Why So Many Conservatives Don't Like Ron Paul

Right Wing News ^

[mnehring]

It's no secret that I don't care much for Ron Paul, but after reading some of the hurt and angry responses from Ron Paul fans to his first place finish in the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right (2007 Edition) poll, I thought it might be worth taking the time to explain to them why Paul is so unpopular with mainstream conservatives.

In an effort to be polite, I am not going to be snarky about it, but I should forewarn Paul's fans and, for that matter, any "Big L" Libertarians who may be reading, that they are probably not going to like what they read. I'm not trying to be insulting, but without a certain amount of bluntness, it's impossible to get some of these points across.

First of all, a lot of Republicans are strongly pro-war and the fact that Ron Paul is not only anti-war, but has adopted some of the more obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric of the Left about the war is extremely grating. According to Paul, Iraq is a war for oil and empire, engineered by neocons, and in Paul's book, we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.

When you aim that sort of rhetoric at people who strongly support the war and feel that it's justified, moral, and in America's best interests, it's guaranteed to generate a huge wave of hostility. Additionally, Paul's thoughtless, "we must leave immediately, regardless of the consequences," position on Iraq comes across as poorly thought out. Even if you thought that the war was a bad idea and opposed it from day one, the idea that we can simply extricate ourselves from Iraq immediately because it's unpleasant, with no consequences, is the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a 16 year old at an anti-war rally, not something you expect from a candidate for President. Even Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, all of whom have spent months trying to convince their base that they're the most anti-war of all the top tier candidates, are saying we may be in Iraq for years to come.

Incidentally, this is a problem with a lot of the things Ron Paul wants do: they're impractical in the extreme. Paul is an isolationist, even though that hasn't been the policy of the United States since the thirties. Paul wants to go back to the gold standard, which again, the US went off of in the thirties. Ron Paul also wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913.

This sort of thinking, which treats government policy as if it's an intellectual exercise with easily changeable parameters is, in my experience, a common failing of "Big L" Libertarians. In Paul's case, it's almost like his thinking goes, "Let's assume that the last 95 years haven't happened. If I could go back in time to that political climate, what changes would I make?"

You can argue that's how the world should work, but it's not how the world does work. You can't simply undo decades of history and culture, with almost no support for doing so in your own party, the opposing party, or from the general population.

Along those same lines, Paul wants to get rid of the CIA, opposes the Patriot Act, and wants to legalize hard drugs. Taking in all those positions in addition to others mentioned earlier just emphasizes the fact that he does not take into consideration how implementing the ideas that he's presenting will affect the world. In that sense Paul, and for that matter, most "Big L" Libertarians are more similar than they'd like to believe to the wildly impractical, Marxist college professors that conservatives love to snicker at. To people like Paul and these professors, their beliefs seem to be largely divorced from any sort of real world impact that may occur or the political reality that has to be dealt with.

You can win pats on the back for your purity or you can accomplish something in the political arena, but you usually can't do both. Ron Paul does not seem to have figured that out.

Going beyond that, Ron Paul's support for the North American Union conspiracy and his winks and nods to the 9/11 truther crowd appall many conservatives. After spending much of the last six years ripping on liberals for tolerating wild eyed conspiracy theorists, it's embarrassing to many conservatives to have someone on our side, running for President, who's encouraging people on the Right to behave in the same fashion.

This leads us to the last big problem that Ron Paul has: despite the fact that Ron Paul is polling at somewhere between 2%-4% nationally, he has, for whatever reason, more obnoxious supporters backing him than all the other candidates combined. If you write a column or a post knocking John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, you'll certainly have some people disagreeing with you, some of them strongly. If you knock Ron Paul, you'll often have hordes of social misfits making obnoxious comments, spamming your polls, touting conspiracy theories, insulting conservatives in general, and doing everything possible to make nuisances of themselves.

That's not to say that Ron Paul doesn't have his strong points. He is committed to smaller government, slashing spending, liberty, and the Constitution. However, he also has more crippling flaws than any other candidate running for the GOP nomination and those problems cannot be treated as if they don't exist or are irrelevant.

