Very early in the morning today (Dutch time), co-blogger Jason Steck published a good post about how some Libertarians believe that Ron Paul is bad for the Libertarian movement (because of his association with ‘truthers,’ white supremacists, and so on).
In his post, Jason linked to this post at the Volokh Conspiracy by Ilya Somin. Somin explains that Paul doesn’t just hurt the Libertarian movement, he’s not even as Libertarian as he and his followers pretend.
Anyway, what I find interesting to see is that increasingly more Libertarians are abandoning Paul. Let me give you an example: Kevin writes at the Liberty Papers that he’s “done with Ron Paul.” The reason? Paul is sucking up to conspiracy theorists and alike. Yesterday, he - and not for the first time - appeared at Alex Jones’ show. This was the final drop for Kevin.
I can understand Kevin quite well, and I’m wondering why it is that Paul doesn’t distance himself from the nutcases. There are two explanations possible, in my opinion, I think it’s the second:
- Paul agrees with (most of) them. He doesn’t object to them, because he agrees with them. He just doesn’t say what they say because he knows it’ll hurt his career.
- Paul didn’t expect to do so well. Suddenly he sees money coming in constantly. He’s part of a movement. Its leader even. He didn’t expect it and now that it’s happening he’s simply enjoying the ride. He’s not occupied with ‘who’ support him, nor with why they support him. He’s happy that they’re supporting him: they’re taking him somewhere he didn’t expect to be.
I’m thinking that’s it.
Of course, fringe groups give quite a lot of money as well.
Definitely the second. Although I don’t agree with everything Paul says, I have no reason to believe that he would hide the conspiracy thoughts that the first explaation would imply. He simply doesn’t shy away from expressing his opinions, even if those opinions might harm him politically. I certainly don’t have any reason to believe that he would go against his personal convictions when he votes, so his vote to go after Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks should completely undo any “Paul’s a closet Truther” claims.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul is a Republican and not a Libertarian. Since the Neo-Con Facsists have soiled the name Republican, Ron Paul has a long way to go to clean up the name. At this point he is doing a great job.
To say that Ron Paul is “sucking up” to truthers is stupid. If we are going to do the guilt by association thing, then I guess we should call him a Neo-Con for doing interviews with anyon from FOX.
I don’t see Ron Paul’s willingness to speak with any American as a fualt. Filtering the audience one speaks to a method that works for Bush but not one that I respect.
Ron Paul is the choice of the people. He will win. He already dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have gathered the evidence to support this statement.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
It is a sad state of affairs when a group of Libertarians work to excercise “thought control”. If Paul starts distancing himself from “nutcases” it goes against everything Libertarians believe. Who will set the definition of “nutcases” then? Is Michael van der Galien the supreme judge? Jason Steck? I am baffled why some people can’t seem to stop themselves from damaging the best thing that ever happened to the Libertarian movement. There are millions being exposed to libertarian principles by Ron Paul.
The second is very likely closer to the answer. It comes down to what is the purpose of Paul’s campaign. I believe the initial purpose was to have a protest campaign to promote beliefs. In that case his actions are counterproductive as the discussion of Paul is increasingly based upon his connection to right wing extremists and conspiracy theorists as opposed to libertarian beliefs. (This is complicated by the fact that Paul is largely a social conservative as opposed to a libertarian and does share some views with the right wing groups backing him).
If Paul’s desire was to actually try to win, as opposed to running a protest campaign, then his affiliation with these groups is counterproductive as it keeps the vast majority of voters from taking him seriously.
Sadly the explanation given in this post would mean that the campaign has essentially become an ego trip for Paul with no real purpose.
admin: bigotry and name-calling –> banning
GOOD!
Screw the hippies… This is for limited government and states rights.
I am voting for the only candidate willing to remove our Military where they don’t belong.
I see Paulie’s Parrots are on the wing again.
Having been to a Libertarian convention, the idea of someone being too weird for the Libertarian Party fairly croggles the mind.
I’ve met Ron Paul, albeit long ago. He struck me as a very nice guy. But I was very young. I’m sure he’s more sincere than most pols, but then, so is most everyone.
Libertarians break with Paul? I totally disagree. Now more than ever, Ron Paul’s constitutionalist movement is building momentum. Those who are “breaking away” were never really supporters of Paul to begin with. Nice propaganda!
Building coalitions of disparate people is what makes for a strong grass roots effort. Ron Paul is not choosing his supporters, they are choosing him. Still there is always a danger that picking up the wrong kind of kook into your big tent can bring it crashing down by driving off the bulk of the rest of your support.
The worst nutcases, the ones that are the biggest danger to any movement, are the narcissistic fools that demand the movement reject some other group in favor of themselves. The only thing worth being intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Ron: I think that this is the case, yes. Either that, or the real idea behind it / what’s driving Paul is even more sad.
This is not about ‘thought control.’ An important part of libertarianism is reason. These people don’t adhere to reason. They adhere to bigotry and conspiracy theorists.
Exactly. And what does that mean in the case of Ron Paul? It means that he shouldn’t tolerate racists. He does, however.
Actually, Albert, they are real libertarians. You know, the ones who actually think things through.
There is also a possible explanation #3.
Ron Paul refuses to play this game of “guilt by association”.
As his finance director said:
If people who disagree with Ron Paul send him money, it is their loss.
I agree with Mike - I admire fellow libertarians for their purity but if we’re going to make progress as a practical movement we have to stop eating our own. I wish Ron Paul were a little more “pure” libertarian but I’m not going to abandon a guy whose policies I agree with 90% just because in some sort of theoretical parallel universe there would be an equally popular guy who I agree with 100%.
Political parties excel at eating their own.
Or maybe it is his belief in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. These extremists are afforded the freedom to express any opinion they want. Accepting money from them does not necessarily mean he supports their beliefs. It means he doesn’t feel it necessary to silence their voice.
