Why Ron Paul Can't Win

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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?[/quote]

If you think doing away with the NEA and the Dept. of Ed. are Paul’s ideas, you are sadly mistaken.

Why should it only be for the young to opt out of Soc Sec? I think the young should be kicked out of the program, and the middle aged wage earners given the choice to stay or go.

[quote]orion wrote:

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![/quote]

Well, of course not, but not surprising you aren’t keeping up - presenting the idea that the Union was dead long before Lincoln became president by way of “holding the Union together by gunpoint” is to demonstrate the silliness of Paul’s (and your’s) theory by way of reductio ad absurdum.

Look into it. I can’t hold your hand through all of this.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

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?[/quote]

Absolutely - which is why Paul should have responded:

“The Civil War was a tough event where a lot of good Americans lost their lives - but more importantly, we have issues we need to be focused on rather than revisiting history, for example…”

Instead, we get something from his fringe ideological script - he can’t help himself.

Look, I am being a pragmatist about Ron Paul - I am weighing everything through “what Paul should do to help his chances” and then wondering why he fails so miserably. Every chance he gets to beef up his mainstream bona fides, he descends into fringe radical rhetoric. That plays great with his True Believers, who don’t think Paul should moderate his stances from the One True Faith - but not with anyone else, including the vast super-majority of American voters.

That certainly makes me question his judgment - among my many other questions.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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].

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.

America is too stupid for that. He is also isolationist to an unprecedented degree.

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.[/quote]

I do not agree with all his policies. My point was that he is not beholden to a universal ideology which he applies to every situation no matter how poor the fit. Too many politicians just follow a predetermined party line and apply that approach to every issue no matter how ill-conceived it is.

And yes, many Americans adopt a universal idelogy and also try to force it onto every issue. As for the rest of the comments, fuck you jackass. You have no idea what I’m about. And I have no interest in informing you.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I do not agree with all his policies. My point was that he is not beholden to a universal ideology which he applies to every situation no matter how poor the fit. [/quote]

Actually, that is exactly his most obvious problem - he tries to shoehorn an ideology into every situation regardless of its practical consequences or basis in reality. He is exactly the kind of politician you claim is bad - I find that ironic.

Part of what his zealous followers love about him is his devotion to unalloyed ideology - they have felt “pragmatic” politicians have sold out their principles.

I don’t particularly care, either - but I expected better from someone who is sooooooooooo much smarter than “stupid America”.

You made the comment, not me - don’t get all sniffly on me because maybe, just maybe, I think you are full of manure and told you so.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

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!

Well, of course not, but not surprising you aren’t keeping up - presenting the idea that the Union was dead long before Lincoln became president by way of “holding the Union together by gunpoint” is to demonstrate the silliness of Paul’s (and your’s) theory by way of reductio ad absurdum.

Look into it. I can’t hold your hand through all of this.

[/quote]

These are merely academic disagreements really, when compared to the average Americans opinion aren´t they?

Your idea that Lincoln could not kill the “Union”, because it was dead long before him is even “kookier” than his, isn´t it?

You could even discuss these ideas with Ron Paul, which you could not do with the unwashed, indoctrinated masses he should pander to in your opinion.

And yet people follow him because he does not do that at all.

Is it a bit unsettling?

[quote]orion wrote:

These are merely academic disagreements really, when compared to the average Americans opinion aren´t they?

Your idea that Lincoln could not kill the “Union”, because it was dead long before him is even “kookier” than his, isn´t it?[/quote]

Yes, genius - that is the whole point of reductio ad absurdum - to demonstrate that the theory leads to absurd and “kooky” conclusions, so it is wrong.

As in, as Paul and you surmise, if Lincoln “killed” the Union by way of holding it together by gunpoint, then it was “killed” as far back as the birth of the Constitution, and the Constitution - which organized the Union and gave the federal government power - expressly “kills” the Union it created because it contains a clause that allows the federal government to put down insurrections, which is definitionally “holding the Union together by gunpoint”.

