the pork to his district but voting against those same bills because of pork for other districts. Phony two-faced politician. Even worse than the rest of them because some people are actually falling for his act.[/quote]

  1. He knows that Lincoln did not start the war to free the slaves. He started it to consolidate the power of the federal government over the states. The legacy of the Civil War IS the strong, centralized government that we know today. That, in one sentence, is why the Old Right hates Abe Lincoln.

  2. What part of his response was dishonest or slimy? Do you think he expects to win accolades by challenging the establishment views on a major historical event and a very popular president?

Damn, you won’t even give Ron Paul props for having the balls to discuss such a thing on national television, one week before the primary election. That reflects poorly on you. You’re pretty much off-base with everything you write about him. You don’t seem to be understanding his message. I’ve been trying to figure out where you’re coming from.

45

[quote]lixy wrote:
Strong Words of the day:

“Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.” �?? King Whitney Jr.

If there’s one unambiguous attribute the Paul candidacy embodies, it certainly is change. The question is, which category in the above quote makes up the majority of Americans?[/quote]

Whitney’s quote addresses an abstract, formless “change”, whereas Paul’s platform is made up of specific plans of action.

The people rejecting Paul’s platform are not necessarily rejecting it out of fear of a formless ‘change’, but because we reject the reasonably predictable consequences of Paul’s plan.

But I can appreciate good propaganda, lixster.

46

“Now…this IS helpful, and new info for me. I would like to know the source you site so that I may learn more.”

Hi Dr - I just got the info here:

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=63&subjectID=4

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3

I am out of town for a couple of weeks; otherwise, I would dig through some of my books for more information (I believe he was also responsible for compensated emancipation in DC, as well). I believe Allen Guelzos “Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation” and Striners “Father Abraham” go into it more in-depth than the more famous James McPherson or David Donald books.

47

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:

Hi Dr - I just got the info here:

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=63&subjectID=4

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3

I am out of town for a couple of weeks; otherwise, I would dig through some of my books for more information (I believe he was also responsible for compensated emancipation in DC, as well). I believe Allen Guelzos “Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation” and Striners “Father Abraham” go into it more in-depth than the more famous James McPherson or David Donald books.[/quote]

Excellent info, Jack Dempsey - and this is a great site.

48

And as if anyone needed more of a reason not to believe the worthless Al Shades/Nominal Prospect, his yarn about Lincoln waging the Civil War as an excuse to “expand the government” is the usual revisionist fabrication.

What gave Lincoln a victory in 1860 is the split in the Democratic convention. The split came not because of the Slave Power’s eloquent defense of “states’ rights”, but rather delegates from seven states walked out on the Southern Majority because they refused to accept the Slave Power’s demand for a federal guarantee of slave property in all U.S. territories - which would have been the largest expansion of federal law and power prior to FDR’s New Deal.

The Slave Power had no objection to a bigger federal government when it suited their purposes - thus, the revisionist claim that they seceded over the Republicans’ desire to explode the federal government is horseshit. The Slave Power had no problems with expansion of the federal law per se - in fact, they pushed for it repeatedly - they just didn’t like expansion of federal law that hurt their interests.

Further, it is the period directly after Lincoln’s war - the 1880’s to the turn of the century - that is considered the laissez-faire paradise by libertarians, so how in the world can the post-Lincoln era be the birth of the Leviathan and the era of laissez-faire awesomeness?

It can’t - but when have the looneytarians got anything right about history?

Lincoln waged a war to preserve the Union being shattered by radicals that would destroy the republic by rejecting republican government - the rest is just noise by idiot children.

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And as if anyone needed more of a reason not to believe the worthless Al Shades/Nominal Prospect, his yarn about Lincoln waging the Civil War as an excuse to “expand the government” is the usual revisionist fabrication.

What gave Lincoln a victory in 1860 is the split in the Democratic convention. The split came not because of the Slave Power’s eloquent defense of “states’ rights”, but rather delegates from seven states walked out on the Southern Majority because they refused to accept the Slave Power’s demand for a federal guarantee of slave property in all U.S. territories - which would have been the largest expansion of federal law and power prior to FDR’s New Deal.

The Slave Power had no objection to a bigger federal government when it suited their purposes - thus, the revisionist claim that they seceded over the Republicans’ desire to explode the federal government is horseshit. The Slave Power had no problems with expansion of the federal law per se - in fact, they pushed for it repeatedly - they just didn’t like expansion of federal law that hurt their interests.