Michael, the libertarians place human/property/.. rights first. It is your right to be a racist as long as you don’t break rights of the others. The libertarians tolerate racists.
Racism does not mean intolerance. Racism means making decisions differently according to race. If you had libertarian racist as a head of government, there would be absolutely no problem with racism - he would not let his personal believes shape his voting record. See Paul’s reasoning on abortion: He is against abortion. But he wants that decided on the state level. Thus - if Paul is against or for abortion is irrelevant. The same with racism and many other issues.
I agree with Maxim: “Ron Paul refuses to play this game of “guilt by association”. ” He refuses to play the game with special interests, he refuses to play the socialist game ‘promise everything, deliver nothing’ and many others.
I have been following the mises institute economics for quite a while and I just don’t see, why libertarians would not endorse Ron Paul. He is a prototype of minarchist. His opinions are 95% on the way to anarcho-capitalism. There will always be people you don’t want to associate with, he will support your dream candidate. So what?
Michael wrote: “Actually, Albert, they are real libertarians. You know, the ones who actually think things through.
Actually, Michael, associating Paul with “racists” is a clear indication that you do not think things through. Have you heard or seen Paul engaging in “racist behavior”? Your rationale for stating that libertarians no longer support Paul because “racists” have donated to his campaign is nothing but a silly “guilt by association” fallacy. It’s not rational thinking.
Its very frustratingas as a libertarian and Ron Paul supporter to hear that he is being sniped at for not coming out and running off a list of people he officially shuns. Does his message mean so little to libertarians that the will abandon him because of some misguided support by distasteful people. I may agree that the campaign strategy should be to work himself away from the illusion that he is only supported by the fringe (hell, 8% of NH, SC and NV can’t be all considered fringe), but for people that support his policies to turn against him because he is gracious to everyone, even though they may be rather horrible people is really just low. Either you think he’ll do the right thing, or you don’t. That doesn’t mean ou have to like the strategy, but it does mean you don’t go out of your way to agree with those just want to slander Paul for things that don’t really matter. If it came down to whether Paul would implement any policies suggested by racists or truthers, I am 100% positive Paul would stand up and say “NO” and that would be that.
It remains an unfair criticism of the man (though maye warranted purely on stategy) to assume the worst about him because of your dislike of those who speak highly of him.
The Libertarian message of freedom and liberty attracts a very diverse group. For Ron Paul to distance himself from these “fringe” groups would be a break from his Libertarian principles. The rights to free speech granted by the First Amendment apply to everyone. Those who fear open debate and endorse the suppression of opinions that differ from their own…..Can these folks be considered representatives of Libertarian ideas?
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is afraid of its people. JOHN F. KENNEDY (1917-1963), U. S. President.
Lie down with dogs; don’t bitch about the fleas later.
Apparently, they don’t teach what free speech means in Libertarian School. There’s a difference between a government censorship of speech and an individual or organization shunning another person or group because of their repugnant views. The latter is also a laudable example of free speech.
I think that those who are waving that particular banner are just not all that eager to condemn the racists and fools running to the Paul banner, so long as they’re bringing cash when they come. As he proved with his half a billion in pork for the folks at home, money can just suffocate a principle to death.
Exactly Jimmie.
ATTENTION LIBERTARIANS:
This is the best chance we will see in decades to get something that looks like a libertarian president. Don’t blow it because he’s not John Galt. Its simple childish and retarded to expect the candidate to be John Galt.
Ron Paul is not John Galt.
Get OVER IT.
Ron Paul is not a conspiracy theorist. Rather than abandon him in this time of need, IMHO that’s even more of a reason to stick with him and defend him. If you’re upset with Ron Paul appearing on the Alex Jones, then contact the campaign headquarters to voice your concerns.
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign
3461 Washington Blvd., Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201
703-248-9115
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form
Klein: who’s saying that they expect Paul to be Galt?
What’s more childish, by the way, is that you defend someone ‘just because.’
Nuance Klein. Nuance.
what a farce ron paul has done more for the libertarian party than abe did for the republican party. i am a life long democrat but now i see myself as an libertarian, thinks to ron paul these guys are getting some press. ron paul actually introduced a bill to make it easier for parties like the libertarian party to get on ballots. i think ron paul should start his own party he should call it the patriot party. no matter how hard they try they can not monopolize the truth. that is why ron paul is so cool he challenges you to think outside of the box.
I think too much attention is being paid to the messenger and not enough to the message. In this situation there is a message, a political stance, that people are getting excited about, and instead of focusing on it, people are spending their time saying things like “I don’t agree with everything Paul says but…” It’s not about Paul, it’s about the message that he is willing to stand up and support despite every effort of the MSM and other campaigners to quelch. Besides, the first amendment to our Constitution grants each and every one of us the right to free speech. This even grant’s “truthers” and “racists” the right to say what they want. In some cases that is unfortunate ( I know I cringe when I hear the word ’spic’) and it is in those cases that our civil liberties are most threatened. But it still remains a fact that we all posess this right. In reference to comment #11, certainly we should only be intolerant of intolerance. Racism should not be tolerated. Racists are people, and should be delt with accordingly; with education or at the very least with pity.
Exactly Jimmie. Just let me worry about my fleas. I don’t need anybody else, especially a politician, to condemn them. We can then move on to bigger issues like reducing the size of our federal government, abolishing the IRS, and getting our troops out of Iraq. Then, we’ll worry about what some skin head has to say.
I am saying that many libertarians object to Paul because he does not meet some standard of of philosophical perfection. I say that he is as close as anyone with a shot of winning is going to get. As Libertarians who actually want to win offices, we are going to have to start thinking about electable people, and that probably means that libertarian candidates are going to have to be more culturally conservative than many of us our comfortable with.
We have joined the game, now we have to play like we want to win the game.
And as for the childish part, I guess what I really meant was that libertarians must lose their innocence about politics. This isn’t some philosophical movement anymore, we have to win, and winning means compromising.