Patently absurd, so Lincoln certainly did not “kill” the Union by any similar absurd principle.

Seriously, Orion - stop wasting time on something you have no idea about.

I could discuss my theory on UFOs with Paul - that is probably the extent of it.

[quote]And yet people follow him because he does not do that at all.

Is it a bit unsettling? [/quote]

Your post is borderline incoherent. But setting aside “pandering to unwashed masses”, Paul is running for President, so actually taking a stab at getting votes from people who don’t suffer from his dementia seems like a decent idea - one that he has rejected.

The title is “Why Ron Paul Can’t Win.” This speaks to why I believe he has to. I am worried this country is creeping to financial ruin. The democrats are clearly not an answer. However, the mainstream Republicans aren’t much better.

Not one other Republican is talking about fundamental changes and DEEP cuts to government spending.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I do not agree with all his policies. My point was that he is not beholden to a universal ideology which he applies to every situation no matter how poor the fit…[/quote]

That is exactly what he does! Just look at his position on the environment. He thinks the government should butt out and let people pollute as much as they want and somehow they will self regulate for fear of poisoning their own water and fear of lawsuits from neighbors.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.

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][/quote]

I appreciate the first link. It was a rather positive article, in my mind. Alot of people aren’t aware of the sub-divisions within Libertarianism. So, obviously there will be a number of Libertarians upset he doesn’t hold to the totality of their brand of Libertariansim.

Many Anarcho-Libertarians will be upset because Ron Paul doesn’t go far enough. Many Minarchists will think he goes too far. Many won’t like leaving decisions about abortion or gay marriage to the individual states. And Etc.

But a number of his positions are held by a fairly broad range of Libertarians. Is Huckabee a better candidate for the Libertarian? What about Hillary?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

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.
[/quote]

How is this any different than what Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, Edwards, Biden, or any other clown says in a debate? I’m not trying to be sarcastic either, just wondering what you think the difference is.

Honestly, that’s pretty much how you come across too when you debate others.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:

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.

How is this any different than what Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, Edwards, Biden, or any other clown says in a debate? I’m not trying to be sarcastic either, just wondering what you think the difference is.[/quote]

Well, the original point - ludicrous on its face - made by Jsbrook was that Paul was not an ideologue while the rest of the field was. Exactly the opposite - Paul is pure ideologue, and that is why his followers love him. He is the Messiah of the One True Faith, and they are all True Believers.

I never said the others weren’t ideologues, I just simply said Paul is unquestionably without a doubt the most “pure” ideological warrior of the bunch, so trying to sing his praises as the anti-ideologue doesn’t make any sense.

You whine about this alot, but you’ll note Jsbrook pulled the “Americans are just too stupid to [insert preferred personal policy belief]” as an argument - and you may not like the way I engage my opponents on occasion, but I would never say something that asinine, and when someone else does, I usually comment on it.

Truth is, we see that foolish statement from commentators Right and Left, and when I see it used, and I think it is rhetorical cop-out, and I say so. No more, no less.

It was positive for Paul; it was arguing against hardcore Libertarian objections to Paul. I was citing it to show that belligerent’s point was incorrect.

For me, I just don’t think Paul can win the primary - or the general election. If he were to somehow win the primary, libertarian ideas (though I agree with many, if not most, of them) are too radical for most voters, particularly soccer moms and old people. I think that, given the progressive/liberal agenda was put in place over about 100 years, it’s going to take about that long to get rid of it…

The groundbreaking for Big Daddy government can definitely be traced to Lincoln. Lincoln was a Whig, which means a firm believer in Mercantilism, just like the Brits had. He bailed on the Whigs when that party died, but retained all the crap about ‘internal improvements’ and the use of government in ways the Founding Fathers would have found abhorrent.

Its a chain — Jackson laid the groundwork for the idea of an Imperial Presidency, Lincoln used that to do things like suspend Habeus Corpus and send armed troops into states HE declared in rebellion. (How states that wanted to leave the Union are actually ‘in rebellion’ wasn’t quite thought out too well. I suppose a wife-beater considers his wife to be ‘in rebellion’ if she tries to get away.)