Further, it is the period directly after Lincoln’s war - the 1880’s to the turn of the century - that is considered the laissez-faire paradise by libertarians, so how in the world can the post-Lincoln era be the birth of the Leviathan and the era of laissez-faire awesomeness?

It can’t - but when have the looneytarians got anything right about history?

Lincoln waged a war to preserve the Union being shattered by radicals that would destroy the republic by rejecting republican government - the rest is just noise by idiot children.[/quote]

Another great and informative post, tb, and not trivial at all; but it will be lost on the “idiot children.” To them, facts don’t matter, fealty counts; and if one doesn’t swallow the whole pseudo-libertarian/conspiracy/damned lie drivel, one is an evil member of the repressive “.gov.”

HH, trying to connect the conspiratorial dots between A. Lincoln and W. Churchill, is off skiing, trying to repeal the federally repressive law of gravity.

My gosh! Who is left to guard the Republic? Why, its Nominal Shades, trying to deny history because it doesn’t suit Paulista Pathologic Politics. Paul’s Big Coloring Book of Revisionist Libertarian Alternative Reality (c Austrian Economy Press) is being thumbed through, now, for the prescripted retorts of true-believers…I can hear them coming…

50

Thanks Thunderbolt. Great posts.

“Between the slave power and states’ rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states’ rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas “by joint resolution” [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision â¿¿ all triumphs of the slave power â¿¿ did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states’ rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states’ rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.” - Henry Adams

51

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Thanks Thunderbolt. Great posts.

“Between the slave power and states’ rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states’ rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas “by joint resolution” [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision â¿¿ all triumphs of the slave power â¿¿ did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states’ rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states’ rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.” - Henry Adams
[/quote]

Another scholarly win! (From the “Education of…?”)
And I am posting the Cooper Union Speech, in which Lincoln defends the limitation of slave power on a strict reading of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, for those who need a better understanding of the term “libertarian.”

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

To put all of this into context I had just seen this before posting and was in part reacting to it:

So? Reacting to what? The fact that the talking heads were exactly right on all counts - how dumb it is for Paul to bring this up now (as in, he should have punted on an answer), how dumb it is on the merits, and how he just can’t help himself from alienating voters who might just be in agreement with him on some issues?

The clip of Paul talking was useful, though - I hadn’t seen it. Everyone should have a look at it to realize Paul hasn’t a chance.
[/quote]

They were not right on all counts , they kind of tugged the “�?NION” in at the end.

Never mind that Lincoln ended the Union and funded a federal state.

Plus, who gives a shit if he does not talk like a politician.

Well, actually a lot of people do, that is part of his appeal.

To blame him for not weaseling out of a question, oh my…

53

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I think headhunter may be right. If people don’t like Ron Paul it’s because they’d prefer to be dependent on the government.[/quote]

This is pretty simplistic. Not even all the Libertarians are fired up about Ron Paul:

ADDENDUM:

I pretty much completely agree with this except the part about emphasizing a pro-gun stance:

[i]Ron Paul as President

Bryan Caplan defends the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency ( What Could President Paul Actually Do? - Econlib ). Here is Megan McArdle ( Ron Paul=protest vote? - The Atlantic ). Here’s yet another perspective ( Article: The Ron Paul "Surge" | OpEd News ). Here is Ezra Klein ( http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=the_full_paul#103367 ). Here is Paul himself ( Ron Paul on Meet the Press: Liveblogging ).

The Ron Paul phenomenon reminds me of the old America First movement ( America First Committee - Wikipedia ), with Misesian 100 percent reserve banking theory on top ( Death to the Fed! A Ron Paul manifesto | Salon.com ). He is making (one version of) libertarianism much more popular by allying it with nationalist and also states’ rights memes. That includes his stances on immigration, NAFTA, China, devolution of powers, and “The Constitution.” Even when the policy recommendations stay libertarian, I fear that the wrong emotions will have the staying power. Evaluating a politician is not just about policy positions; for instance personally I am skeptical of most forms of gun control but I worry when a candidate so emphasizes a pro-gun stance.