And so what if some lunatics give Paul money? They know his positions and for some reason vote for them.
Trufers are anti war, so they like his anti war stuff.
Nazi’s for some unknowable reason want sound money (they might have a shred of brain left from all the hate)
And militia guys like him for his gun politics.
But honestly I as a rational non radical support all three proposals that the lunatics also like. So does that mean the proposals themselves are wrong and Ron Paul should give back money meant to support them?
Gotcha, Albert. So long as the racists and the slanderers help you get what you want, they’re good with you. When you have yours, then they’ll get theirs, right?
I can see why you don’t need to hear the words of a politican. You think too much like them already.
Ron Paul does not choose to associate with those that donate to his campaign - thats absurd. Every past President has had nutjobs contributing to their campaign, and then you also had criminals and Chinese connections like those that contributed to Hillary Clinton. To me its much more of an important topic on Clinton because it was millions of dollars and it forms a pattern from Bill Clinton’s campaign. If some racist, communist
or socialist wants to give $400.00 to Ron Paul’s campaign - who cares - its insignificant. What I want to know is do the people who are complaining about this have a black wife or husband - if not you are racist. If you are black and don’t have a white wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend - you are racist and have no standing to talk. If you are a white person - have you disowned your parents because you are not of a mixed race - if not you are a racist. Racism goes much deeper than words or writing - get a grip on the hate that your using by throwing out the racism card - it is getting so old.
I think too much attention is being paid to the messenger and not enough to the message.
The messenger is the one running for office.
Wow, Joe, that’s just silly.
From Cleaner 44:
Wow, here’s news! some Neolibs break with Paul! You mean to tell me that all LP folks don’t walk lock and step with Dr. Paul! Wow, all dems and Repubs don’t all support one guy! Wow! Oh and now I see we are attacking anyone who’s gone on the Alax Jones show this is really what this post is all about. Like him or not he’s interviewed tons of mainstream people over the years. This is nothing more then an attack on Jones then it is on Paul. Like Jones or not he’s a great radio talk show host. I think most Savage, Hannity, Schultz, and Beck listeners would like his show, the drug addict Rush’s listeners are not ready…. So keep on attacking Ron Paul because he goes on the Alex Jones show. You dumb neo-libs cons are so stupid to realise you only make Alex Jones more popular. Hell, he’s probably bigger then Insanity right now. Also, tell me Savage, beck, or Insanity isn’t a “nut case”? major meds needed for that crew now!
Before I continue, I’d just like to mention that I really appreciate the coverage given to Ron Paul by this website. Although you may be critical of Ron Paul, you actually think your criticisms through and present them in a civil manner (i.e, you don’t just write him off as a “kook” in two sentences), and it’s always healthy for us Paulites to consider the other side of any issue.
However, I really find it unfortunate that so many people focus on a small handful of donors for Paul’s campaign instead of his overall message and impact on politics. Yes, I don’t find it pleasant that a few bigots are supporting him. However, I also really don’t care in the end. People could fixate on Paul’s fringe donors, or Giuliani’s messy domestic life and cross dressing, or people could criticize Romney’s religion, or people could make fun of Obama’s name… you get the idea. In the end, a lot of mud will be slinged, but many important issues will remain in the dark.
More than any libertarian candidate I’ve ever known, Paul has helped pushed libertarian principles to the mainstream. It’s amazing when the general public can see that there is an actual alternative to the warfare/welfare state.
I think Jesse Benton, his communications director, has given the issue as much attention as it needs:
“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.”
HAHAHA! What “Libertarians?” All forty of them? Libertarians are a pathetic joke. I know because I’ve been in the Libertarian Party for 12 years! Want to meet some REAL nutjobs? C’mon down to your local Libertarian Party meeting where you’re sure to meet a broad who wants to sell you parsley pills that cure cancer because the “government” doesn’t want to. -Or how about the guy who can’t stop talking about Atlas Shrugged? And don’t forget the old timer with a glass eye who never paid income tax and tried to fight it in court and lost. -Don’t know why he always shows up to political meetings because convicted felons can’t vote. Thirty five years for the LP and never a seat in either house. And if it was all an “issues” campaign and a “raise awareness” thing, well that was a miserable failure too. Just look at the last eight years.
If there is anyone left in the LP, I don’t know any of them and I know a whole hell of a lot of people. Just like me, they’re all Ron Paul Republicans now and we’re not looking back. From now on I’ll be investing my time instead of wasting it.
-Billy
There’s a difference. People who vote for you expect something back in return. If that goal is ‘liberty’ there’s not a problem. If that goal is the liberty to oppress blacks because they’re blacks, there is a problem.
What’s more: even libertarian leaders should lead.
I wonder in how that’s true. It seems to me that it could very well be that the libertarian message is hurt by a couple of things:
1- the association / the support of racists and bigots and conspiracy theorists
2- Paul’s earmark hypocrisy
3- Paul emphasizes liberty as in ‘not attacking other countries.’ He doesn’t talk nearly enough about the true scope of libertarianism
Sorry messed up blockquotes.
People aren’t interested in Libertarianism as a movement; it’s their own liberty that concerns them.
This article is much ado about nothing.
Many seem to forget that freedom is not a one-group issue. Paul would not be the President of only those people YOU agree with. He would be president of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA…
That means, even those whose ideas you find revolting have rights that must be defended, including white supremisists, 9-11 “truthers” and anyone else. They support him for this reason… He would not limit their speech, but would allow YOU to get up on your own soap-box to disagree with them. They are American with rights that need defending, just as we all do.
He is defending freedom. Period. Is that so hard to understand?
When was this idea lost?