Since Americans then rightly saw that Big Government was back, they went with it. Turn the government into a free candy store for every liberal cause desired. Poor people, the sick, the aged, didn’t matter — the people traded freedom for a candy store.

And THAT’S why Ron Paul can’t win. He’d shut down the candy store.

(Note: I got off a plane earlier and am dog tired from skiing. Incoherence — embrace it!!)

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
… (How states that wanted to leave the Union are actually ‘in rebellion’ wasn’t quite thought out too well. …[/quote]

That could be the definition. Get some sleep.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The groundbreaking for Big Daddy government can definitely be traced to Lincoln. Lincoln was a Whig, which means a firm believer in Mercantilism, just like the Brits had. He bailed on the Whigs when that party died, but retained all the crap about ‘internal improvements’ and the use of government in ways the Founding Fathers would have found abhorrent.[/quote]

The American System of internal improvements, etc. dates back to Alexander Hamilton, one of the Federalists, and though he wasn’t a formal endorser, George Washington.

The primary sponsors were Henry Clay and, you guessed it, uber-nullifier, secessionist, and libertarian patron saint John C. Calhoun of South Carolina.

Whatever the merits of the American System equaling “Big Government” as we know and complain about it, it certainly wasn’t “abhorrent” to the Founding Fathers. It was complicated, interesting, and can’t be explained away by the looneytarian’s color-by-numbers approach to American political history.

The same Jackson you claim started the imperial presidency was opposed to the American System. But he was “imperial”. Calhoun introduced the first tariff and supported the American system. But he was a libertarian hero. Hmm.

Doggonit, the looneytarian cartoon of history just won’t stick to script!

Pretty sure the seceded states were in rebellion - since, well, they named themselves “Rebels”.

And we’ve been through the mechanism before - rehashing arguments that didn’t work then do not work now.

The “liberal candy store” didn’t appear on the scene until capital “P” Progressivism, mostly with Woodrow Wilson.

He can’t win because the US rejects radicalism in favor of realism - and I, for one, am thankful for that. Even if you want a return to small-government principles, Paul ain’t the man to do it.

I’m a realist, and I want a return to limited-government principles - in order to do that, you must enter the debate and start changing minds. Paul isn’t going to change any minds that are changeable - and in fact, he is going to make the alternative to limited government look sane and practical.

At a minimum, Paul and his zealots should at least get American history right - this quasi-Marxist revisionism of the anarchist type won’t even be taken seriously by anyone outside the internet fever swamps, let alone will it put anyone in the Oval Office.

American history - embrace it.

Here it is, 12:05, and I can’t sleep. Anyhoo…

Where did Progressivism come from, TB? Did it magically appear and gain acceptance from the Americans? Who laid the groundwork?

If our perception of government is that it is powerful, that it can point guns at people and force them to remain in the Union, that’s going to effect our actions and expectations. People are taught that force is a viable option when dealing with one another (and not just an retaliation).

So, we’ve got a people who more or less accept altruism as their morality, who can now use weapons on those with whom they disagree. Suppose I don’t WANT to pay these taxes? Armed men will come and force me to comply. What if I don’t WANT my business to be regulated? Armed men will come and close me down.

In short, Ron Paul will lose not because he’s a kook or anything else used to slam him — its because he’s TOO GOOD for the American people. He’s a moral egoist in a wasteland of altruism and violence.

Philosophy precedes history — embrace it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In short, Ron Paul will lose not because he’s a kook or anything else used to slam him — its because he’s TOO GOOD for the American people. He’s a moral egoist in a wasteland of altruism and violence.

Philosophy precedes history — embrace it.[/quote]

Indeed. One tends to pay little attention to those utilizing name calling as the crust of a given argument–whatever that may be–against their intended target. Debating the issues would be significantly more productive and indeed, honest.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Here it is, 12:05, and I can’t sleep. Anyhoo…

Where did Progressivism come from, TB? Did it magically appear and gain acceptance from the Americans? Who laid the groundwork?[/quote]

Setting aside that you have offered no corrective on your misunderstanding of history, by your own “cause-and-effect”, the deterministic path to Progressivism came from George Washington and his Federalists.

