The Ron Paul Effect 72

On balance, I view Ron Paul as a good thing.

I view myself as a libertarian and, in many ways, my criticisms of Ron Paul are that he is a more consistent libertarian than me. I want to see government provide health and welfare services, and run natural monopolies.

But much more importantly, Ron Paul is infinitely more consistent than the vast majority of those who label themselves “libertarian” in the UK and US, but are in fact just extreme right wingers with no concern at all for civil liberties, and who support the idea of a massive military force controlled by the government to annex foreign resources. Their “libertarianism” amounts to no more than a desire to be allowed to make money unscrupulously, without interference or tax. Paul Staines is the prime example of a false libertarian.

Ron Paul is not a false libertarian. His 21% showing in Iowa is going, for a while at least, to make it impossible to maintain the usual near total exclusion of anti-war and pro-civil liberties voices from the mainstream media. That is a great achievement. Having been given vastly less mainstream air time than Bachmann or Perry, that will now change for Paul – and even as they strive to limit that change, the establishment will hate that.

So, on balance a very good thing indeed. There are whispers about past racial attitudes. I have met Ron Paul, and am obliged to say I did not like him very much. But for a spell Americans are going to be able to hear someone question the trillions spent on foreign wars while US families suffer – and even a raising of the billions given to Israel. That outweighs a great deal of baggage.

72 thoughts on “The Ron Paul Effect

1 2 3
  • Clanger

    I have just read Ron Paul’s entry in Wikipedia where he is described as godfather of the Tea party. As we know this is an astroturf organization largely funded by the vile Koch brothers does this not make one think he may be just another greedy scumbag. Surely we have seen from Obama’s tenure that the person in the president’s chair has little real influence and is more of a figurehead. Personally, I find it odd that the UK media is so obsessed with the USA Republican nominations when there is so much more of importance and interest going on in the world. I’ve noticed even The Guardian has started using the term GOP. Since when has this been common parlance for The Republican party in the UK?

  • Passerby

    Libertarianism is a misunderstood and misconstrued construct that is often a cloak for the extreme right to parade as. However Ron Paul dose not fall into that category and his reasoned approach is telling of his intents.
    So far he has been the only one who has mocked the harangues of Iranophobia that have gone as far as Bachmann declaring; she will close the US embassy in Iran. whilst the other characters genuflections to all things AIPAC have included going so far as Nuking Iran, sending in the special forces, ad nauseum.
    Although corporate US does not care for the politics of Ron Paul. This dislike takes on farcical dimensions from showing graphics of fake polls, concocting clips to cast Ron Paul as an intemperate and angry individual, and going so far as cutting off the interviews with those supporters of Ron Paul.
    Voted For Paul and Spoke Out Against More War The vox pop reporter catching a glimpse of the tattoo on the neck of the soldier, decides he is a safe bet for the pro war Wolf Blitzer (an ardent zionist wanker), only for the interview to take on a different course, hence the hasty departure (technical difficulties), that starts with the soldier taking about not wanting an Iran war.

  • Tom Welsh

    Yes, Craig, I too see Ron Paul as a potential force for good. His emphasis on obeying the Constitution, avoiding foreign wars, and generally letting Americans return to minding their own business seems almost too good to be true.

    It’s also refreshing to see a major political figure who gains your approval while decidedly viewing himself as a conservative. I am a (small “c”) conservative and always have been, in the spirit of “if it’s not broken, let’s not try to fix it – and let’s not be too optimistic about our ability to improve on things that already work reasonably well”. I always used to vote Conservative too, but no longer: not only can I not support a party that launches wars of aggression, the Conservative Party is no longer conservative in any meaningful sense.

    Unfortunately, I doubt if Paul can break the tradition that you must be a Democrat or Republican candidate to have a chance in the presidential race.

  • Jack

    Tom Welsh – “I always used to vote Conservative too, but … the Conservative Party is no longer conservative in any meaningful sense.”
    Given that the Labour Party is no longer even marginally labour in any meaningful sense, and the term Liberal Party is by now an oxymoron, there’s not much left for ANY of us to vote for.

  • CanSpeccy

    Alex Jones says the Iowa GOP will fix the vote as necessary. I’m skeptical about anything Alex Jones says. But I’m skeptical about the Iowa GOP too.
    Ron Paul will likely prove to have been no more than a useful distraction. If his supporters were not busy supporting him, they’d be throwing dead cats at pro-war, trash-the-constitution candidates. But in the end, the voting machines will take care of the result.

  • Arsalan

    America’s parliament and media are owned and paid for by Zionists. Which means one of two things will happen to Ron Paul. He will either be sidelined and marginalised or he will sell out to Zionism.

  • Greenmachine

    I have much the same view of Ron Paul as you Craig; a useful liberal voice! However, I have found it quite sinister and frustrating how all the mainstream news outlets BBC ITV C4 have merely mentioned his 21% but NEVER reported his anti-war / anti-wall st. stance as a real contrast to every other candidate!

  • Mr Ned

    didn’t Obama sound to be an anti war initially and pro Guantanamo closure candidate. Somehow, i have no trust in american political prostitutes.