From Cleaner 44:
Go to RP abd the Libertarian Party’s site and tell
me RP never left the Republican Party to run in Libertarian Party. To
all others, who actually ever listened to anything at Republic
Broadcasting or Genisis Communications, while some is “truthers” and
“NWO” other shows focus on car repair, organic gardening and ET’s. Here
is a list of AJ guests, please point out that other than the “crazy
Cindy sisters”, which are the “whackos” in the list. There are a couple
of “Whackos”, but only a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio)
I thought you were talking about a Ron Paul Meetup there for a while.
“I thought you were talking about a Ron Paul Meetup there for a while.”
Well that certainly wasn’t bigotry, huh.
These “libertarian” critics of Ron Paul are just just the libertarian analogue of necons.
Fortunately, Ron Paul isn’t tied down by such easily hijacked labels as “libertarian”.
Yes, it’s bigotry to say that…
Umh.
Wait.
“Fortunately, Ron Paul isn’t tied down by such easily hijacked labels as ‘libertarian’.”
Really? That’s nice. So then… what is he? Not a Libertarian? Then what?
I’ve got a question for these so-called “libertarian” critics of Ron Paul:
Do you or do you not support Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Jimmie wrote: “Gotcha, Albert. So long as the racists and the slanderers help you get what you want, they’re good with you. When you have yours, then they’ll get theirs, right?
I can see why you don’t need to hear the words of a politican. You think too much like them already.”
Got me? How does electing Ron Paul going to help them (the racists and the slanderers as you call them) “get what they want?” You clearly missunderstood what I’m saying and engaging in slandering yourself (should Paul condemn you for being a slanderer?).
Have you heard Paul say that he’s going to give the neo-nazis what they want? What makes you think that he will do that?
The day you see the “racists and slanderers” lobbying in congress to invade a country and kill thousands of people, based on false intelligence (like the neo-cons did), let me know and I’ll stop supporting Paul.
Have peace with everyone, trade with them, exchange ideas, become friends. Don’t interfere with their countries.
Very libertarian!
This is how Ron Paul endeavors to handle people from abroad and you very FEW who applaud this AND would have him ostracize people here, that support those ideas, defies logic and shows that Paul is indeed more libertarian than you are.
Truthers= people who do not believe the the official 911 story and care enough to push for a honest investigation. What is wrong with that? Instead you mock them creating another divisive group.
Racist? These people do not hate in a vacuum and to isolate them will only serve to perpetuate those fears and frustrations that caused the hatred to begin with which will be passed on to their children.
Jason Steck and other so called libertarians need to reevaluate their beliefs.
Ron Paul does not! His campaign is one of inclusion and has served the cause of liberty very well.
Jeff Roark
Stockton California
Yes, as long as you never, EVER disagree or criticize, right?
admin: When it is necessary to edit or delete comments, it is not up for debate. Commenters are free to express any viewpoint they want, but must do so without name-calling, vulgarity, or racial/religious slurs. Those will be removed.
admin: For the last time, the comments policy is not up for debate. Attempts to publicly argue about the comments policy will be deleted automatically. Keep trying and you will be banned. You are free to comment on the substance of the post.
Albert, Albert, Albert, Come on, man. The more you talk, the more I hear parroted catch-phrases.
Here’s what I’m saying. Ron Paul seems to have no problem at all taking the money of racists and slanderers. He’s fine with that dirty money, so long as it gets him what he wants. In other words, he’ll kind of turn a blind eye to them even though he knows who they are and what they stand for use them then cast them aside when they no longer serve his purposes. Just like every other politician.
Jimmie, the only parroted catch-phrases and slander statements are the ones posted by you, especially when you say that Ron Paul somehow sympathizes with “racists and slanderers” because he takes “dirty money” from them. Come on!
Dirty money!
Jason,
That’s absurd! His campaign has libertatians, republicans, democrats, atheists, and ya, even some racists. Far too many different ideologies to list.
It isn’t about our differences that makes the message strong. It is the fact that it brings us together that creates the inclusive nature of his campaign. You and I can always find things to disagree on but that will go nowhere until we find what we agree on.
Jeff
Mere criticism and disagreement are clearly intolerable to many of Ron Paul’s “passionate” online supporters, but they are not in and of themselves “bigotry”.
Comments that contain racial and/or religious slurs ARE bigotry and will be deleted, as will comments that make personal attacks or name-calling against authors or other commenters.
admin: you were warned several times, now you are both banned
Pure Libertarianism is a faulty premise to begin with. Without some collective reasoning and bargaining power (i.e. zoning regulations) the few will ruin all for the many. For the same reason that Communism doesn’t work, so too, pure Libertarianism- People aren’t ideal, and societies are full of morons and idiots.
That said, I may add that any pure discipline is fraught with their own problems. Socialism produces dependants, Capitalism produces pollution and wealth disparities…etc…
Disowning Ron Paul for not being “pure” enough to me displays childish adherance to childish ideals.
As to the argument that he has racists and nutcases on board… “Which Candidate doesn’t?”
When a body is very ill it’s impulses are to pull in all it possesses into its core to protect itself from dying. I think the Ron Paul Revolution is a move as a nation to do just that. I support it as a liberal-leaner because I think our nation needs that right now.
“Mere criticism and disagreement are clearly intolerable to many of Ron Paul’s “passionate” online supporters, but they are not in and of themselves “bigotry”.”
Agreed Jason.
I hope I never conveyed that they were.
These “passionate” supporters are frustrated with the political system and lash out the only way they know how. It is unfortunate but should be expected. Let it go.
Quite a few of the people I know who support Paul can not articulate their reasons. They are just sick and tired of the typical presidential crowd they get to chose from.
Jeff
I find it ironic that “libertarian” Ilya Somin criticizes Ron Paul for having an unlibertarian position on immigration given that Somin himself has taken a very unlibertarian position on foreign policy in his support for the Iraq War.
