Posted on 05/08/2009 12:39:32 AM PDT by jmc813
For the past couple of months I’ve been writing about the “mainstreaming” of paleo-libertarian Ron Paul; he’s been a regular guest on Fox News and other networks, and his drones have been heavily involved in organizing “tea party” demonstrations. Lots of LGF readers didn’t want to believe this was happening.
Well, it really is happening.
The weird economic theories of Ron Paul are Winning GOP Converts.
A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on.
And then there are the luncheons. The off-the-record talks have brought in speakers such as ex-CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer, libertarian investigative reporter James Bovard, iconoclastic terrorism scholar Robert Pape, and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Perhaps the most influential guest has been Thomas Woods, a conservative scholar whose previous books include “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush,” and whose current book “Meltdown” has inspired Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to question Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about economic fundamentals.
Paul’s unexpected and sudden clout with his fellow Republicans — even some of Paul’s staff have been surprised with the momentum of his “Audit the Fed” bill — come as the GOP engages in a tortured internal dialogue about its future. Since January, no small number of new coalitions have formed between current members of Congress, former advisors to President George W. Bush, and perennial party leaders such as former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). Few of those conservatives, however, have spent much time criticizing the very foundations of America’s modern economic system and worrying about a 1929-style crash. Few of them had a drawer stuffed with off-brand economic ideas and forgotten libertarian texts, ready to explain what needed to be done. Ron Paul did, and as a result the ideas that made the Republican establishment irate enough to bounce him from a few primary debates are more popular than ever.
And chief among these new converts — one of the very kookiest Representatives in Congress, Michele Bachmann, the one-woman GOP anti-science crusader.
But the most prominent new face is Bachmann, the rising conservative star who left C-SPAN and YouTube watchers scratching their heads with a constitutional grilling that seemed to puzzle Geithner. “What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08?” asked Bachmann during a hearing on March 24. “What in the Constitution could you point to to give authority to the Treasury’s extraordinary actions that have been taken?”
Bachmann “goes to these luncheons on a weekly basis,” said Debbee Keller, Bachmann’s press secretary. Keller noted that Bachmann was reading “Meltdown,” which argues that the New Deal failed and that the Federal Reserve is responsible for the current economic crisis. “Just as Austrian theory suggests,” wrote Woods, “the Fed’s mischief was responsible for the Great Depression.”
“I had a feeling she’d have some interest in the book,” said Woods, “because she asked some good questions. She was taking notes. She was asking if this or that point could be found in the book. I thought I recognized a sincere person who wanted knowledge, not the usual politician who couldn’t care less about what the truth is and just wanted to propagandize.”
Paul didn’t take credit for turning Bachmann on to Austrian theory (”He’ll give credit to everyone on the planet except himself,” laughed Woods) but said he was pleased to see more members of Congress delving into economics. “She’s very open to studying,” said Paul. “In fact, she’s been working really hard to get me back to Minneapolis. She says, ‘You’ll get such a great reception there!’”
And Ron Paul’s oldest racist friends, the John Birch Society, couldn’t be happier about his new legitimacy.
It’s been a rapid rise for an idea that, only months ago, was located firmly in the political fringe. The John Birch Society, the far-right group that Paul has often defended from media criticism, was one of the first groups to encourage members to contact their members of Congress to support an audit of the Fed.
This is a deeply disturbing development; for more reasons why Ron Paul should not be brought into the mainstream of the GOP, see: Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
I’m under no illusions that the GOP will pay attention to me, but isn’t there anyone in the party who sees how disastrous this is becoming?
ping
Ron Paul Ping
I remember in 2006, 2007-ish, Ron Paul said Bush and the “neocons” were going to attack Iran within a year. Oops.
I’ll say this about Ron...the liberal media loves him, because they can post his liberal-like views and make him seem to be a symbol of the dying GOP. Ron is conserative in many respects, but they don’t care to accentuate that. It was his anti-war view that made him a media darling.