  • Mary

    It might all be too late.
    US Troops going to Israel
    January 2, 2012. Jerusalem.
    In one of the most blacked-out stories in America right now, the US military is preparing to send thousands of US troops, along with US Naval anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel, to Israel. It took forever to find a second source for confirmation of this story and both relatively mainstream media outlets are in Israel. With one source saying the military deployment and corresponding exercises are to occur in January, the source providing most of the details suggests it will occur later this spring.
    Calling it not just an “exercise”, but a “deployment”, the Jerusalem Post quotes US Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany. The US Commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.” In an effort to respond to recent Iranian threats and counter-threats, Israel announced the largest ever missile defense exercise in its history. Now, it’s reported that the US military, including the US Navy, will be stationed throughout Israel, also taking part.

  • TFS

    Alleged racial slurs……

    I’m sure there is a article in relation to his time as a physician when he helped a black man and white women during a problem pregnancy. He helped them whilst others didn’t and sorted out the aftermath of the stillborn, again when he didn’t have to.

    I sure its not hard to find YouTube videos of his stance against racial discrimination.

    where gonna have to get to the stage when we as consumers of media stories start demanding and evidence based approach to some of the things that get passed before us, kinda helps the credibility thing along…don’t it?

  • Michael Culver

    Obomba has just signed the N.D.A.A. bill.Can Ron Paul or anyone do anything to undo this horror? De Gaulle had it right back in 1945 when he said America was the next one to look out for.Fascism is Fascism no matter what flag is being waved or what mindless parroting of liberty and freedom being espoused.I urge all viewers to see “Into the valley of Elah” with Tommy Lee Jones,a film that says it all.Be sure to keep the ending etched in your mind’s eye.As to Paul’s racial views I confess ignorance ,please enlighten me.There is truly nothing new under the sun,each Empire is convinced of the eternal goodness of its dominion,the British one tortured thieved and murdered just as the U.S.A. is doing but convinced itself it was spreading education and justice to the unenlightened.May I recommend Richard Gott’s “Britain’s Empire” to those who doubt me.Not a book the biblical twit Gove would want our children to read! On a happier note 2012 started with two of the Stephen Lawrence killers being found guilty.A cheer for that and for Sir William McPherson’s enquiry,may Chilcot’s endlessly delayed findings prove equally accurate and point to a recommendation for a War Crimes Tribunal to be enacted forthwith.

  • glenn_uk

    Craig – you are completely wrong on this one.
    The ‘racial whispers’ are not some rumours – they are articles that he wrote and published to raise money, and contained really nasty racial slurs.
    But I don’t think you’re getting what libertarians are all about in the US. Sure, they want very little in the way of foreign intervention, and think prostitution and smoking dope is your own business – that’s all fine and dandy.
    However, they think the state is there to enforce copyright and property ownership, and that’s basically it. No FDA (Food & Drug Administration) – you’d better figure out yourself who’s selling poisonous food. No pharmaceutical drug oversight – the consumer will figure out which drugs work and which don’t.
    No safety laws and standards for *anything* – let the consumer figure out which cars explode on a small impact, which ladders collapse when you reach the top rung, which boilers leak CO and which heart surgeons botch up the job more often that not. No standards for water. No laws preventing discrimination against anyone – don’t like blacks? Fine – ban them from your establishment.
    The likes of Paul think that a dollar spent on public services of any description is a dollar wasted. It should be the law of the jungle, the weakest to the wall, no social safety net of any description, and if you can’t afford to do your own research then you deserve whatever you get.
    It’s a world predicated on fantastical notions, a myth, a fairy-land, that the free market will make all things perfect if government will just get out of the way. It’s never worked anywhere, even thought the Milton Freedmans of Chicago-school of economics notoriety tried (with help from Kissinger et al) to force it on most of South America at gunpoint.
    You’ve read the blurb and the couple of things on which Paul is correct, and extrapolated here – Paul is absolute poison, a racist nutcase.

  • Matt

    For those asking about what the racial issues are – the main racial issue that keeps raising its head are some comments in editorials from a few decades back. From what I’ve read of them, they were pretty unconscionable, but they also seem unlikely to have been actually written by Ron Paul. That said, they haven’t been explained very well and at the very least seem to indicate some very poor choices in ghostwriters and a lack of editorial oversight. Some critics also cite various voting records like voting against the Rosa Parks medal (he voted the same way for a medal for Mother Theresa, reasoning that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used for such things, and for Rosa Parks he offered to chip in his own money), and the support he has received from racist organisations like Stormfront. Another criticism is his stance against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he says he disagrees with in terms of property rights (i.e., the right of a private business owner to choose who they conduct business with).
    I think that about covers the purported racism. Frankly, I don’t find the charges very convincing, as racism runs quite counter to his consistent political speeches and actions. However, some of these issues do bear closer scrutiny if for no other reason than to understand the principles of libertarianism, the cornerstone of which is the non-agression axiom (that people should be free to think and act how they please, provided that no violence is threatened or initiated against another person or their property).
    “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.” – Ron Paul

  • writeon

    Ron Pual is “quaint” in the sense that he’s close to being the last of a seemingly dying breed, the American conservative.