Having said that, I think it’s a big mistake for the Ron Paul campaign not to give back donations to racist groups such as Stormfront. I realize that the Ron Paul campaign needs as much money as it can garner in order to become competitive with Giuliani and Romney, but when you’re talking about a multimillion dollar campaign, sending back a $500 donation isn’t exactly going to cripple his campaign.
That makes them no better than an infant throwing a tantrum, then, and it surely doesn’t have a valuable place in our political discourse. I’d say that the best thing folks like t hat can do is to calm down a bit and find out exactly what it is they don’t like in others and really like in Paul. then they can jump back in with the rest of us and actually contribute something useful to the conversation.
Thanks for the laughs (and screenshots) guys!
As a Ron Paul supporter a blog like this would typically concern me. But then I remembered that the Libertarian movement is such a small and weak force in this country that this has zero impact. In fact, IT GIVES RON PAUL MORE CREDIBILITY WHEN YOU AND YOUR LOT DISASSOCIATE YOURSELVES. So thanks.
I’m on the board of the Alaska Libertarian Party but I already changed my registration to Republican (as did several other members of the ALP board) in order to be able to support Ron Paul in the Republican Party Caucuses. Remember that, no matter what he’s “registered” as (currently “Republican”), Ron Paul will always be a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.
Ron said, “If Paul’s desire was to actually try to win, as opposed to running a protest campaign, then his affiliation with these groups is counterproductive as it keeps the vast majority of voters from taking him seriously.
Sadly the explanation given in this post would mean that the campaign has essentially become an ego trip for Paul with no real purpose.”
Practicing a bit of propaganda here, are we? You’ve used two propaganda techniques - “Assertion” and “Transfer” - when you assert that Ron Paul has an “affiliation with these groups”. Click http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm for a description of these techniques. He is not affiliated in any manner with these groups. You should be glad that Ron Paul has these misguided people’s attention. Perhaps they’ll learn something from his stated position that racism is the antithesis of liberty. It seems that Mr. van der Galiën and Ron have ignored the fact that this is Dr. Paul’s message to these groups… and that has been his way of declaring that he is NOT affiliated with these groups or their misguided philosophies.
So, if some of these Libertarians aren’t going to vote for Ron Paul, then who will they be voting for? A vote for a RepubliCrat would be moronic (considering their libertarian views). I guess they can vote for the Libertarian candidate as a protest vote
Call Ron Paul what you wish, but calling him an egotist is like calling George Bush a patriot.
Mr. van der Galiën, you’ll have to do much better than this if you want to fractionalize Ron Paul’s support base. You’re looking like an amateur.
Libertarianism is a philosophy and way of life first, and a political party second. Ron Paul is just a life-long libertarian that realizes that the Republican Party offers candidates a better chance of getting elected. Who can blame him?
Jimmy,
More like children throwing a tantrum if you ask me but overall I Agree. There will always be some individual out there that will not do what you suggest. My point is to expect this kind of behavior, not excuse it, and to march on without letting these “infantile” out burst trip us up. Maybe children should be seen more than heard but since when did children ever agree with that and adhere to it?
Jeff
The rest of the GOP would love RP to spend all his energy fighting people who support him for the wrong reasons. RP is too smart to fall for that trap.
my takes:
1) anyone who thinks WTC 7 fell down from a fire is batshit crazy.
2) RP is aware that 9/11 was an inside job. When elected, he will order the FBI to release secret documents and reveal the plot.
3) anyone who thinks WTC 7 fell down because some debris hit it, is nuts.
WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=this+is+an+orange+wtc+7&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
I believe you are being overly critical sir. He is the only libertarian-minded candidate with a legitimate chance of becoming an actual US President in many, many years.
Great conversation starter though I suppose…
Ron Paul has the greatest support of any Republican among African Americans and other Minorities.
I’ve been a registered Libertarian for 23 years and I support Ron Paul.
These “hit” articles only reinforce my belief that a change must occur and Ron Paul is the direction I want to go.
Edited by MvdG. Don’t ever go after the posters at this blog.
@James Madison:
Yeah, I think so, too.
Even those who believe everything they were told concerning 9/11 have to admit that releasing those documents that were withheld or heavily censored should be fully released to the public, even if that just disproves the conspiracy theories.
It is very unhealthy for a country if a significant portion believes that the government lies, the distrust does much more damage than all the informations in the documents ever could.
After reading these posts, I remember why I gave up on the Libertarian Party long ago… now I’m a libertarian (small l). Go ahead with your slug-fest… I’m gonna keep my eye on the ball. You guys are like the leaves blowing in the header image of this page… pretty when you first look at them, but after awhile your realize they’re dead and blowing away to go rot someplace.
RE: Clawg
good points.
RP will also get to the bottom of this question:
by 9:03 on 9/11, we had 3 airplanes hijacked with people on the planes calling for help as early as 8:18 A.M.
we had 2 planes fly into the Twin Towers.
CNN took only 2 MINUTES after the first plane hit the Tower, to get a live feed on national TV.
BUT what happens at the Pentagon?
by 9:37, not one single air jet was sent up to defend the skies of Washington.
if this is not a conspiracy, then some military leaders are criminally negligent.
http://www.911research.com
Edit by MvdG: Jack, if you read this blog you know that we have three golden rules. One of them is: never debate the comment policy publicly. Don’t like a decision? Send an e-mail. And no, we’re not debating about in the comment thread either. If you’ve got a problem, send an e-mail and I’ll be happy to explain decisions, etc. to you.
Edit by MvdG: for your information, we’re actually constantly in the top WordPress blogs.
Michael van der Galiën seems to have difficulty recognizing the impending doom that is coming to the world.
He is caught up with trivialities and does more harm to his cause than good.
his attempts at ill fated logic would be best suited to attacking Rudy or Hillary; putting the microscope on their numerous transgressions.
By attacking Ron Paul with issues of “Because I Feel He Should” lends to the fact that one of these actual associates of criminals may make it into the presidency.
If this happens your homeland will not be safe. Nuclear War Will Come To all reaches of the civilized world. You will not escape.
