Skip to comments.Ron Paul Emerging as Ross Perotís Doppelganger
Posted on 02/21/2010 3:20:54 PM PST by Michael van der Galien
Ron Pauls straw poll victory at last weeks American Conservative Unions CPAC convention was surprising. It leads one to believe conservatives retain the ability to snap defeat from the jaws of victory this coming Fall. Ann Coulter reflects the opinion of many conservatives when she claims agreement with Ron Paul on almost all issues except for foreign policy goals. Paul, who has Pat Buchanan isolationist tendencies, claims to be an economic libertarian and has many credentials, which support that claim. He is a member, for example, of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Von Mises and, later, F.H. Hayek, contributed greatly to the intellectual debate demonstrating the inherent weakness of national central planning as an economic organizing principle. Paul supports smaller government, balanced budgets, less entitlements, and lower taxes. He wants the private sector to drive economic growth. As far as his economic policies are concerned, whats not to like?
It is difficult to carve an individuals views up into his component views. They really bleed into each other. But as far as his economic policies are concerned, there are two tendencies that are objectionable: 1) his monetary views; and, 2) his ideological rigidity. This essay will deal with his monetary policies. Part 2 will discuss Pauls ideological rigidity.
In 2002, Paul gave a speech on the floor of the House seeking to Abolish the Federal Reserve. It is unclear what problem this proposed solution was designed to fix. One can support the Federal Reserves continued existence and still disagree with many of its actions and policies. Conversely, one can even support its abolition but not support Pauls alternative, which is to have our currency fixed to the price of gold and/or a basket of commodities. Intertwined in his House speech was also a small dose of conspiracy thinking.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
My understanding is a bunch of college students skewed this vote so I wouldn’t put much stock in it other than it does show we have a lot of work to do on the campuses.
Everybody seems to be taking this stupid poll seriously. LOL
Ron Paul would be as a hand grenade with a REALLY bad haircut.
A vote for Ross will Guarantee 4 more years of Obama !
In a year with Ronald Reagan's VP in the White House, and the very popular Bent One on the Democratic ticket, a paranoid dwarf got nineteen million votes for President, based on his warnings about out-of-control government spending.
A real politician, with a conservative agenda, who rejected both parties "business as usual", would win in a landslide.
The Ron Paul supporters were planning this as far back as April last year. Just Google it and you’ll find their tracks all over the web.
No he wouldn’t. Pat Buchanan ran on a conservative agenda and got like 0.01% of the vote. 77-year-old Paul would not fare any better.
Bunch of kids voting. Libertarianism is something that appeals to immature minds that have been educated beyond their intelligence and wisdom. Hopefully they grow out of it. Some never do.
Yup — “conservatives” WILL snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee for President in 2012 — or the acknowleged front runner in the run up to the midterms.
This will only demonstrate that many who call themselves “conservatives” are either [extreme] Libertarian posers or reactionaries — NOT principled Conservatives. We don’t need “knee-jerk” conservatism — all it does is react emotionally, and too often irrationally. And Libertarians, while great on most economic matters, invite disaster on foreign policy and national defense.
Beware Conservatives. Abandon your principles to satisfy your emotional desires and you will not only lose, you will doom the country.
My son while he was in college, Economics and Finance, was at a conference at the Von Mises institute and had dinner with one of his professors (a friend of Ron Paul)and Ron Paul.
His comment on the dinner was that Ron Paul was a really nice guy, very bright but completely nuts. He liked him but wouldn’t vote for him.
It is a parasite that can never live on its own so tries to latch onto anything conservative for support.
It needs to rot alongside its other failed liberal belief systems.
I bet I’m the only one here who’s been in Ross Perot’s house, pool and gymnasium.
I was 12.
I consider myself a Tea Party man and support most of the things Ron Paul does. However, I see my mission not as a third party but as a force to bring the Republican party back to its roots as in the Regan Years.
They weren’t picking a candidate, they were voting for ideas. And if the Republican party isn’t heading in his direction then I couldn’t care less if they lose.
I stopped reading after he mentioned F.H. Hayek. Maybe he meant F.A. Hayek.
