Posted on 01/03/2012 6:52:23 PM PST by stolinsky
The Ron Paul Phenomenon
David C. Stolinsky
Jan. 4, 2012
The strong showing of presidential hopeful Ron Paul is surprising many conservatives, who find his rigid view of the role of government to be narrow, even extreme. They find his former statements and associates to be questionable if not objectionable. They find his plan to cut the military drastically to be reckless. They find his notion that these cuts be executed by associates of George Soros to be dangerous.
What next − Jane Fonda as secretary of Defense? Why not? Where, exactly, does Paul’s foreign policy of “blame America and excuse its enemies” differ from that of the far Left?
Dr. Paul’s view of national defense dates from 1776, when oceans protected us from invading armies that had to travel in sailing ships. Come to think of it, the oceans didn’t protect us even then. We fought − and barely won − the Revolution and the War of 1812 against British troops who did arrive in sailing ships. A defense policy that didn’t work two centuries ago can hardly be called realistic, much less up to date.
Paul’s view of the Constitution is so restricted and narrow that he must never have heard of the eminent Justice Robert Jackson. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court, Jackson had been chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, where top Nazi leaders were put on trial. So Jackson knew what he was talking about when he observed:
The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
But Ron Paul seems unaware of this danger. He claims that we dealt “rather well” with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. This claim would be disputed by the 168 people McVeigh killed. Or was it 169? There was an unattached leg that did not belong to any of the known victims. Arresting and punishing terrorists after the fact is not dealing with terrorism “rather well” − it is failing miserably. But Paul, with his narrow, legalistic approach, can’t understand this basic fact. What would he have done after Pearl Harbor? Sworn out an arrest warrant for Admiral Yamamoto?
So conservatives wonder why many Americans find his views attractive. But the problem should be restated. The question is not why many Americans find Ron Paul’s views attractive. The question is why many Americans find the current direction of our government so unattractive, not to say intolerable:
● Ordering us to buy light bulbs that are expensive, made in China, give poorer light, and contain toxic mercury.
● Ordering us to buy toilets that flush inadequately and cause sewer blockages.
● Ordering us to buy washing machines and dishwashers that are less effective at their intended tasks of cleaning.
● Pushing us to buy cars that are lighter, and therefore more dangerous to occupants in a crash.
● Planning to control what medicines and treatments our doctors can give us − or not give us.
Are these appropriate functions for a government that cannot perform its legitimate functions properly? Where, exactly, does the Constitution empower the federal government to do these things? And why did asking this vital question evoke a giggle from then-speaker Nancy Pelosi? When did the Constitution become a source of contempt and ridicule for those sworn to uphold it?
John Kennedy remarked that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. This may be a corollary of Newton’s Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, those who make the government objectionable to many people by going too far in one direction will surely evoke a reaction in which those people will go too far in the opposite direction.
It does not require an Einstein to understand that when a pendulum is pushed too far one way, it will swing back the other way with greater force. I believe that is the explanation for Ron Paul’s popularity. Surely it is not his movie-star good looks, his youth, his melodious voice, or his smooth speaking style. Rather, it is his embodying the discontent of so many people with the intrusive, micro-managing, meddling, bullying, overbearing, stifling bureaucracy that our government has become. And it is the reluctance of most other candidates to say so clearly.
There is an old French proverb that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed are kings. And in the land of apologists for big government, even a less attractive candidate will become popular if he speaks up. Thus Ron Paul, who is and looks elderly, and who reminds me of a rigid, demanding, self-righteous schoolteacher, can achieve this much popularity and publicity.
So can you imagine how popular a candidate with the looks and charm of Mitt Romney, the brains of Newt Gingrich, or the toughness of Rick Perry would be − if only he articulated clearly many people’s disgust with ever-larger and more intrusive government? Can you imagine how popular he would be if he spoke up for freedom and against the oppressive, smothering, nanny state? He would win the nomination in a landslide, and have an excellent chance of unseating President Obama in November.
But instead, we have Romney speaking smoothly but unclearly. He tries to explain why RomneyCare is a good idea for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a bad idea for America. He tries to explain why he was pro-choice and anti-gun, but now he is pro-life and pro-gun. He tries to explain why he was for same-sex marriage, but now he is against it. But even the smoothest of speakers would have difficulty explaining those contradictions.
And we have Gingrich speaking with intelligence but also unclearly. He tries to explain how his myriad of innovative ideas would not lead to an even greater expansion of government. But even the most intelligent of speakers would have difficulty explaining that contradiction.
And we have the other candidates speaking with varying degrees of clarity, but still failing to express opposition to big government as clearly as does Ron Paul. Rick Santorum comes closest but appeared to have little chance, though at present he seems to be coming on strongly. Michele Bachmann is a close second, but appears to have no chance. This leaves Ron Paul as the chief advocate of limited government − or in his case, extremely limited government.
Conservatives recall President Ford’s warning: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” They repeat the Dennis Prager Rule: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Talk-show hosts and callers on conservative radio, as well as commentators on Fox News, express similar views daily.
What they are saying, in effect, is this: “Tell the government to keep its nose out of our business, its regulators off our backs, and its hands out of our pockets.” What could be clearer, or more conducive to freedom?
But if rank-and-file conservatives have no problem understanding this key point, why do some Republican candidates have trouble articulating the rationale for a limited government? Is it because they just can’t express themselves clearly, or because they really want a big government − to put into effect their notions of the ideal society? In that case, they are not true conservatives. They are right-wing statists, who are no more friendly to freedom than are left-wing statists.
