Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[chiro]

Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.

It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!

 

[ThomasT]

It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!

 

[MarcoD]

Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there..

Nah, that was shorthand for: all initial motives are irrelevant since all actors will judge all other actors by outcome.

As far as the US is concerned, they are finishing off a mission considering national security. The rest of the world will hardly care (since they just don't know) and draw conclusions on the outcome of it. And since you're from Europe, like me, the most logical thing is that you're uninformed about US politics, like me, have different interests or stakes, and will draw different conclusions from that.

Somehow the world is a pretty strange place.

 

[chiro]

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

The truth is that, as long as people have this kind of intent, it will continue to happen.

This includes everyone from your murderer that shoots a gas station attendent for drug money to the more high-level, highly organized military attacks that kill many thousands of people.

I bet that there have been many more creative ways to kill, maim, torture, defile, and otherwise hurt other people in ways that are unconscionable to most people, but the fact is that, at least as basic human right in many countries, people are initially given a chance to do whatever they want until they decide to do something harmful: it hasn't (previously) worked the other way around.

What is happening now is that people are considered to be criminals a lot more so than they used to. Look at the amount of fear that propogates nowadays.

The most ironic thing, is that one of the basic ideas of terrorism is for the terrorist to induce a state of fear on the victims to the point that the fear is deep and optimally, perpetual. Ironically, this is exactly what has happened, so in some sense they have accomplished just that.

The way that things have worked in the past have in my opinion been a good model: if someone with the intent uses it for a bad purpose, then if it is recognized as such in a legal sense, then they have forfeited their right to have some of the privileges they once enjoyed based on a social contract.

Trying to control everyone and everything around you is beyond playing god, it is just insane and goes against every form of intuition, common sense, and historical lessons that have come before us.

 

[ThomasT]

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

Apparently, the US government. And long before and up to 9/11/2001.

 

[Chronos]

The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.

 

[ThomasT]

The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.

Something has to be done about the Palestinian problem. Paul's isolationist stance doesn't make any sense wrt this. The US is in a position to force an agreement that is fair to both Palestinians and Israelis, and without some sort of two-state solution, then the problem of terrorism by militant Islamic extremists remains. Of course, the problem might continue even after a two-state solution, but at least that would be a start, imho.

 

[Dotini]

I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist. Is Switzerland isolationist? It does routine business with the rest of the world, is non-interventionist and not a member of the UN. The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially. I think that's Dr. Paul's main point, and his main worth in the historical political dialogue. He will not become President. But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed. The college kids and serving members of the military get this already. Older folks in the entrenched media, entitlement society and military-industrial complex have thicker skulls.

Yep, Ron Paul and his followers are dangerous. Dangerous to the status quo!

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ThomasT]

I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist.

Ok, then non-interventionalist.

The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially.

During the time of the founders it was unrealistic to think that the US could be a global leader. But that changed. And it seems that things are changing again ... from the golden era of American hegemony.

I don't think that interventionism is necessarily a bad thing. And where Paul is clear on the details of his non-interventionist policy, then his position seems to me to be somewhat naive.

I do agree that US policy needs revamping, and that neither Obama nor any GOP candidate other than Paul is set on doing that. But Paul would need to talk about what he might do in much greater detail in order for me to consider him a serious candidate for the presidency.

As of now I wouldn't vote for any of them, including Paul and Obama ... but I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[mheslep]

... Is Switzerland isolationist?

Yes, on matters of military related foreign policy of course it is. Switzerland is probably the most prominent isolationist nation of the 20th century.

But his son,...

While his son Rand shares many of his father's libertarian views, he notably rejects some of the isolationist aspects. Gary Johnson also differs from Ron Paul in that regard.

 

[ginru]

Our foreign policy resembles something out of a schoolyard bully playbook and this along with our wasteful spending is simply unsustainable IMO. Even though he's ridiculed or outright ignored at times, and I can see that his ideas have clear gaps in them, still, I can't help but feel that Ron Paul will eventually be on the right side of history.

