Posted on 04/18/2008 4:27:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In recent weeks the thundering Ron Paul freight train has kind of derailed. Even though Paul announced that he was ending his campaign on March 8, his supporters are apparently convinced that he's still a viable candidate, despite his repeated public statements that they should move on and try to do some good working within the GOP. Nonetheless, many of them are pushing for a final surge and a surprise (and entirely delusional) victory at the GOP convention this summer. Admittedly, Paul is still making a lot of speeches and pushing his agenda, so maybe that's contributing to their confusion, but he's made it pretty clear he's campaigning for his ideas not an office.
Yet if anyone had any question about the viability of Paul as a national candidate, the issue ought to be put to rest by his recent decision to leap boldly onto the electrified third rail of politics and accept an invitation to be the keynote speaker at this fall's 50th annual convention of the John Birch Society.
For those not already familiar with the John Birch Society, it is a secretive and rather paranoid extreme-right organization which was originally founded in the era of Joe McCarthy's witch hunts to help root out the communist infiltrators who infested American society. Those communists were easy to spot because they were all immigrants or blacks or Jews, plus the occasional homosexual. The Birchers have always been big on 'real' American values and good at finding imaginary windmills to joust at. They borrowed a lot of ideas from their enemies in the process, including much of the methodology and organizational structure of Soviet covert operations of the Stalinist era, with a well developed propaganda machine, multiple front groups, and a cell-like organization.
The Birchers kind of lost their way during the 1980s and 1990s, eclipsed by the rise of the religious right and losing focus with the fall of communism, but today they are back and stronger than ever, riding a wave of conspiracy fanaticism which has grown from seeds they've been nurturing for years. They're still racists and anti-Semites and nativists and isolationists and conspiracy obsessed. Their followers are fanatics and the organization has a lot of the characteristics of a cult. Many participants are intensely religious and the membership has a lot of overlap with groups like Christian Identity. I give them credit for putting up a fairly reasonable seeming front on their website, but if you read their publications, email lists or blogs you see what issues really excite them.
Today they are fighting the same old battle with new names, and the fallen communist empire has just resurfaced in the even more nefarious guise of the 'new world order'. The idea that America is threatened by a huge, covert, and many-headed conspiracy is selling like hotcakes. You can see their books at booths in the gun shows and flea markets, they're all over the Internet, and they've pretty much taken over the chaotic fringes of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Some 'patriots' like Timothy McVeigh find their brand of anti-government populism inspiring, and activists like radio ranter Alex Jones and the '9/11 Truth' movement take many of their talking points from Bircher sources.
During the Republican primaries, Ron Paul made an effort to distance himself from the JBS as concern grew that so many of his most vocal supporters seemed to be coming from the dangerous fringe of conspiracy paranoia and reactionary bigotry. Make no mistake, a lot of good people supported Ron Paul, and the campaign offered a lot of positive ideas for much needed reforms for the nation. But at the same time a lot of the campaign's energy came from Birchers who saw it as a chance to spread their message of nativism, protectionism, isolationism, and intolerance into the mainstream.
As I rooted for Dr. Paul I often found myself clinging to the fact that endorsements from JBS-related groups and the Aryan Nation and holocaust deniers and David Duke weren't really Dr. Paul's fault. He couldn't choose who endorsed him, any more than he could reject donations from supporters based on their beliefs. After all, it was his principles he was running on, not theirs.
As it turns out, I was just fooling myself. The masks came off last week when Dr. Paul accepted the invitation to speak at the JBS convention and called the group a "great and patriotic organization." Ron Paul's supporters can now stop claiming their candidate has any real legitimacy. Paul can also stop his protestations that only a small faction of his followers believe in crazy conspiracy theories, because by embracing the Birchers he has confirmed everyone's worst suspicions and made it very clear that he is as deeply mired in the culture of bigotry and intolerance as the worst of his followers.
We now know that David Duke and WAR didn't endorse Paul by mistake. They endorsed him because he shares their beliefs. Despite his pretensions of being a libertarian, Paul is a reactionary extremist of the worst sort. This is not like the lunatic fringe endorsing Paul. This is Paul endorsing the lunatic fringe. With any luck this revelation will motivate his more idealistic followers to sever their ties with the Birchers in the movement and try to find a permanent home among the real libertarians and reformers of the Republican Party. There's plenty of room and plenty of welcome for them if they leave their Bircher comrades and their intolerance and hate behind.
Dr. Paul's campaign is over. Maybe his career is too. I hope it's still possible to salvage some good out of the movement he spearheaded.