Michael van der Galiën, you would do well to re-evaluate what is actually at stake this election cycle.
As I see it Ron Paul is the only hope to avert disaster.
I’m a libertarian, have been since 2002 and I still support Ron Paul 100%. In fact, I would fault him for appearing on Fox News, a news station that is known to lie and manipulate the truth, has even won a lawsuit saying they have the right to manipulate the truth before I would fault him for appear on the alex jones show. Atleast alex jones is up front and truthful in what he believes, even if I don’t agree with him 100%.
Personally, I don’t watch or listen to either one. Nor would I, or will I ever choose the candidate I support based on anything other than the issues.
And I am curious, if Ron Paul isn’t the best candidate for libertarians, then who do these people see that is so much better? Why is it that everytime I see someone putting down Ron Paul, they can never show me who is better. If there is a better candidate than Ron Paul, I’m all ears. But I have yet to see a single candidate that is even close to him.
People are sick and tired of the governing class of America. Vote Ron Paul 2008 to restore our liberty!
JFK was assassinated for going against the Fed and printing Silver Certificates IMO.
LBJ’s first act as President on the plane back to DC from Dallas was to stop the presses printing the silver certificates!
I think Ron Paul is a first tier assassination candidate when he becomes a formidable foe to the establishment.
I strongly believe the first scenario is the truth and the second is despicable and irrelevant.
Why does anyone get worked up over “troofers”. We all know they are wrong. Why not have an investigation and prove them wrong. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about fringe candidates like Ron Paul.
Michael, tell Jason to take a chill pill. There is no reason to attack Paul supporters just because of “troofers”. I think the fact that he wants to give up all that oil we now have our hands on is enough to disqualify him.
Right on Marty!
I personally could care less if it was 9/11 was an inside job. We now have the chance to control most of the world oil supply and Ron Paul is nutz to give that up. What ever lives are wasted is nothing compared to the profit that is to be made.
Wow, Libertarians Break With Paul and Ron Paul Bad for Libertarianism? on the same day.
Trying to make a point Michael? From the looks of the comments, none of us believe you.
Nice try though!
USAF Vet Dan brilliantly wrote:
Co-signed,
Dan Alba
The more I visit blogs the more I come to see 2 sides of America.
1) The side that thinks we must fight them over, there and control the oil.
2)The side that knows America’s empire building is ruining the country, and American policy is based on a lie.
You must pick 1 side in in 2008, may you do it after you have educated yourselves.
“some Libertarians believe that Ron Paul is bad for the Libertarian movement (because of his association with ‘truthers,’ white supremacists, and so on).”
Scary. Not surprisingly, Libertarians do not care about electing the best candidate. Pompous hair-splitting and self-important navel-gazing are what really matters.
How ironic is it that Libertarians don’t want to be associated with assorted kooks. From the perspective of Republicans (and that is what actually matters) - Libertarians are every bit as much kooks as troofers and neo-Nazis. So by all means, do withdraw your support - and withdraw it loudly. The less of you there is in the picture, the more of a chance for Ron Paul to actually get the nomination.
“Here’s what I’m saying. Ron Paul seems to have no problem at all taking the money of racists and slanderers. He’s fine with that dirty money, so long as it gets him what he wants.”
Why would their money be “dirty”. For everything you know they earned it by performing laudable services.
Vote Rudy. He looks way better in a dress than Hillary.
Hillary is just an ex-first lady.
With Rudy you get a president AND a first lady at the same time!
One only needs to look at Ron Paul’s voting record and personal behavior. The guy has never sold out. He votes against bills that would help those in his own district, yet they keep re-electing him.
Why? Because Paul’s intellectually honest and has demonstrated a degree of integrity that most of us could only dream about. I’ve never seen a person adhere to his own principles against all tides the way Ron Paul has.
He entered politics out of concern for his fellow man. He is humble, self depreciating and an open book.
To suggest he’s going to sell out to some skin head for 500 bucks is absurd. Further, to suggest it’s a personal ego trip ignores all reality.
It appears Mr. Michael van der Galiën has caught the politically correct virus and has taken on the thought police memes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Ron Paul has clearly defined his views and motivations over many years. He has served his country, served his fellow man and has fought long and hard for our constitutional principles.
For Ron Paul to speak out specifically on every loony that sends him money just brings attention to the said loony that they don’t deserve. Ron Paul is above the fray and isn’t going to go on a apology tour to satisfy the irrational collations and absurd suggestions of some internet blogger who is unable to comprehend the big picture.
the author wrote that he agrees with this statement:
“Paul didn’t expect to do so well. Suddenly he sees money coming in constantly. He’s part of a movement. Its leader even. He didn’t expect it and now that it’s happening he’s simply enjoying the ride. He’s not occupied with ‘who’ support him, nor with why they support him. He’s happy that they’re supporting him: they’re taking him somewhere he didn’t expect to be. ”
Paul, and the message of liberty, are taking Paul supporters somewhere none expected to be.
To accept the authors’ reasoning, you have to believe that Ron Paul lusts for power.
I simply is ABSURD to believe that “Libertarians are breaking” with Ron Paul. There aren’t enough to make such a fissure measureable.
I live in a very socialist part of Canada, i.e. province of Québec.
And I became a libertarian
How many ‘truthers’ has Paul convinced that 9/11 was an inept government making poor choices? How many radicals has Paul tempered with his even-keel logic? When you shun a group, you allow their ideas to fester. Ron Paul is spreading the right message to a group of potential supporters. He is telling them, “The government is not necessarily out to get you, and by the way there is something you can do to help fix the problem - vote for me.”
Jesus spent his time with criminals and prostitutes - to temper their ideas. Paul is a uniter. People talk about achieving consensus, yet when they see that process in action, they balk. People talk about limiting the growth of government, yet when they see the policies that will limit it, they cringe. People talk about the danger Paul poses to the nation, but when they experience the effects of freedom - they will rejoice.