In a world losing faith in the establishment and hungry for revolution, it's clear many are fed up with the status quo. Even if he's doomed to an inevitable defeat, it's inspiring to see the youth gravitating towards his message. It's an incomplete message really, as he doesn't adequately explain how to fill the void left by a frugal, non-intervening US government. Perhaps it's a message that really shouldn't be completed by him or his generation, but rather by the younger generation supporting his campaign as they're the ones who will suffer most from the decisions. Hopefully this campaign and overall election will spark a more constructive awakening for them as we certainly need new ideas.

 

[ginru]

With minor consideration from the mainstream media, his supporters have put together a very impressive Youtube presence with many news clips...

He might actually have a chance against Romney if he really is broadening his base like mentioned here: "www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWvVze9Y4d0"

Also, I like that the establishment finds it impossible to buy influence over him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNOWTRa8aNQ

As for his unorthodox foreign policy of "Mutually Assured Respect", I admit some of it sounds a bit naive but I'd rather we actually evolved towards this direction now by choice rather than by bankrupt desperation down the road. When he's allowed time to carefully explain his message, he does come off less "crazy" and more "presidential". Perhaps he's the candidate with the realest chance of uniting a divided nation.

And he can get tough too: Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Show,1988

 

[Containment]

I like what I hear from him but honestly I just want a president most people don't like. That way when they go to pass some new law giving them self more powers more people get opposed to it. That makes it have a less likely chance of passing slash sliding under the radar in my opinion. Honestly I think the presidential elections are the least important for the average person to vote in and if people really want to care about politics you should get involved with local stuff first.

Right now I'm thinking I would vote for newt as he seems to be the most disliked from what I'v seen. I also happen to like one of the things he helped push through congress that I won't go into. Paul would probably be my 2nd choice and Mitt probably my last as again I feel he is too liked by the average person to get proper scrutiny. So actually I'm kinda secretly hoping Obama wins as I feel he is the least likely to get away with stupid laws without anyone taking note.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I like what I hear from him but honestly I just want a president most people don't like.

Unfortunately, our election system favors presidents that people like. I suggest that you vote for the candidate you think is going to lose. That way, the winner has less of a mandate.

 

[LearninDaMath]

I voted for Obama last election and i'll likely not vote this time because I can't decide between Obama and Ron Paul. Yes, they are on different sides of the spectrum, but both those two make more sense than anyone else in the race. They are the only ones who seem to speak straight to the point, without beating around the bush. Everyone else seems to beat around every statement in order to avoid revealing how contradictary their various positions really are.

For me, there is no clear/definate "correct" path america should take. Regardless of our economic policies, money will exchange hands, and people will have incentive to be productive. We may argue on "from who" and "to where" the money should flow, but as long as there is the freedom to pursue our goals, we will, as a whole, be a productive country.

How we progress as a nation is the main battle for me.

One one hand, increased taxes for the purpose of helping those with less financial means is a very good way to give people the opportunity to take advantage of the educational benefits America has to offer. But "republicans" think its completely unfair, and borderline theft, for a third party, such as government, to take money from one person and give it to another.

One the other hand, I think letting people use their own money how they want to creates a great opportunity for people to pursue interests that can lead to new businesses and innovation. And the economic prosperity created by those who have kept their hard earned dollars will eventually trickle down to increase standard of living for people at the bottom of the economy. However, "Democrats" think its completely unfair for a super power with more than enough means to not take the responsibility to ensure all of our citizens have at least a basic level of care.

In my opinion, either route we take will lead to a better nation. It's the guys who try to play both sides of the economic fence who worry me. There seems to be so much political gridlock because you got a fork in the road, a "right" lane and a "left" lane and only one car (nation), half the politicians are trying to steer the country in one direction and the other half trying to steer the nation in the other direction and it's the american people's confidence and patience that are being stretched further and further.. until one day the political nonsense is going to tear this country apart.

Sure we can have a mix of free market and social policy as we have now, but there never seems to be an agreement on the perfect balance. As soon as one side seems to get close to what they are willing to accept, they go in and try to take far more than the other side was willing to accept and the tug of war starts all over again. When will the fighting end? When will we find a balance we can all except? Of course, never.

If I were to vote, i'd flip a coin and vote either Ron Paul, one extreme (heads) or Obama, the other extreme, (tails)...everyone else: full of bologney.

 

[Angry Citizen]

He will not become President. But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed.