Napoleon remarked that he didn’t steal the crown of France − he found it lying in the gutter, and picked it up with the point of his sword. Ron Paul didn’t steal the mantle of champion of limited government − he found it lying dusty and unused, and picked it up with his mediocre but to-the-point oratory.
Our duty is to find a more rounded, more realistic, less dogmatic advocate of the limited government that our Constitution requires. Our responsibility is to find someone with the wisdom to balance the ideals of the Founders with the realities of the age of nuclear weapons and fanatical terrorists.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
There is no Paul phenom, there is however Paul bull s#it.
Paul is a fraud.
Paul is the tar baby used by the GOP to make sure the beltway preferred candidate doesn’t have to face a conservative.
He’ll fade after Iowa but cling like a rectal leech till the bitter end.
The reason the world hates American government is their meddling in these different countries. Go back to the 50's and south and Central America and see how these countries elected official that the US did not like and what did we do? We sent teams in to kill them. The CIA and their cabal of spooks have sown distrust and hatred for the USA.
The Ron Paul Psychosis
“rectal leech” hahahahahahaha
The guy will never leave, he keeps running for president and losing, doesn’t even matter what party he runs in.
Ron Paul is the new John Birch.
Ron Paul does good in Iowa because Democrats crossed over to vote for him, in addition to his usual nutbag group.
He may do good in New Hampshire pretty much the same reasons.
Ron Paul may even run third party and re-elect Obama.
Ron Paul WILL NOT be President.
Napoleon remarked that he didn’t steal the crown of France − he found it lying in the gutter, and picked it up with the point of his sword. Ron Paul didn’t steal the mantle of champion of limited government − he found it lying dusty and unused, and picked it up with his mediocre but to-the-point oratory.
... is freeking poetry. Man o man was that a pleasure to read!
That said... ahem... when you say (and summarize) that:
Our duty is to find a more rounded, more realistic, less dogmatic advocate of the limited government that our Constitution requires. Our responsibility is to find someone with the wisdom to balance the ideals of the Founders with the realities of the age of nuclear weapons and fanatical terrorists.
... you leave out what Paul stresses, and everyone ignores - that an economically strong America fundamentally changes the global playing field. If the dollar was strong, regulations were minimal, taxation was minimal, unemployment was almost non-existent, production and exports were soaring, investment and savings were maximal, and international trade from a plethora of healthy American-based companies was booming, that would create such a profoundly massive pressure upon the entire planet to join the American boom, to take part in the wealth-making, that alignment with America would become the standard for international peace.
No, it wouldn't take care of all the problems - and Paul doesn't say it would. But it would clear the bullsh!t to such an extent that any problems requiring the military could be dealt with the way the military is designed to deal with things - taking out the problem - and leave the "peace-keeping" to the foreign country itself and the benefits of being a trading partner in good standing with America.
Yes, that's what we're told is already going on - but look around. It's international-trade-in-name-only, while we just ship all of our jobs overseas, and waste our banks on get-rich-quick schemes for collectivist insiders.
What Paul keeps saying, however, is that we really did what we say we're doing, an environment much more supportive of international peace would arise because of that genuinely free trade. And who can deny that it's an enormously powerful mechanism - even crippled, the American economy supports half the world and influences the rest, and not because it's "American" - but because it's based on (the remnants of) genuine freedom.
Sometimes I think we live during a time of economic ignorance as profound as the time of bloodletting in medicine. When people ask "what good is a healthy economy against those damn Muslim crazies," I hear the distant echoes of past disdain against people who argued that they saw no connection between a full blood supply in the body and the ability to fight disease.
READERS FROM IOWA VOTED IN DRUDGE CAUCUS:
PAUL 33.52%
SANTORUM 21.08%
ROMNEY 20.48%
GINGRICH 10.2%
PERRY 7.28%
Looks like the beginning of the end of the liberal warfare welfare programs, maybe having “model cities” styled foreign Interventionism has seen it’s last days in the sun.
The world doesn’t hate the American government. The world’s LEFT hates America itself. Millions of Americans opposed the Vietnam War. But only one posed behind a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun aimed at shooting down American aviators.
The anti war crowd could morph into one of the most effective political movements of all time if they would protest in favor of quick wins and early exits.
Unfortunately they choose to give our enemies hope and keep them fighting.
“Democrats : Go completely bankrupt in 10 years
Republicans : Go completely bankrupt in 12 years”
WINNER!
(More likely sooner than that)
He was dealt with lighting speed compared to the States, 2 year to convict and only 4 years to carry out sentence.
Arresting and punishing terrorists after the fact is not dealing with terrorism “rather well” − it is failing miserably. But Paul, with his narrow, legalistic approach, can’t understand this basic fact.
What are you saying Mr Solinsky, Arrest someone for storing 14 days of food. Our whole justice system is based on AFTER the fact. What you suggest is something straight out of Hitlers playbook.
I think Paul is the only true conservative up there.The rest are RHINOS.
I’m guessing you believe in skittle poopin unicorns too.
So you believe that all anti-terrorism programs are Hitlerian? OK, here’s a thought experiment. If there were two airlines—one with the current TSA problems, and the other with no security inspections at all—which would you put your loved ones on? I thought so.
There’s a middle ground between doing nothing and doing too much. I don’t have to choose between Jane Fonda and Heinrich Himmler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.