[ejonesie22]

Ok, that works well in theory but 200 plus years of our history prove otherwise.

I understand libertarians and there eschewing of all things government, but most people including conservatives know there are a few things that have come about over the years that need a bigger picture approach.

[Wallace T.]

The crisis of the Civil War being the exception, the Federal government essentially stayed within the boundaries of the Constitution until the late 19th Century, with the rise of the Progressive and Populist movements. Except for the post office, Americans at the turn of the last century had, by and large, no contact with the Federal government. The truly rapid expansion of Federal power started with the New Deal and has never really stopped, although there was some respite in the first term of Ronald Reagan. Thus, for over half our history as a republic, the Federal government was nearly invisible, and until about 75 years ago was minimally intrusive.

Until the rise of Progressivism and Populism, both parties favored sound money, states rights, and a free market economy. The Democrats represented the interests of small farmers and urban workers, and the Whigs and later the Republicans the interests of business owners and the middle class. As a result, the Democrats opposed high tariffs and internal improvements like canals while Republicans supported them. After slavery was abolished and Reconstruction ended, both parties agreed on a minimalist approach to government. This was also the time that America developed from a mostly agricultural nation with vast stretches of thinly settled or uninhabited land to the industrial and financial powerhouse of the world. It is the American individual, not the American bureaucrat or politician, that made this country what it has been.

The rise of powerful government parallels the decline in moral virtues among the American population. I am not proposing a cause and effect relationship, but it is noteworthy that as government power increased, personal honesty, business ethics, and even sexual morality declined. This process parallels what happened in ancient Rome. Of course, we know what happened to Rome.

[ejonesie22]

Cause and effect. We shifted economically, socially and technically. The world grew vastly more complex and complicated during that time frame as well. New technology also out stripped the ability of certain processes to make them work effectively and safely.

Again, nothing in a vacuum. Like you said, essentially we stayed in the boundries. But that also means that almost from day one we would exceed the boundaries of the Constitution. More demands on the system required more solutions.

I am no fan of Government waste or bureaucracy, but I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water to try and reach some ideal that we really have not stayed on 100% to begin with. There is some good going on out there, I see it. the waste too. I am not one to kill the good to destroy the bad, I want it surgically removed and left with what a modern society needs.

[Fester Chugabrew]

While this article might tone down the rhetoric it essentially oversimplifies and states the obvious: Conservatives want this war and Paul does not. What is the substantive reason for using our resources to establish democracy in the midst of peoples who prefer to be enslaved?

To submit gradual changes since 1913 as reason to dismiss a direct turn toward smaller government and more individual freedom is not to make a substantive argument. The changes we’ve endured over the past quarter of our history have been away from our founding principles. How is it that conservatives would oppose a turn back toward those principles?

To label Paul as an isolationist and defeatist is a distortion of his positions. He is an advocate of international business trade. He would never accept sharia law as operative among the free people of the USA.

I am not particularly a fan of Ron Paul’s, but I don’t see much good in misunderstanding or misrepresenting his ideas. Although this is a well-written piece overall, the knee-jerk ad hominem material in subsequent posts is far less than edifying.

[the tongue]

“Ron Paul is a daydreamer. Yes, his dreams hold a vision for some, but they are a few. The realists know what it will take and want no part of daydreams. We want reality. And that does NOT mean we have to accept the status quo. We simply have a more realistic approach to what’s in store.”

So a realistic approach to solving the problem of socialism in America is to support and elect a person who wants to increase the socialist tendency of our government? I’m lost here, Junior.
All of the rest of the GOP field supports an increase in government power and intrusion into our lives in some way, shape or form instead of getting us back to the Constitution. Somebody needs to draw a line in the sand, and it sure as hell won’t be Romney, Guliani, McCain or any of the other favorites.

[Wallace T.]