Ron Paul is an asshat ...
the party that used to stand for conservatism and small govt, and has consistently deserted the conservative base ?....no thanks, no money, no support, and while youre at it - kiss my backside
Ron Paul....Don Quixote on LSD.
He’s my congressman and I not only voted against him in the primary, but gave money to his primary opponent.
Unfortunately, he’s unopposed in November, so I’m stuck with him.
Good article by Dave Nalle. Thanks for posting.
OK, back to reality, I need a shower after that.
This “Dave Nalle” chracter is what passes for conservative writing on FR these days LOL? This guy is a crappy leftist writer with roots in Syria. This guy is an Al Gore cultist.
http://www.republicofdave.com/
Ron Paul would be highly regarded here except for his monetary policy and position on the war.
These positions make him a non viable candidate
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
And his calling Reagan a liberal, and cozying up to Troofers and Stormfronters, and pandering to anarchists, and joining Kucinich and the blame America first crowd. I guess both sides need our crazy uncles (ie, Jeremiah Wrights).. we drove out David Duke a while back, someone had to stand out.
It was more like a Lionel train.
Duke was never one of ‘ours’ to start with.
True, he tried to take on the mantle, but we rejected him. I wish people would open their eyes to Paul.
...his most vocal supporters seemed to be coming from the dangerous fringe of conspiracy paranoia and reactionary bigotry
Yeah 9/11 truther attracts a lot of wackjob followers along with the white supremacy crowd. What an ugly combination.
The Paulstapo were just Democrat trolls anyway.
Something I discovered early this week, I wonder how many are 4channers playing a game?
I suspect that that that author of this article was one of those who triumphantly declared that Chris Peden would beat him in the primary. In the end, of course, the good voters of Paul's district reelected him by a thundering 70 percent!
Interesting take by the author and comments in this thread. I assume everyone is satisfied with the status quo and the direction the Republic is heading.
No, to change the direction, the very first thing we need to do is stop looking for government answers. Imagine what Reagan would say with all these 'Conservatives' looking for someone to say I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Well said, I totally agree. I am a supporter and fan of Ron Paul’s positions and ideas but I will say he doesn’t lay out a plan very well on how to implement them effectively.
Paul was never a serious threat to the party and hasn’t even been an asterisk for months now. How many celebratory post-mortems will you folks have?
Why waste energy on this when you can work for your candidate McCain? If he wins, you will get what it appears you all want: a defense hawk who will work with Kennedy to further undermine thousands of miles of border and a defender of the Constitution who will work with Fiengold to further restrict the first amendment.
Not that I’m bitter or anything.
But...he had his picture taken with Reagan once! That PROVES he’s the only true constitutionalist!
Exactly. This guy’s as left as you get. Just because he doesn’t like Paul doesn’t make him a conservative. He’s got every leftist platitude in the book written into this thing.
Ron Paul is still a viable candidate for the GOP. He won all of the online polls!
/s
Insert laugh-track here.
Cue to scene of of Republicans voting in favor of Bush's prescription drugs boondogle and record deficits, Cue to a scene of McCain's proposing government-backed. Cue to scene of McCain's speech blaming "greed" as a cause of the mortgage crisis. Cue to McCain's support of bailouts via Fed inflation. Now, cue to Paul's consistent votes and speeches denouncing all of the above and his call for individual responsiblity.
That’s McCain’s call for “government backed mortgages.”
It is interesting how the so-called far left and the so-called far right have much in common. One group might me more interested in class warfare and the other group might want racial warfare, but both groups share many of the same hatreds. They hate America because America is tolerant. They tend to hate Jews in general and Israel in particular, while they are sympathetic to the Jihadists. They hate people who are successful. They believe there is a conspiracy behind everything.
When I was a member 40+ years ago, there not only was no racism but one of our small group was black.
Like many political organizations, the JBS failed to adjust to the end of the Soviet Union.
Once there was not a Soviet threat, all the penetration of our government by communist sympathizers became moot.
I personally salute the JBS for a job well done. They need not apologize to anyone for their efforts—least of all the false accusations of being racist, fascist or mentally disordered.
Generally, the term "witch hunt" has been reserved for cases where the targets of the movement either didn't exist or did nothing wrong. If there were "communist infiltrators who infested American society" (as all the evidence overwhelmingly indicates and the article itself apparently concedes) then it wasn't a "witch hunt."
The journalistic equivalent of the kid who grunts at you when you thank him for your cheeseburger at McDonalds.