I don’t buy that, but you keep insisting that Progressivism “came from” Lincoln’s administration, but by extension, Lincoln’s administration came from the Federalists - is that where you want to end up?

The US Constitution specifically and textually affirms the federal government’s right to put down insurrections and rebellions, thus holding the Union together by force if necessary. What good would a permanent government be if it didn’t have that ability? Moreover, you think the Constitution is unconstitutional? Or are you not a fan of having that nationalist document in place?

Force is a viable option, and always has been. Any form of government will grant some level of monopoly of force to the government - else, there is no such thing as the Rule of Law. What good is a government’s ability to enforce property rights - as surely all libertarians agree that is a worthwhile job of government - without a measure of force to back its authority and decisions?

Enough with the Randian “altruism” canard - and more besides, your use of it doesn’t make sense. If people worship at the altar of Altruism like you say they do, what is left to fight over? What will trigger the people’s “use of weapons against one another when they disagree” if they are fundamentally altruistic and unselfish, thus forgiving and accommodating of one another?

Your “philosophy” isn’t making sense as you are describing it.

And on one point you are correct - people will use force with whom they disagree. But that is inherent in Human Nature, always has been - and the idea that before Lincoln showed them the use of force to keep the Union intact, individuals were innocent and pious of all violence toward one another and it was mean old Abe’s corruption of their virginal pacifism is beyond credulity.

In fact, it is downright silly.

Correct - and that is the nature of the Rule of Law in a Republic. You seem to prefer a world without any Rule of Law - perhaps Anarchy. That seems to be popular with the kids nowadays.

But it is completely antithetical to anything the American Republic is founded on.

Absent an ability to enforce a law duly passed by a representative government, there is no Rule of Law at all. No thanks. If you don’t like a given law, no problem - participate in the representative government. The beauty of a republican system is that it forces those grievances into public debate rather than have people shooting at tax collectors.

A more important question to consider - this anarchic world you endorse, are you prepared to navigate its challenges? Are you prepared to succeed and survive in a world of violent feudalism - as we both know, the absence of government won’t turn men into Angels who have no interest in Power…? Have you the stomach to compete on such a playing field of Unfettered Human Nature?

The answer matters - could you survive the brutality of the world you suggest philosophically?

I see that you are choosing the tired, cheap, and lazy “the American people are too stupid for my candidate” shtick as a means to trying to answer criticisms about his philosophy and his candidacy. Doesn’t work. In the end, substance matters.

Let’s examine it a different way - libertarians love the wisdom of markets. In fact, they think of markets at an almost theological level for determining human discourse. Well, have a look - the broad, educated class of American voters aren’t buying a Ron Paul candidacy in the political marketplace. The market says Paul ain’t good enough.

Philosophy means more than clumsily repeating Ayn Rand’s novels. Moreover, the philosophy of anarchy has been rejected many times over. Paul comes too close to that for voters interested in the real world, and as such, his clinging to a morbid and immature philosophy will spell his electoral failure.

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

Indeed. One tends to pay little attention to those utilizing name calling as the crust of a given argument–whatever that may be–against their intended target. Debating the issues would be significantly more productive and indeed, honest.[/quote]

It would, but are Paul supporters honestly up for the challenge?

I have noted in numerous posts about Paul’s ideology interfering with sound public policy - free trade is one I have referred to on several occasions.

Any bites? Nope. Paul supporters seem content not with placing Paul on a playing field with other candidates and proving that his “nuts and bolts” platform for public policy is better than his fellow candidates - instead, we get diatribes about Paul’s godlike properties and a belief he possesses the One Great True Fix to government and that he will be a martyr to that cause.

A good old fashioned debate on the policy planks - the meat of any election - is a lost cause with the crop of Paul followers around these parts.