No, they will not. The 19th century model of America died for a reason. Ron Paul is polling dismally for a reason: because only a tiny contingent of people support him. The 'college kids' are still overwhelmingly left-leaning, by the way, and while I can't vouch for the prevalence of the opinion, I can vouch that most of the college kids I've spoken to who are politically active, are politically active for very left-wing causes (social democracy and even outright socialism). I'm one of them, by the way.

 

[mheslep]

... But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed.

Yes I think you are right, or I hope so.

 

[Jasongreat]

No, they will not. The 19th century model of America died for a reason. Ron Paul is polling dismally for a reason: because only a tiny contingent of people support him. The 'college kids' are still overwhelmingly left-leaning, by the way, and while I can't vouch for the prevalence of the opinion, I can vouch that most of the college kids I've spoken to who are politically active, are politically active for very left-wing causes (social democracy and even outright socialism). I'm one of them, by the way.

It doesn't surprise me that college kids are highly liberal, since they have only benefited from liberal policies. IMO, once they actually get to the real world and work to make that money which they are so fond of receiving now, most will become conservative when it is their money now being confiscated. The founding ideals are as relevant today as they ever were, IMO, since our founders were very aware of human nature and that is what matters, since everything else comes and goes but we humans are always at the center of it.

I think it is a shame that since the invention of tv and radio, we have became a nation who judges the messenger more than the message. I wish Ron Paul would have taken more debate classes while in school. I would vote willingly for Paul, but the way it's going I will probably hold my nose and vote or Romney, if it's Gingrich I will stay home, since I feel it is better to make a democrat propose liberal policies, that way they have to take the blame unlike when a progressive conservative gets in there and all those policies which are repugnant to conservatives become supposed conservative policies. We only need to look at recent history for examples, think george bush and his famous speech about abandoning conservative principles to save the free market system when he went along with the bailouts emanating from the liberally controlled congress. Now bailing out failing companies is a conservative policy, at least according to the left and the media. Ron Paul 2012!

 

[Angry Citizen]

It doesn't surprise me that college kids are highly liberal, since they have only benefited from liberal policies. IMO, once they actually get to the real world and work to make that money which they are so fond of receiving now, most will become conservative when it is their money now being confiscated.

History shows you to be wrong. Each successive generation has been more liberal than the last, dating back to the time of the Gilded Age. Sadly for holders of Republican ideology, education was the wrong thing to let slide by. It has destroyed their comfortable equilibrium state.

I think it is a shame that since the invention of tv and radio, we have became a nation who judges the messenger more than the message.

I think it's a shame that Ron Paul supporters can't seem to understand that their positions just aren't popular, and then seek to blame others for not 'understanding'. Ron Paul is as popular as he is because he's likeable. I like the guy. I think he's a principled man who fights for what he believes in, and doesn't compromise. We need more people like that. But Bernie Sanders is another man with similar level of conviction, and his policies are sane, sound, viable, and will be the future of humanity.

We only need to look at recent history for examples, think george bush and his famous speech about abandoning conservative principles to save the free market system when he went along with the bailouts emanating from the liberally controlled congress.

That's too convenient for you. If a President does poorly, he's no longer a conservative, eh? Was Reagan a conservative? Bush 41? Bleh. The last respectable Republican in office was Eisenhower.

 

[lpetrich]

Here's what I think:

If you are young and not against taxes, you have no heart.
If you are old and still against taxes, you have no brain.

To me, wanting to live without taxes is like wanting to live without paying bills and wanting to live without work. How will one finance the things that one wants out of government? The money to finance a "strong national defense" or whatever doesn't grow on trees. Which provokes a mental picture of military bases and police stations having orchards of money trees that the soldiers and cops harvest to cover expenses.

Governments could go the Gulf-State route and sell natural resources, but some people would call that a kind of tax.

More seriously, all the perpetual complaining about government would seem to imply that anarchy is the ideal state of affairs. Or short of that, a government with all the political power of the Queen of England.

 

[lpetrich]

Also, if the US Federal Government is so terribly evil, then why not dissolve it? Like what happened to Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, resulting in 50+ separate nations.

It seems to me that this is a recipe for political weakness. These new nations would either undo much of the dividing, or else they would soon become victims of foreign meddling. In that case, we Americans would end up having masters like Berlin and Brussels and Brasilia and Beijing.