Everyone has conspiracy theories. Our secretive and fascist government gaurantees that. Most of the theories are false, but some are true. Some people believe that there is a conspiracy to make Paul look like he has a bigger presence on the internet than he has.
Racists are not a danger to our nation. Only those who believe that government can stop racism are the danger. Only private action can stop racism for the same reason that only you can prevent forest fires.
Vote Ron Paul.
Sorry, here is the rest of my message:
And I became a libertarian since i’ve read a lot of Ron Paul (and others) writings.
So, please stop spreading this idea:
‘Anyway, what I find interesting to see is that increasingly more Libertarians are abandoning Paul’
-Michael van der Galiën
The reality is: for each libertarian who thinks Ron Paul is not ‘pure’ enough, probably 10 more are LEARNING, BECAUSE Ron Paul is running for president in 2008.
He really cured my apathy, and I really understand the way the monetary system (and gvt) should work…
And I really like your constitution… and i think americains are ‘lucky’ to have this base ton back to.
So, nobody should take a few outspoken people and make a rule out of it…
Ron Paul is invited to speak at some forum. He goes and expresses his ideas. Period. Conclusion: Ron Paul has ideas to express. Any conclusion beyond that is bogus. Libertarians seem to have a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot. This may be your last opportunity at changing the headlong, disastrous course of empire.
Sebastien: if you read my other writings, I think you will quickly notice that I’m actually quite sympathetic towards libertarians. As for Paul: I agree, he could help the Libertarian movement.
Sadly, I think that he’s hurting the Libertarian movement by putting up with the white supremacists of stormfront, for instance.
If you only go on radio or TV programs whose hosts you completely agree with, you won’t be on radio or TV much, if at all. If Ron Paul doesn’t go on Alex Jones’s program, should he also not go on FOX News to be interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity or on CNN to be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer? Guilt by association can be carried to ridiculous extremes.
Michael, I usually enjoy reading your posts but this is repetitive nonsense. First, let me say, I consider myself a
market anarchist (a true libertarian). I’m also, as you know from previous posts, a Ron Paul supporter even though
he is a Republican (not a true libertarian). Ron Paul isn’t pretending to be libertarian, but like the Volokh
bloggers, it sounds like Kevin is. I’m not going to bother reading Kevin’s post since you claim he links to a piece
by Ilya Somin (who is less libertarian than Paul) and, if the post is as weak as the other recent Volokh posts about Paul, it would be a waste of my time anyway.
I’m not sure where the phrase “sucking up” comes from but I hope you’re quoting Kevin because if those are your
words, you sir, are a dramatic liar. Are Judge Anthony Napolitano, FOX’s John Gibson or National Public Radio
“sucking up” to conspiracy theorists? They all have been hosted or hosted Alex Jones interviews. Do you want more names? Paul has stated clearly on multiple occassions that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
There is absolutely no reason why Paul should care why someone is supporting him because it’s not going to change what he would do were he to win the presidency. There is only one valid reason they could be supporting him… they want the federal government to abide by the Constitution. If they’re supporting him for any other reason, they’re wasting their money. The people who suggest Paul return the money are the people who should have their character questioned. After all, they want Paul to put money into the hands of hatemongers where it would work to promote hate instead of liberty.
David Bernstein (at Volokh) says it would be bad if various unsavory characters are attached to the libertarian label by the public. Of course, he is naive if he doesn’t realize that is already the public view of the libertarian label and, since Ron Paul started receiving national attention, more has been done to change that than anything since I first realized I was a libertarian 20 years ago.
Thomas DiLorenzo sums it up:
I associate with Truthers. Yes, it’s true. My own brother is a truther. I don’t agree with him, but I still talk to him. I insist that our government is not competent enough to pull off the massive conspiracy he imagines, and that Occam’s Razor should be applied here. The only thing we can agree on regarding that subject is that only a fully transparent investigation will do to prove this stuff right or wrong, and that Ron Paul is one of the few people with the kind of integrity we both can trust. I think it’s absolutely fair to ask our government to explain WTC 7 in detail. I also think Ron Paul is closer to my point of view than my brother’s. Is that OK, or am I guilty of some kind of thought crime?
I just listened to the Alex Jones show, or at least the recent Ron Paul interview posted on Youtube. Perhaps I should do some sort of penance? There was absolutely nothing in the interview about the Truther movement or theories. All the questions seemed pretty innocuous to me, although they were clearly from an anti-establishment point of view. I know from reading a lot that Alex Jones is a huge Truther, but none of that seemed to come through while he was talking to Dr. Paul. In fact, it was a pretty good interview. I see no reason whatsoever for Dr. Paul not to have done it. If this is how Alex Jones treats Dr. Paul on the air all the time, then I can see why he keeps going back. Not many radio guys are going to display that kind of reverence and support.
As for the donations, I was somewhat dismayed to find out that some racists were supporting Dr. Paul, but I disagree that Paul should hunt them out and return the money. Racism, in my view, is complete idiocy, but it’s protected idiocy as long as it’s just an opinion. That’s part of the compromise associated with free speech. If those guys want to support Ron Paul, I’m inclined to let it go. The alternative is that they send their money and support to the Neo-Nazi candidate or some other odious figure. I’d rather see that money put to constructive use instead.
I don’t like the fact that their support is potentially damaging to the campaign, but there’s little to be done about it. If Stormfront opposes Bush’s policies, socialism and the Federal Reserve (as it appears they do), then Ron Paul is probably their only real choice. We don’t have to like them, but they have the right to vote (and donate) just like we do.