The problem is 90% plus of what the Feds do extra-Constitutionally is bad. As for whether big government is an outcome of modernity, remember that some of the most authoritarian regimes, such as the Roman Empire, existed centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Additionally, America’s greatest period of industrial and agricultural growth was during the era of minimalist government, especially at the Federal level.

[ejonesie22]

Well I don’t know about 90, though I would agree to a majority. But what of the remainder that is good, needed and “extra Constitutional” how do we address that.

[2CAVTrooper]

Actually I believe the interstate highways technically are covered under interstate commerce as well as national defense.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Yep. That’s exactly what he says. He says Iran doesn’t even have a military.”

And the sad part is the ronbots actually believe it despite the fact that they (as of 2005) had:
1,618 Main Battle Tanks
80 Light Tanks
645 Armored Fighting Vehicles
640 Armored Personnel Carriers
2,085 pieces of Towed Artillery
310 Self Propelled Howitzers
900 Multiple Rocket Launchers
350 Surface to Surface Missiles
100 Attack Helicopters
200 Transport Helicopters
75 Anti-Tank Guided Weapons systems

That doesn’t include their “special operations” forces which is estimated at 30,000, nor does it include the elite republican guard units. Then there is their airforce and navy and a whole assload of brainwashed zipperheads in that country willing to strap some TNT to themselves.

[Little Ray]

Because he’s a freakin’ loon?
(No offense to waterfowl type loons intended...)

[2CAVTrooper]

“As for NASA, the lunar expedition and the space shuttle were/are boondoggles that benefited some sectors of the economy, such as the aerospace industry, to the detriment of the taxpayers.”

Uh, NASA, the lunar missions and the space shuttle have benefitted more than just the aerospace industry.

[ejonesie22]

Not according to arguments I have had will Paul supporters. They hammer on post roads and feel that saying the Interstates were developed for defense ( which they were, there used to be supply caches, and may still be, stored along the system) is just a ruse for big gov’t interference.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Is anyone challenging TehRon for his congressional seat next year?”

Yes.

The name escapes me right now, but reading his website he other night the guy not only has a firm grasp on reality, but is closer to Reagan than ron “Dr. Do-Nothing” paul can ever dream of being

[2CAVTrooper]

“Not according to arguments I have had will Paul supporters. They hammer on post roads and feel that saying the Interstates were developed for defense ( which they were, there used to be supply caches, and may still be, stored along the system) is just a ruse for big gov’t interference.”

Funny how everything is some sort of conspiracy to them.

[ejonesie22]

Funny applies to a lot of their ideas...

[Allegra]

The name escapes me right now...

Chris Peden.

I'm not from Dr. Moonbat's district (I am represented by Jon Culberson, thank goodness), but I hope Peden wins that seat.

[Wallace T.]

If NASA were strictly a military program, conducted for the purpose of enhancing national defense, there would be no problem with the program either from a Constitutional standpoint or in connection with a limited government philosophy. From the Constitutional standpoint, you are left with only the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses, the "wax noses" through which Federal authority has grown to the detriment of both individual freedom and states rights. In the Cold War days, there may have been justification from the standpoint of foreign policy, as the Soviet Union, our main adversary for over 40 years, was using their space program for both military leverage and political prestige. That ended in 1989, although with Russia reverting into its ages old, anti-Western authoritarianism and China as a superpower wannabe, the issue of the military and foreign policy implications of space travel may arise again.

The civilian uses of space travel may exist, but governmental involvement in these matters represents interference in the marketplace, where the proper role of government should be to act as neutrally as possible within its core roles of protecting the citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic, and administering justice. Some useful advances in technology and even consumer goods were generated by the space program, but doing so required the taking of tax revenues from the citizenry and distributing them to others.