Many libertarians see the Paul candidacy as their chance to have an impact and they may well be right. There is also no one else for them to support. But, raw milk or not, I am not myself tempted to take a stance this year in favor of any of the candidates, Paul included. Liberty is lacking in the United States but I’d like to see it more closely bundled with reasonableness, moderation, and yes pragmatism; I am looking to advance on all fronts at the same time. Call me fussy if you wish.

I fear that Ron Paul is so taken with his own ideas that he is unable to see how or when his views might ever be wrong; it is in that sense I consider him insufficiently intellectual. (Admittedly all the other candidates are too open to whatever is politically popular at the moment.) Openness also means ability to improvise, which is a critical leadership quality; many of the challenges of the presidency are the surprises, 9/11 being one example of many.

The America Firsters, by the way, were right about many things, but they were very wrong about a few very big things, such as World War II and the civil rights movement. They also suffered a virtually total eclipse for decades. I don’t see nationalist and states’ rights memes as a path toward a future with more human liberty.

Ron Paul is changing the ideological landscape of American politics and the fabric of modern classical liberalism. No matter what your point of view, I recommend that you take the Ron Paul phenomenon very seriously indeed.

Addendum: Here are good remarks from Arnold Kling ( http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_my_two.html ) and Steve Horwitz ( http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/45044.html ).[/i]

54

[quote]orion wrote:

They were not right on all counts , they kind of tugged the “�?NION” in at the end.

Never mind that Lincoln ended the Union and funded a federal state.[/quote]

Wrong - that occurred with the rise of Progressivism, primarily with Wilson. Learn the history.

[quote]To blame him for not weaseling out of a question, oh my…
[/quote]

No one is blaming him for not weaseling out of a question - but he needs mainstream votes, so being passionate about revisionist history is a bad move.

55

He is unlikely to win because he transcends party lines and actually has intelligent views on the issues rather than spouting polarized, ideologue party dogma. [in other words, crap]. America is too stupid for that. He is also isolationist to an unprecedented degree.

56

Sooooo…

How about doing away with departments such as the National Endowment of the Arts? Or even the Department of Education?

How about young people being able to opt of SS while transitioning away from a federal program?

I mean, as controversial as the Civil War was and is, don’t we have our issues in the present?

57

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

They were not right on all counts , they kind of tugged the “�?NION” in at the end.

Never mind that Lincoln ended the Union and funded a federal state.

Wrong - that occurred with the rise of Progressivism, primarily with Wilson. Learn the history.
[/quote]

No.

The moment he forced the Confederacy to become part of the US again the Union was dead.

The same way your union with your wive is over, or has at least significantly changed, when you force her to stay at gunpoint.

58

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

He is unlikely to win because he transcends party lines and actually has intelligent views on the issues rather than spouting polarized, ideologue party dogma. [in other words, crap].[/quote]

So odd - since Paul does nothing but stick to a predetermined ideological script and routinely undermines decent ideas because he falls for the typical making-the-perfect-the-enemy-of-the-good, which is textbook moron ideologue.

See his stance on free trade - pure ideology, pure dogma, and undermining actual free trade in practice.

It’s always a matter of time before someone chastises “stupid America” for not getting behind the candidate/policy of their personal preference. You can time your meals by it.

Let me guess - you are really, really smart, and people who don’t follow your line of thinking are really, really stupid, right?

Welcome to the PWI section of T-Nation, where every day is Amateur Night.

59

[quote]orion wrote:

No.

The moment he forced the Confederacy to become part of the US again the Union was dead.

The same way your union with your wive is over, or has at least significantly changed, when you force her to stay at gunpoint.[/quote]

Then the “Union” was dead long before that, from incidents like the lessons of Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis, and as such, Lincoln was acting on precedent.

We’ve been down this road before, Orion - the only thing it leads to is a demonstration that you have no clue as to American constitutional history…let’s save ourselves the trouble. I haven’t the time to educate you.

60

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

No.

The moment he forced the Confederacy to become part of the US again the Union was dead.

The same way your union with your wive is over, or has at least significantly changed, when you force her to stay at gunpoint.

Then the “Union” was dead long before that, from incidents like the lessons of Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis, and as such, Lincoln was acting on precedent.

We’ve been down this road before, Orion - the only thing it leads to is a demonstration that you have no clue as to American constitutional history…let’s save ourselves the trouble. I haven’t the time to educate you.[/quote]

So all in all you agree with Ron Pauls assessment of Lincoln, you just like to play with words and legal technicalities.

Good for you!