    Essentially he’s becoming a third party candidate whose central policy is anti-militarism and rolling back the imperial strategy that’s supported by both the twin, establishment, parties.

    He’s causing many US liberals, progressives, and leftists an awful lot of headaches, with his “anti-war” rhetoric and his sharp criticisms of Obama’s appalling human-rights and civil liberties record. That Paul is from the old right, yet he’s leading the attack on Obama’s “progressive” facade makes the left feel uneasy; for, why are they so quiet about Obama?

    Obama is… really a Republican, though a moderate one compared to the others, but Paul’s brand of conservatism shows just how far to the right Obama really is.

    Paul also shows how narrow the confines of respectable political discourse really is in the United States, how similar the twin parties are on most substantive issues, and especially the management of the empire, and how to punish those nations that dare to resist the empire’s embrace and follow orders.

    Paul’s attitude to Israel is also refreshing, though he doesn’t seem to understand that Israel is really part of the United States, an awkward overseas protectorate.

    Strangely, for a candidate who is routinely termed eccentric and of the far right, and unelectable, it’s rather droll that his policies on a whole range of important issues are far closer to the views of most Americans than the rest of the candidates, who bizarrely, though they don’t represent the people’s veiws are deemed electable.

    But Paul’s economic policies are strange as Paul doesn’t seem to fully appreciate that the US is a form of “socialist, corporate state” but where the “socialism” is only for the benefit of the financial aristocracy and the military who are now the core of the state. Dragging down the corporate, socialist, state, edifice; will take something close to a revolution, rather than an election.

  • Azra

    American presidents are puppets on the strings,Ron or any other president will not be allowed to make any changes. The following is a paragraph of Dr Robert’s article in FPJ.

    “Remember what the Washington Establishment did to President Carter. His budget director and chief of staff were framed, thus depriving Carter of the powers of his office. Even Ronald Reagan had to give away more than half of his government, including the White House chief-of-staff and vice presidency, to the Establishment. President Reagan told me that he wanted to end stagflation in order that he could end the cold war, but that he could not sign a tax bill if I could not get one out of his administration that he could send to Congress.”

  • boniface goncourt

    If Ron Paul deprived the Americans of social security, that would affect only the Americans. If he broke the Talmudist shackles, stopped his forces killing goyim, and refused to
    start World War 3 for Israhell, then we would all benefit.

    Writeon – Iswail is NOT part of the U.S.A. The U.S.A. is part of Iswail!

    Petro Chemical – right you are. The usual suspects got rid of JFK for threatening the ZioFed, and they’d do the same to RP.

    Otherwise – the Jewish Agency states that the number of Jews in the world has decreased by 50,000 each year since 1950. For those with patience to hang on for 2270 – problem solved.

  • Levantine

    Agreed about Ron Paul.
    I’m afraid that the truth is so terrible that no one has yet publicly uttered it – namely, that positive changes in the U.S. and, consequently, much of the world, are not going to happen before a war sweeps over US of America. It could be a second civil war (as suggested by Edwin Vieira*) or not, but, with the American attitudes on evidence, it won’t happen any time soon.
    Another way to change the US and the world for the better may be based on some ingenious technological discovery, _not yet made_. So, as far as I can tell, the outlook is truly gloomy.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    I will put myself on record about Ron Paul.

    A. He is a good man with good ideas.
    B. He is speaking truth to a lot of power, and precisely for that reason ( as with my eldest politician brother) he pursues a measure of righteousness – and the corrupted world will stop him dead in his tracks despite what the people want. I asked my brother after he shifted from the mainstream party to a well intentioned alternative political party – does big business fund of is it the CIA? I was serious about my question.
    C. I would ask Ron Paul – in a system funded and governed by the dominance of lobbyists, special interests, large corporations, and the military-industrial complex – how in heaven’s name do you ever expect to be voted into office in the US political system?

    Sell your soul to the devil ( Obama) first – take high office, make wars, detain people without a right to trial, and tell the plebs that they have democracy.

    Now – Craig – if subsequent events prove me wrong – please – do a celebratory post on my misguided post – when/if that time ever comes when Ron Paul becomes President . Come on – let us be realistic.

  • Hydraargyrum

    Despite his baggage, I am lending him my support again this election cycle – even though I’ll have to register Republican to do so. I did so last time, too, after I saw him get into it with Giuliani in 2007 over “blowback” in a so-called debate:

    The reality is that the direction of the Republican Party HAS to be changed. If not, the war mongering and corporatism will just get even worse. Listen to the audience reaction to Giuliani around the 3 minute mark in that clip from 2007. Truly revolting. You won’t hear that level of hostility now, this is a clip from 2011 where Paul got into it with Santorum that shows the contrast:

    Whether we like it or not, the direction of the GOP has implications for the whole world and I appreciate how Paul and his supporters are beginning to have a positive affect. The fact he can get 20% in these primaries gives me hope, and also hope that the anti-war left can make inroads in the Democrats, too.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.