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.

[bcsco]

I think we can all agree the Federal Government has grown too large, too big-brotherish and too incompetent. But to believe we can effectively turn the clocks back is insane (at least in the short or ever relatively long-term).

To those who claim their only real problem with Paul is his stance on the WOT I ask: Please, think about this long and hard. His ideas may seem nice and cuddly and warm, but there is no depth of understanding, no real wisdom. It’s all ‘feel good’ fluff. It ain’t gonna happen, folks. And if we tried, we’d have hell to pay.

[SJackson]

Why So Many Conservatives Don't Like Ron Paul

That’s harsh, half the people who know him like him. Hillary doesn’t do much better.

****************

"I would have trouble arguing that he's [GWB]been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

****************

Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus. I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."

****************

If you understand what motivates suicide terrorism, you'll realize it's not radical Islam.

****************

A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways (me-Pearl Harbor Only One Month of 1941 Traffic Deaths)

****************

Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years

****************

That was no country...That was 19 thugs (9.11 Terrorists). That had nothing to do with a country

****************

I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution….We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law

****************

We have money that is created out of thin air. And from an Austrian viewpoint this inevitably leads to over-investment, over-capacity, speculation, excessive debt and mal-distribution of wealth Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war,

****************

After Vietnam that did not happen [a slaughterhouse], which was what was predicted; we're trading partners and they're capitalistic now, more so than ever before! So, there's reason to be pessimistic.

****************

The NAFTA Superhighway. And uh… They’re talking about the “ Omero” as a currency. It’s the early stages… It’s exactly what happened in the early stages of the European Union.

Who’s responsible -- who’s behind that?

RP: Those people who are really in charge of our government.

****************

The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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.

Bumped for THE TRUTH!!!

[Allegra]

This is sort of creepy.

Ron Paul Visits My Dorm Room

[bcsco]

How about if the “decades of history and culture” have led us to a headlong rush to socialism? We should support candidates who will continue the rush, just at a slower pace? I don’t get that thinking.

Where did I say we should support candidates that support a rush to socialism, even at a slower pace? Where? Please provide the words.

The point is, today's America wasn't created in a day or a decade. To believe we can go back to the 19th century or beyond is ridiculous. It is pie-in-the-sky daydreaming. It would take years, decades to undo what has been done, and that's if everyone jumped on board at least somewhat.

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.

[ejonesie22]

We could cut the Government in half, but he wants anything that is not in the Constitution done away with. What of the FAA, the CDC, NASA, the Interstates, etc. These are not things I would necessarily want turned over to the states.

Mississippi inspected airliners flying over Texas or other states, does anyone really want that? (I live in Mississippi, I wouldn’t want them over my house)

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Would also add that’s he doesn’t seem to be a social conservative, which would tend to turn off the large amount of conservatives who are.

[bcsco]

We could cut the Government in half...

Of course. But then what...?

We should be careful of what we wish for. This is all way too simplistic to be logical.

[bcsco]

Did he actually say it annoys him to no end for us to leave the option on the table of a nuclear first strike against a country (Iran) that doesn’t even have a military?

I’ve listened twice but my sound card doesn’t get too much volume. If he did say that he’s clueless beyond belief.

[M Kehoe]

Why So Many Conservatives Don't Like Ron Paul

Let me try...because his foreign policy positions will get us all KILLED!

That was easy.

5.56mm

[mnehring]

We have as many beneficial Federal agencies that were not “Constitutional” as we do ones that suck.

There is a reason why the 10th Amendment states that if it isn't authorized specifically in the Constitution that authority lies to the States or to the people (the part that the Ronulans always leave out.) Congress is a representational body of the people. It allows for the Representative voice of the people to make laws that are a result of the needs of the time.

[bcsco]

Congress is a representational body of the people. It allows for the Representative voice of the people to make laws that are a result of the needs of the time.

And that's why going back to an earlier time governmentally would be such a monumental task. We, the people through our elected representatives, have created what we have. Does anyone beyond Ron Paul and his clique of naive followers really believe we can, or want, to dismantle our society with such little forethought? I doubt it.

[Allegra]

Did he actually say it annoys him to no end for us to leave the option on the table of a nuclear first strike against a country (Iran) that doesn’t even have a military?

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

I imagine Iran would be surprised to learn that!

[org.whodat]

For me it’s simple. He is completely disconnected with reality. As are those that support him, those c-span callers just make you want to barf.

There much better!

[bcsco]

He says Iran doesn't even have a military.

The man is certifiable.

[Tears of a Clown]

Probably has something to do with the fact that he's staking out the terrorist and "zionist conspiracy" vote.

[Allegra]

Repeating it again because it is so very astute.

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.

[DejaJude]

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.

Ron Paul would have to declare himself dictator for life to even attempt to do what he promises.

[CougarGA7]

I concur. Thanks for the edit.

[bcsco]

spamming your polls...

First thing I saw after I voted this morning was the non-members results for the sidebar poll. And these people carry on as though it means something. What a waste.