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?
...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.
“Bushes and ilk”
BUSH KEPT YOUR ASS SAFE FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS YOU DOPE.
And that is my #1 issue...anti terrorism....it HAS to be....
Buch was wrong on quite a few things..from imigration to thinking Democrats give a rats ass about bi=partianship...
But he did the job I wanted done....he took the fight to my enemy....and ron paul just wouldnt do that if he was in the same positon...
I dont embrace “followers”.....Only a sheep follows anyone.
And as far as I’m concerned those “followers” can go follow Kucinich...rons “good friend”...
There are quite a few places where the Paulisitians and barr back riders could have made the difference last fall....
Might as well be a perot voter.
“You dope?” And your insulting me because you sensed I was attacking Bush isn’t the mark of a “follower” yourself?
I said nothing about Bush keeping the country safe, I was only suggesting that his and other Republicans’ big government approach contributed to small-government, economic libertarians in the party turning to a fringe candidate like Paul.
I am starting to come around to Ron Paul’s nonentanglement foreign policy. Reason is the world has been ungrateful of American sacrifice in blood and treasure to keep it free from brutal dictatorships. Just look at the ingrates in Europe. Poll after poll many think the US is the problem in world. Fine I say send our troops home. Finally Isreal is suppose to be the sanctuary for Jews from oppression. Well if the American Jews keep supporting Dems who support Hamas, and vilify conservatives. Why should the conservatives support Israel if the Jews in America does not???
***This is what these agreements seek to achieve.***
What they seek and what they may actually achieve are 2 totally opposite things
Free trade is the status quo. A nation doesn’t need a policy with another nation about trade. It’s people need only interact with one another. That is a lack of a policy. Tariffs, embargoes, quotas, etc. are all policy goals. That’s what I meant by free trade is the lack of a policy.
***Since you basically agreed with my other points***
I did?
***I merely point out that there is not much difference between his positions and those of Barak Obama.***
Obama wants the free market to set interest rates and determine what will be used as money?
Obama wants to loosen restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?
Obama wants the government to stay out of health care?
Obama is going to massively cut government spending?
Obama wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare?
Obama wants the states to decide all issues not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?
Obama wants to end abortion?
Obama wants out of the UN?
Obama wants to cut federal regulations and taxes on businesses?
“You dope?” And your insulting me because you sensed I was attacking Bush isn’t the mark of a “follower” yourself?”
I’m hardly a “follower”...the man did the #1 job....without which...the rest is pure luxury....I’m sure if OBL had his way...our Govt would be alot smaller...and our population as well...
The #1 job of the president is to protect the country...
Paul is quite clear on this...he wouldnt have done hardly anything...if anything that Bush has done to take the fight to the enemy...
I’ll make myself clear....the rest of the Bush legacy on immigration is a travesty....he reaching accross the isle was comical...and his last moves on the economy where laughable....
But I offer apology for jumping on you with both feet...
“I said nothing about Bush keeping the country safe,”
You should have.
“I was only suggesting that his and other Republicans’ big government approach contributed to small-government, economic libertarians in the party turning to a fringe candidate like Paul.”
Then dont use words like “ilk”...
From the other post:
“I don’t believe most of FR’s Paul supporters adhere to his more noxious biases and paranoia,”
I do.
> Free trade is the status quo.
Actually no, all countries, including United States, impose tariffs and various other restrictions on trade (e.g., land and company ownerships). The free trade agreements are what eliminate these restrictions. (Not sure about that “all” part. Possibly there might be some countries that do not have tariffs. Unfortunately, I can’t think of one off-hand.)
>> ***Since you basically agreed with my other points***
> I did?
Yes you did. For example (from your post):
“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.”
So basically, you agree that he might be a racist. You just don’t think it’s a big deal.
I've been familiar with them for many years, and never found any racism in their official stance. This does not mean that there aren't members of the organization who the NAACP would not approve of, but then again the same could be said about FR. (I doubt Charles Johnson approves of FR, although I've never seen him mention FR)
You're in good company.
hee hee
Or you might say he's already shrinking to an infinitesimally small point.
Thank you. At the least they are affiliates, whatever that really means.
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.