Libertarians were bickering about ideological purity long before I joined the LP during Harry Browne’s campaign in 2000, and they will continue forever, I imagine. I still believe that’s part of the problem with the party. We have little unity on a lot of details. Ron Paul is an honest man, with a proven record to back up his commitment to liberty. He describes himself as a Constitutionalist, which isn’t exactly the same thing as a purist Libertarian, but it’s close enough for me. I have no better option, and I’ve looked hard and long. Ron Paul is the only hope for our ideas to break into the mainstream again. Hell, it’s already happening! Not since Goldwater has anyone tapped into this vein of thought with any success. Reagan was similar in many ways with his rhetoric, but no cigar in execution. Certainly a philosophy based on individualism can allow for variances… at least I’d hope so.
I have to laugh at the idea of cookie-cutter Libertarians. It’s not the nature of the beast.
Yes I know you are sympathetic towards Ron Paul (I read a lot !). I simply think that you are exagerating, a little.
What you are seeing with this movement is POSITIVE IN EVERY WAY for the ’cause’ i.e. spreading libertarian/constitutional ideas…
Maybe some Libertarian longtimers are to intellectual and don’t see the long term -POSITIVE- aspect on the effect of Ron Paul running for president…
One thing is sure: Ron Paul is not perfect, but close enough for me…
Ron Paul is the right man for NOW. A lot of intellectuals tried to spread this message and could not reach so much people. Everybody has a role in this movement, and intellectuals have to know when it’s time for positive action…
So, yes, some of Ron Paul donations come from the ‘wrongs’ sources… but he can use it in a good way and this situation is nothing compared to ALL the good coming out of all this campaign.
If you were Ron Paul, what would you do about those donations and people like Alex Jones ?
One thing is for sure, this ‘question’ is not easy to answer, beacause if Ron Paul begins to refuse some donations or interviews, it might become a ‘witch hunt’ that will hurt the spreading of the ‘near-perfect-message’…
Hey Michael van der Galiën, I’m one of those “racists” (another hijacked word) who supports Ron Paul.
Get a load of this:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Audio_Hardcore_Racist_Support_for_Ron_Paul_Explained
Here is my last comment for now:
Ron Paul (or any politican for that mather) can not ’screen’ everybody’s ideology to make sure everything is ‘ok’.
When you take that path, nothing positive can come out of it.
Liberty ! … as long as people obey the fundamentals rigths of people…
***
And I think Svetlana Ivanova (comment #99) is right when she says;
‘If you only go on radio or TV programs whose hosts you completely agree with, you won’t be on radio or TV much, if at all.’
Sebastien,
Michael is not being completely truthful with you.
The ONLY people that talk about the “white supremacists of stormfront” are anti-Paulers like himself. Have you EVER heard a racist remark for Ron Paul? Michael hasn’t either, but the myth works to his agenda.
I’m a libertarian, and I see no reason to break from the paul campaign, the fact is, these people are endorsing paul, not the other way around, Pauls favorite economists, Friedrech Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises were germans, who despised nationalism and socialism. They wrote books detailing how the country had gotten to such a state, and interestingly enough it looks an awful lot like the plan the “status quo” republicans and democrats are pushing.
Paul’s campaign has taken a stance on the neo nazi’s, and that stance is, that they wasted their money.
More like Paul is converting hoards of people to libertarianism. In case you haven’t realized yet, Paul’s mission is to educate. He’s only running for president as a means to spread his message. If he gets elected in the process, fine. If not, fine. Either way, he wins.
To quote Ayn Rand:
“A candidate does not have to agree with all those who vote for him – they have to agree with him (or at least to a limited extent). It is his function to offer a program – theirs is only to accept or reject it at the polls. Under a two-party system, any candidate will necessarily have an enormously mixed following. To judge a candidate not by his own views but by the views of his followers – over whose irrationality, inconsistency, stupidity or dishonesty he has no control, whose contradictory demands he could not possibly reconcile – is worse than unjust: it is absurdly evil. It is a repudiation of the entire concept of national elections and parliamentary government.
A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total agreement with a candidate – and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation – a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter merely chooses the lesser of two evils.
If a candidate disagrees with some group, he is free to say so. But to attack, to smear, to repudiate the support of any legitimate group means to disenfranchise its members, since they have no other party to vote for and since they cannot, in honor, vote for a man who slaps their faces.”
Not all conspiracy theories are created equal. One particularly humorous libertarian conspiracy theory is that Abraham Lincoln’s real name was Abraham Saperstein and he was an agent of an international, Jewish banking conspiracy to destroy America. Repudiation of Lincoln is a matter of faith and doctrine with Libertarians that simply ignores historical fact and the entire body of Lincoln’s titanic prose and the entire body of affirmation of Lincoln by great souls of the magnitude of Emerson, Whitman and Dorothy Thompson. Libertarians complaining about Ron Paul giving and ear to conspiracy theorists is rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And it’s rather disingenous of Libertarians to seek to overtake the Republican Party which is the Party of Lincoln by stealth, soft peddling their repudiation of Lincoln.
But other conspiracy theories are more credible, for example, the Papal support of Jeff Davis in America’s civil war. Theories arise to explain phenomena that are not otherwise adequately explained. For example, Fox News reported on the morning of 911-2001, that there were no signs of any plane or deceased passengers of the plane that was reported to have crashed into a field in Pennsylvania on that morning. The government report on the events of 911-2001 does not address the issue. These are facts in the public domain. This is not theory, conspiracy or otherwise. These are facts that are inarguably documented in the public record. There is video tape of the Fox News report on the scene of the plane crash. Nor is it theory to ask what happened to the plane and the passengers. It is a reasonable question. The answer is obscured by wildly speculative conspiracy theories as well as by the evasion of the government 911 report.
Why then, are none of the candidates asking the question. I believe, and here you may accused me of conspiracy theory, that a principle is in force that is paralleled in Nazi History. “It is a crime in Germany today”, reported columnist Dorothy Thomson from German, “to report crime”. Certain questions are taboo. There may not be an committee deciding what questions may be asked or what events reported. But there is certainly a zeitghe