 

[D H]

History shows you to be wrong. Each successive generation has been more liberal than the last, dating back to the time of the Gilded Age.

What? The Gilded Age ended with the McKinley v. Bryan election, which McKinley (R) won.

The only times that liberal ideology has been dominant in the US are the 1930s and 1960s. Except for those times, the percentage of people who have self-identified as liberal has been at most 25%, oftentimes less than 20%.

Right now, per this Jan 29th Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx), liberal ideology is apparently waning.

It is never a good idea to extrapolate the politics you see in college to the country as a whole.

 

[Angry Citizen]

First off, never trust a poll. Not only can they be biased (I have no idea if it is biased in this case), but people themselves may have no idea what the questions mean. Loads of people may consider themselves conservative in principle, but those same polls show overwhelming support for not only healthcare reform, but single payer health care reform. They also show huge support for class warfare and a desire for the government to intervene in economics. One of these polls is lyin'. You can decide which to believe in. (As an aside, the poll data in question ends in 2010, the year of the great Republican resurgence and prior to the waning of the Tea Party's influence. One wonders just how far the Republicans have since fallen as a result of the "Do Nothing" Congress, the debt ceiling fiasco, the radical rhetoric, and other points which the public clearly dislikes.)

Secondly, I would urge you to study history. Ever heard of the McKinley Tariff, a protectionist policy passed with the support of McKinley? Modern Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of free trade, which flies in the face of your apparent claim that McKinley was in any way, shape or form related to the modern Republican. You don't seriously believe that the South suddenly decided to start supporting Republicans because of a huge ideological shift on their part, do you? No. The political parties themselves have undergone enormous realignment throughout history. The Republicans of the 19th century would be the Democrats of today, evidenced by the broad support given to Republicans in the North in the 19th century.

'Liberal' ideology has dominated in periods throughout American history. Alexander Hamilton, then Lincoln, then during the end of the Gilded Age, then during the Progressive Era, then for forty years during the adoption, implementation, and enjoyment of the New Deal (we note here that liberal policies always become fashionable after an enormous economic collapse facilitated by conservative policies). Reagan has shifted the country rightward for three decades; that's not in dispute. But liberal ideology is due for a major comeback after the Great Recession, and it's happening now. 'Occupy' is only the faint, thready heartbeat of its return.

And lastly, I do not extrapolate current political leanings from what I see on college campuses. I extrapolate future political leanings. People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.

 

[AlephZero]

People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.

You'll probably grow out of that idea eventually, if you survive long enough.

As somebody once said, "Anybody aged 20 who isn't a socialist has no heart. Anybody aged 50 who is still a socialist has no brain".

 

[Angry Citizen]

1) You're actually paraphrasing Churchill, ignoring that he said nothing about socialism; 2) I'm not a socialist; 3) I'm a social democrat because that's what works. Let us observe two nations: America and Scandinavia. One has poverty; the other does not. One has boom-and-bust economics; the other does not. One has enormous wealth inequality; the other does not. One is drowning in debt; the other has maintained fiscal responsibility.

Those who claim conservatism is the realistic, logical, or sensible solution are ignoring historical precedent otherwise.

 

[lpetrich]

On the subject of taxes, many Americans seem to think that tax money only goes to lazy bums and other unworthy recipients. I've found a very interesting study: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/534 Though the US has such features as being more rural, being more decentralized, and having fossilized political-institution features like lack of proportional representations, the most important feature is amount of racial and ethnic divisions.

The authors of that study found a negative correlation between the amount of racial division and the amount of welfare statism, both across nations and across US states. For US states at least, that was even true if one divided out GDP per capita. People are more willing to be generous with people they perceive as much like themselves, rather than with people that they perceive as hostile others. That is even true on the Right, where the "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" set does not seem to object to fellow members sticking their snouts in government troughs.

The US is gradually converging on Europe, becoming more urban and more racially tolerant. The US still has a way to go, but the days of Southern politicians defending lynching are long gone.

 

[D H]

People don't magically become conservatives once they earn a dime.

A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.

 

[chiro]

A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.

