Ron Paul’s Base

“I partly agree with you. But Run Paul could disassociate himself from the KKK and other such nutjobs. When the KKK tried to embrace Reagan, he rejected them. Run Paul won’t do that. And Obama sat for over 20 years in a racist church and tithed to it. Some people stand on principle. Paul’s too egotistical to give up even the most kooky fans.”

I can’t argue with the political wisdom of disassociating with an unpopular minority’s. Nor can i argue against the political wisdom of droping highly unpopular policy’s positions. IE his foreign policy. If Ron Paul would do theses things he could secure the REPUBLICAN nomination.

But Ron Paul does not want to do these things and I must admit to understanding why in part. I don’t think Paul cares enough about theses radical minorities to give them the time of day. I can also see the libertarian issues with attacking any such minority.

All of theses people are entitled to think whatever they want to think, and by natural rights they should be able to do to themselves and consenting others what they want.

In theses respects Ron Paul really does represent them in representing the interest of freedom of thought & consenting action. He may in his heart know that and thus feel unjustified in openly disassociating himself with them.

That hypothesis does not however justify either his failure to point out his strong disagreements with their believes on libertarian grounds, nor as you point out the political necessity of appeasing the majority to have even a hope of moderating their tyranny.

His foreign policy I find most puzzling, although this is perhaps I am a Constitutionalists more then I am a pure Libertarian. Still I maintain that libertarians can and do justify violence in self-defense. Even thou the Federal Goverment is as described in the Federalist papers by design almost powerless at home. The Federal goverment does indisputably have the power to carry out an active foreign policy.

Now perhaps they have been going about it imprudently, and it seems almost certain that they have been welding the power out of order.(Failed to declare war.)

Someone on another thread (who I would ping if I could remember who it was) used a better term to capture what I was observing. Instead of anti-authoritarian, a better term is anti-establishmentarianism (which used to be longest word in the English language). It is defined as "viewing the nation's power structures as corrupt, repressive, or exploitive."

Perhaps you are right about that. Do you see a distinction between having respect for authority and being authoritarian?

Other than your response, all the other responses to my latest post, showed, once again, exactly the anti-authoritarian attitude of the typical Ron Paul supporter.

There is often a very blurred distinction between having respect for authority and allowing authoritarianism. I guess that is what bothers me about Ron Paul. He picks fights against even legitimate authority. If he were a little more selective, I might respect him more but IMO he too often comes across as a contrarian crank. I would love to see some of the abusive laws of our country repealed but I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to eliminate only the abusive ones. I would prefer someone who seems to hate only illegitimate laws and policies than someone who simply has an issue with authority.

You mentioned living under God as the ultimate authority. I whole-heartedly agree. However, there are other authorities which we must recognize as well. The New Testament, including the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, make it clear that we must live under authorities. The Apostle Paul explicitly commands us to obey civil authorities in Romans 13 - even stating that failing to do so is disobedience to God. As bad as we might perceive it today, I'm sure that our current laws are far more just than the laws of Nero who was Caesar at the time that Paul wrote the Book of Romans.

but IMO he too often comes across as a contrarian crank.

I agree, and when his voice breaks about something he really cares about, like war, he comes across as hysterical. I like the essence of what he says or what I believe he is saying (we can't trust our secular humanist socialist leaders and social engineers with fighting extravagant and adventurous wars [nation building]) but I can't stand the way he says it with trite "do unto others..." or "If I were an Iranian..." moral equivalence arguments.

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.