Ron Paul is the only GOP leader who is constantly promoting the right wing ideology on tv, internet and elsewhere
on top of Ron Paul bashing other GOPers all the time, is why the media love him. What bothers me a little bit is that Ron Paul rarely bashes Democrats
“Ron Paul is the only GOP leader who is constantly promoting the right wing ideology on tv, internet and elsewhere”
He’s a loon.
I’ve seen Ron Paul attack GOP for their ill intentions, but never Democrats. I like to see him bash Democrats at least once in a while, not just think of them as misguided with good intentions
“on top of Ron Paul bashing other GOPers all the time, is why the media love him. What bothers me a little bit is that Ron Paul rarely bashes Democrats”
I’m uncertain if that was just media editting our just Ron Paul’s spin on things. Either way, a conservative shouldn’t destroy the right but change it from within.
Years back he seemed reasonable on certain things (within articles he wrote), but the moment I started LISTENING to him....he did appear odd. Copy and paste with a cartoonish feel.
9/11 truthers LOVE him...
So in reality he's....John McCain?
I’m not a Ron Paul fan (he’s a loon), but Charles Johnson’s credibility has been in the toilet for a while now. He lost me with his brilliant 2008 election analysis that “creationists” lost the election for the GOP.
It astounds me how these folks want to beat up on Ron Paul who as far as I can tell is the only elected official in Washington DC that has hitched his wagon to the United States Constitution.
Ron Paul is definately far right of Mccain and far right of many ppl on here, but he does have the same relationship with the media that Mccain have
Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge on the subject than I have can set me straight on the John Birch Society. It isn't a racist organization is it?
I thought it was mainly an older Constitutionalist Conservative group. Am I off base here?
It really angers me when people toss out labels like that. If they want to talk about an organization, they need to provide more information than an epithet to gain my agreement. It destroys an argument faster than anything else for me.
Chuck Johnson never misses a chance to get in a dig against religion, religious people of any faith, or creationism, or intelligent design.
He's a committed atheist big-banger.
Got to agree with you about Charles Johnson and LGF. I used to be a daily reader of LGF, but some time ago, I’d guess around election time, I just stopped reading his blog. He has become arrogant and .....dare I say....narcissistic.
I have not seen him come right out and endorse Presidunce Barry, but then again, I don’t visit his blog much at all anymore. At the very least, he’s a closet supporter.
Quite honestly, I am having trouble differentiating between Ron Paul and Barack Obama:
1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
I agree there are some subtle differences. But they are very subtle.
If I’m not mistaken, the John Birch Society is closely affiliated with: http://www.thenewamerican.com/
***I thought it was mainly an older Constitutionalist Conservative group.***
That’s what makes them racist. /s
Your other points are opinion, but this is false: “Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.”
He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
> He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?
His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.
Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.
Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?
Just because the black members of the John Birch Society refer to themselves as negroes (a far better term in my view) does not make them racist.
I don't agree with their conspiracy theories, but they seem like patriotic Americans to me.
He’s an Alex Jones clone.
“None of the Above”
He certainly does attract some off-the-beaten-path followers and some of them seem to worship him in a cult-like manner.
I think Ron Paul has some great ideas on the economy, but is too "out there" on many other issues, foreign policy being just one.
I believe Ron Paul might make a very good Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't support him as presidential material at all.
***How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?***
Does opposition to the PATRIOT Act necessarily make one unpatriotic? Does opposition to the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 make one against economic stabilization?
Free trade agreements don’t necessarily constitute free trade. All you need for free trade is to lower tariffs and lift any embargoes. Free trade isn’t a policy; it’s a lack of a policy.
***His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.***
Even if he is a stone cold racist, what policies exactly is he thinking of enacting that harms minorities? Last time I checked he wanted government to do very little.
***Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.***
Giving the government a monopoly on the creation of money and credit and its price through setting or manipulating the interest rate (the price of money) is better? Last time I checked, government monopolies are bad for the economy and price controls distort economic calculation and decision.
***Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?***
I don’t agree with him on everything, but I certainly don’t think we ought to be favoring sides as heavily as we do know. We give out too much aid to both sides and we constantly fight yesterday’s friend. I’d like to see a middle ground.
1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
Who?
2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
I agree there are some subtle differences. But they are very subtle.
There are radical differences.
Does Obama support uninfringed 2nd Amendment? Paul does.
Does Obama support the dissolution of the Department of Education and many others? Paul does.
I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites. You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Little Charles Johnson hates him. So do you. Ergo, by your logic, you love Charles Johnson.
... who's going out with a whimper.
Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such "associations".
Ron Paul, the only republican Cindy Sheehan can stomach. Birds of a feather.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
The dems are only doing their jobs. It's like the line from Cape Fear - "seems to me the prosecutor was just doing his job councilor" (or something like that.) RP is just a true believer.
> Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such “associations”.
Would Stormfront count as a racist group?
>> 1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
> Who?
Stormfront.
>> 2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
> Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
Going to gold standard would cause deflation.
>> 3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
> Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
Except NAFTA?
>> 4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
> Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
Actually, Obama appears to be quite friendly with the Saudis. I was thinking more along the lines of Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Poland, Georgia, etc.
> I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites.
Sorry, they are about as different as Stalin and Hitler. I just can’t figure out which is which.
> You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Well, I am pretty sure I am not affiliated with RNC. I guess that means I must be ignorant.
Exactamundo!
...either, or, both...
...Let them rant, I need a laugh occasionally...
Do you REALLY think that the "free trade" agreements out there are promoting genuine free trade?
You’re right. He’s a loon. A smart loon, and more right on economics than many people would have admitted before last fall’s banking meltdown.
His popularity on our side (as opposed to his anti-war, leftist, media-generated support) was and is a sign of how far the Bushes and ilk pulled the Republican Party away from its small-government, economic libertarian strengths.
I don’t believe most of FR’s Paul supporters adhere to his more noxious biases and paranoia, and it behooves the Republican leadership to re-erect the small government, economic freedom poll of its tent so that his followers can help to rebuild the party’s strength. We need to embrace his followers without embracing Paul or the full spectrum of his worldview.
Only when his meds are well regulated.
LLS
I’ve never known the John Birch society to be racist.
With a mission to restore the constitutional republic, I see them as strong advocates of state’s rights - and by virtue of that, advocates of all manner of things, as decided by the individual member-states of the republic. Sounds more like freedom than racism to me.
Of course, there could be some civil rights era history I’m missing - the Birchers were very outspoken and some were very in-your-face back then. Entirely possible that there are some incidents with the membership back then, but I don’t see it in the organization now.
“Little Charles Johnson hates him. So do you. Ergo, by your logic, you love Charles Johnson”
LMAO...not even close...I deleted my LGF bookmark when chucky went all anti-christian / whacko evolution ...
Nice try though...
> Do you REALLY think that the “free trade” agreements out there are promoting genuine free trade?
Yes.
When the tax and spend Republicrats feel threatened, they drag out the Ron Paul pinata.
“paleo-libertarian”
What the heck is that? Ron Paul is a libertarian.
small government
free trade
don’t be the world’s policeman
free enterprise
gold standard
minimize or get rid of the Fed
Gee, for all his idiosyncrasies, our country would be a heck of a lot better off today had we followed these principles years ago.
> Free trade agreements don’t necessarily constitute free trade. All you need for free trade is to lower tariffs and lift any embargoes.
This is what these agreements seek to achieve.
> Free trade isn’t a policy; it’s a lack of a policy.
Huh?
Since you basically agreed with my other points, I will not restate them here. My intention is not to pass judgment on Ron Paul’s ideas, I merely point out that there is not much difference between his positions and those of Barak Obama.
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.