Here's a question for you: Do you think that trend holds for people have billion dollar incomes? What about multi-billion dollar incomes?

 

[lpetrich]

So once you discover how much you pay in taxes, you become an anarchist?

What happens when you discover how much you have to pay in bills? Do you become a Commie?

 

[Angry Citizen]

A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.

Not only is this incredibly offensive and condescending to those who hold liberal positions at my age and continue to hold them at more advanced years, but it's flat out not true. Older people hold more conservative positions, but those conservative positions were once either moderate or liberal positions in their day - excepting, of course, strange phenomena like the Reagan takeover.

You cannot point to any historical precedent or logical fact that shows conservatism as 'pragmatic', or that it comes with maturity. You attack individuals for holding alternative beliefs, implying that they are immature and angst-ridden. If this is the way conservatives seek to advance their agenda - by demeaning their opponents - then it seems we are not the ones in dire need of maturation.

 

[daveb]

A dime? No. People who earn half a million dimes? Maybe. A million dimes? Very likely. Switching from being idealistic and liberal as a young adult to being pragmatic and conservative as a mature adult is a centuries-old phenomenon. The conversion starts when you get that first paycheck out of college and you see that the amount paid to you is several thousand dimes short of your gross salary.

As someone who over the years has made progressively more money, I am getting more liberal as the years pass. I fear the day when I make a million dollars and tout Dennis Hopper as the great mind of liberalism.

 

[D H]

As someone who over the years has made progressively more money, I am getting more liberal as the years pass.

You are in the minority then. Most people get more conservative (fiscally conservative, that is) as they progressively make more money. One problem with conservatism as of late is the growing influence of the social conservatives. I suspect that it is the growing influence of the social conservatives that have made you get more liberal as the years pass. Those social conservative bug me, too.

That the rich vote Democratic is a myth. Here's Paul Krugman (*not* a conservative) on that myth: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/.

Here's a question for you: Do you think that trend holds for people have billion dollar incomes? What about multi-billion dollar incomes?

The 400 billionaires in the US are a tiny, tiny fraction of the 1 percent against which the OWS protest. How those billionaires vote, how they behave, is statistically irrelevant. Even if all 400 voted Democratic, it wouldn't make a statistical blip in the voting characteristics of top 50%, or the top 10%, or even the top 1%. Those 400 billionaires are 0.03% of the top 1%. They are a minisculely tiny blip on top of a smallish blip.

What motivates those billionaires is quite different from what motivates the bottom 90% of the top 1%. Extreme class warfare is extremely hazardous to the plutocracy; it often causes plutocrats tend to lose their heads. Mollifying the lower 99.99% helps prevent that. Extreme taxation such as that seen in the 1950s and 60s is also hazardous to the plutocracy. Keeping the Democrats mollified with large campaign donations helps prevent that.

 

[turbo]

The United States Bullion Depository holds 4,577 metric tons (5046 tons) of gold bullion (147.2 million oz. troy). This is roughly 2.5% of all the gold ever refined throughout human history. Even so, the depository is second in the United States to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's underground vault in Manhattan, which holds 7,000 metric tons (7716 tons) of gold bullion (225.1 million oz. troy), some of it in trust for foreign nations, central banks and official international organizations.

So the US has less than 4 million oz of gold on hand, much of which doesn't belong to us, but is held in trust. What would happen to the price of gold if the entire economy of the US was forced to operate on the gold standard? The US economy was estimated to be $14.5 trillion in 2010. Anybody want to speculate on what a return to the gold standard would do to our economy and the rest of the global economies? How about damages to ecologically-fragile areas that would end up getting mined for trace amounts of gold? I don't think Paul is too good at math.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So we've got about 375 million oz, and about 300 million people. So we've got somewhat more than 1 oz per person on average. With that gold, you are expected to buy everything, from a candy bar, to a house. This means that your oz. has to be chippered into miniscule coins to be usable. It will take a keen eye to identify a $1 coin, used to buy something at the dollar store, and a microscope to fish out 7 cents for the sales tax.

 

[D H]

I don't think Paul is too good at math.

But he is very good at delusional thinking, and at attracting other delusionists. And it is delusional to think that we can stuff the genie back in the bottle that our country opened over 100 years ago with the Treaty of Paris (1898).