The basic premise behind the civilian space program and other schemes to assist commerce is the political and economic philosophy called mercantilism. One of the causes of our War for Independence was opposition to the British Crown placing limits on domestic manufacturers and on colonial trade within and without the British Empire, to the benefit of English merchants and manufacturers. Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention, there were conflicts between the factions that favored government neutrality with respect to business and those who favored internal improvements and tariffs. At the convention and thereafter, there were compromises made, for instance, allowing for the construction of post roads (though not the dredging of harbors or land grants for railroads or canals) and the imposition of tariffs, but a Tenth Amendment that was to restrict the Federal powers to those enumerated in the Constitution, with the remainder to be reserved to the states and the people.

In the first century of American history, there was a continual friction between those who wanted aggressive use of Federal power for internal improvements and de facto business subsidies, for example, Hamilton, Clay, and Grant, and those who favored minimal government, such as Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland (though none of the three were perfectly consistent). The sea change came in the 1890s when the Democratic Party, of the latter tradition, became dominated by politicians who favored use of government power to regulate business to protect the farmers and workers. The seminal year in this regard was 1896, when the Populist William Jennings Bryan won the Democratic nomination for President. Adding to the Populism influence toward statism was the Progressive movement, which favored the income tax and use of Federal money to help regulate big business or to achieve "social justice" through wealth redistribution schemes. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were the vehicles through which what would become modern liberalism would take over the once laissez faire party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland.

The problem with the Republicans who opposed the Populist and Progressive movements was their blaring inconsistency. On what basis can a person oppose public welfare and regulatory schemes when he supports use of public funds to favor industry through direct subsidies, land grants, tariffs, etc.? The farmer who receives crop subsidies is hypocritical when he whines about big city welfare mothers. The liberals use the same argument in 2007 when they complain about the Administration being miserly with regard to Federal medical care for children while supporting "sweetheart" deals with politically connected contractors like Halliburton or Blackwater. The liberals are echoing arguments that have been used since the days of William Jennings Bryan, and against which conservatives have been caving for over a century.

If we as conservatives are ever to recover ground from the Left, we must be consistent in our arguments. Except for issues of national defense or the administration of justice for individual citizens, the best stance is one that consistently supports government neutrality in the marketplace and the inviolability of property rights.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Funny applies to a lot of their ideas...”

Ain’t that the truth.

[2CAVTrooper]

So NASA tramples individual as well as state’s rights? Wow you ronbots are really getting deserate if you have to resort to pulling things out of thin air.....Oh wait, that’s all you ronbots have ever done from day one.

As far as message, our message is quite clear...We can not afford to have a sniveling little bed wetting coward (or any democrat for that matter) in office at this point in history.

Was the village idiot asleep at the wheel back in 1993? It’s obvious that he didn’t learn a damn thing that happened post Somalia when the pants dropper in chief had us tuck tail and run (just as ron “Dr. Do-Nothing” paul said he would do with Iraq). That retreat only emboldened the terrorists because it showed that we were weak and they attacked us again, and again, and again. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to see one of our cities disappear beneath a mushroom cloud because Mr. Namby Pamby wanted to play isolationist and treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

[Wallace T.]

So NASA tramples individual as well as state’s rights?

Try reading the post before commenting. My argument against NASA as a civilian agency is that it represents a mercamtilist viewpoint of government intervention, rather than a free market one of government neutrality.

Wow you ronbots

Wrong again. My favorite GOP candidates are Hunter Thompson and Tom Tancredo. To imply that support for limited, Constitutional government means that the supporter is an isolationist is a nonsensical inference. Are supporters of an aggressive foreign policy socialists? Of course not.

I don’t know about you but I don’t want to see one of our cities disappear beneath a mushroom cloud because Mr. Namby Pamby wanted to play isolationist and treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

Your rant is misdirected. I agree that isolationism is misguided in our time, although it was appropriate for this country in the 18th and 19th Centuries. However, we need to fight the Iraqi war to win, rather than the limited war strategy we have used over these last four and one half years reminiscent of Korea and Vietnam, a failure that the current surge will hopefully correct. This war could have been ended victoriously several years ago had we fought the terrorists the way we fought the Japanese and the Germans.

Ron Paul is misguided on the war in Iraq, but so are those people who support an endless, no win war. There is no substitute for victory.