And blind support of any person with an R behind his/her name has achieved what? As Beck said in his speech, it's been one-in-the-same no matter who's been elected. For once, both parties are feeling from their bases that it's time to pick a side and stand up for it. No more middle-of-the-road B.S.
Yeah, I hate it when eligible voters vote. If only we could be more like Iran.
“...Ron Paul was a really nice guy, very bright but completely nuts.”
I believe your son’s a sharp kid. I’ve met Dr. Paul a couple of occasions; he’s friendly, sincere, a strong supporter of free markets, 2nd amendment rights, and pro life positions . . . and yes, sadly, also completely nuts.
We need to get rid of the Rinos first.
Agree completely. It's not just the man, but the ideas that resonate and if Republicans aren't headed toward smaller government, liberty and real transparency then it doesn't matter which thief wins.
“Maybe he meant F.A. Hayek.”
Good catch. But I’ve noticed that mistake before. I think sometimes people get his initials FH mixed up, I also so think its actually “von Hayek” isn’t it?
in any event . . .
I usually don’t like David Horowitz’s stuff, but I think this was a well done piece, you might reconsider having a look.
And blind support of any person with an R behind his/her name has achieved what? As Beck said in his speech, it’s been one-in-the-same no matter who’s been elected. For once, both parties are feeling from their bases that it’s time to pick a side and stand up for it. No more middle-of-the-road B.S.
I’m right there with ya! PRINCIPLE demands that! I’m no “knee-jerk” Republican. How’d you get that idea?
In 2008, I voted AGAINST two SC “Republicans” — Lindsey Grahamnesty AND Joe Wilson — because they were acting like DEMOCRATS. So, just for the record, when I say act based on Conservative Principles, I ain’t suggesting something I don’t do myself :-)
A significant percentage of Perot's support came from union workers because of his plainly protectionist views. The union workers couldn't have cared less about government spending, but they did think Perot was going to save their $25/hour job from going to Mexico. That dynamic shouldn't be discounted.
Know what you support or defend.
If we accept all of the silly polls that Paul slaughtered his opponents in in 2008, then he must be president now.
CPAC has now showed their irrelevancy with embracing GOProud, who advocates a left-winged gay agenda and this meaningless poll, that the biased lamestream media is having a ball with.
One page of a single thread is nothing. I've seen dumber than that here on FR on a single page of a thread.
A link then would be appreciated to back that up and that is a public site so anyone can feel free to browse at will the thoughts of the followers of Dr Nutz.
Yes, any successful populist candidate will be overtly protectionist.
Globalism is dead. It just isn't buried yet.
The problem with the Federal Reserve is that the money supply is fixed to bank borrowing and credit money--no new money supply absent a borrowing from a bank to create additional credit money; default on a credit money obligation by a borrower eliminates the money and reduces the money supply. Not an acceptable situation with respect to your legal tender medium of exchange.
Further, the Fed has historically inflated the money supply beyond the increase in the supply of goods and services thereby reducing the value of the money. Thus the US Dollar is not an acceptable store of value.
No. We don't want a fixed exchange rate for gold and silver--we want a money system in which the gold and silver is the money--legal tender for all debts public and private.
He is wrong on his proposition about money in the period from 1880 and 1914. The Treasury fixed both the exchange rate for gold to the dollar and the bank reserve ratio, thereby adjusting the available money supply and causing the economic contractions that occurred in that period.
The Federal Reserve monetary system has not worked well in America. The dollar has ceased to be an acceptable store of value and it is a marginal medium of exchange in the best of times. The Fed's ability to manipulate interest rates and money supply has deprived savers of a return on their saved capital and permitted the Fed to cause adverse economic conditions.
I view the Paul emphasis on gold money as excessive in the current political environment. The damage has been done and the cost and difficulty involved in shifting to gold money at this point will limit our ability to address other priorities.
But Rulle's approach to this issue demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the system is structured and how it operates and is inappropriate in the context of the current political environment.
Sorry, been here nearly nine years and I don't bookmark FR's worst threads.
My apologies. I must have misinterpreted what you said.
The one positive thing that Perot did do in that election was to call attention to the deficit and put it on the political agenda, when it hadn’t been before.