And yet, one could argue that the corrosive fruit of their mission is tearing our society apart to this very day.
Also, the Soviet threat was reorganized, not removed.
McCarthy was right.
I second that! Perhaps McCarthy’s tactics were wrong, but he did uncover a lot of communists. Especially, in Hollywood.
As a Jew and a Bircher and a Ron Paul Republican, I can attest that that article was complete nonsense!
Sign-up date: April 18, 2008
“other than attempt to hold back incremental-ism”
...mainly because the incrementalism was in the direction of increasing the size & scope of the federal government.
Name one major domestic program that has been reduced in size or dismantled since we had control of the executive and Congress.
“we need to do is stop looking for government answers”
That’s just a bizarre comment, considering that real conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians want the government to stop “providing answers” (ie. unconstitutional spending). Regardless, I can’t ignore a government whose spending and monetary policies are making it almost impossible to save or help create a future for myself, my wife or my children.
“The fundamental ideal of Conservatism is the power of the individual to achieve his full potential in spite of the system”
By “system”, conservatives mean “free market”.
By your definition of conservatism, Jews in Nazi Germany were at fault for not finding innovative workarounds to the gas chambers.
Actually no, we mean government. The free market is where the individual operates, the system(government) is what puts restrictions on the free market.
By your definition of conservatism, Jews in Nazi Germany were at fault for not finding innovative workarounds to the gas chambers.
Only with your faulty assumption of what 'system' meant. What is interesting is that out of probably the hundreds of times I've posted a comment like that, you are the only person ever to assume or read into 'system' as being the free market instead of government. Maybe this is a little Rorschach test for you?
I think someone else has a better comment about this than I do:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and (hand) the victory to your enemies.- Ayn Rand
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
..and there's the rub.. You probably should ponder for a while who is in charge of your future and who you are putting your faith in. (Ping Kevin, from a conversation we were having earlier- perfect example..)
I can understand that a Bircher and Paul cultist would be offended by the article.
Jew, don't see the relevance, are you an Orthodox Jew?
You certainly seem to follow Paul enough to have him on your Google News Alerts and to monitor that stupid ronpaulforums site.
I use RSS feeds for all my news alerts. I don’t need to do a thing. They just pop up in a program called Arise. In a minute or two, I can have fifty or so articles on the ten or eleven keywords, including every candidate, illegal immigration, and various business related alerts. As I’ve mentioned before, the Paul articles just seem to draw more attention and ‘conversation’...but you know this..
I can't even pick out the object or the verb in this sentence.
Your original post:
“I think the fundamental issue with him I have is that he stands (claims to) for Conservative ideas, not ideals. He isn’t starting a revolution of ideals, but of a mismash of ideas, all are creating followers of government solutions. The fundamental ideal of Conservatism is the power of the individual to achieve his full potential in spite of the system. Paul is always preaching about all the problems that are holding you back because of the system and preaching system solutions. This isn’t Conservative ideals, this is another person saying offering government solutions. “
Then you wrote:
““The fundamental ideal of Conservatism is the power of the individual to achieve his full potential in spite of the system””
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect God-given liberties, including life, liberty and property. That’s the Christian position and the foundation of American constitutional law. My guess is that most conservatives would agree with this position. Ron Paul’s platform is to return government to its lawful role.
“Actually no, we mean government. The free market is where the individual operates, the system(government) is what puts restrictions on the free market.”
Maybe in this forum, but your “fundamental ideal of conservatism” doesn’t have anything to do with political conservatism.
“Only with your faulty assumption of what ‘system’ meant. What is interesting is that out of probably the hundreds of times I’ve posted a comment like that, you are the only person ever to assume or read into ‘system’ as being the free market instead of government.”
You define ‘system’ as government, not me. By your definition of conservatism, Jews in Nazi Germany were at fault for not finding innovative workarounds to Hitler’s (ie. the government’s) final solution.
“..and there’s the rub.. You probably should ponder for a while who is in charge of your future and who you are putting your faith in. (Ping Kevin, from a conversation we were having earlier- perfect example..)”
Without protection of life, liberty and property under the rule of law, practically speaking it doesn’t really matter what any individual or family does. Conservatism isn’t anarchism; we can restore the rule of law the peaceful way or ponder the inevitable alternatives as government induced hyperinflation, unemployment and depression sets in.
The real political Munchausen by Proxy consists of attacking the Republic’s foundations in order to save the Republic!
Interesting comments, but I’m neither an Ayn Rand devotee, nor an anarchist, nor a party-line guy.
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.