Why are Ron Paul Detractors so Frightened? (American Chronicle)

American Chronicle ^ | 9/26/07 | Szandor Blestman

[traviskicks]

The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.

Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.

One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.

Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.

I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

I believe that fear is unfounded.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.

I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.

[hschliemann]

I have seen them say that it is more than a bit bothersome to see neo-Nazis so excited about supporting him as a candidate.

What hogwash!Republicans(generally) have long stood for states rights.For this they have been attacked by the democrats as racists,and have drawn support from racists who believe the democrats' demagoguery.

[hschliemann]

Just a bunch of slogans strung together bascially[sic] screaming bile at everyone and everything....no hysteric hyper emotive retoric[sic]

Screaming bile at everyone and everything? Okay Mr. Specific,specifically where is the bile that is being screamed.Maybe I went to a different link.Don't you think your own rhetoric is slightly hysterical?You ought to take a deep breath.

Every candidate has slogans,I can't see why this is an issue just with Paul.But abolish the IRS and FRB,end the income tax,kick out the UN,these are slogans I can get behind.I have never heard another candidate express any of these,not one.Or are these just "platitudes?

The next objection is generally

YEAH,BUT HOW IS HE GOING TO DO THAT?

How does ANY candidate do anything?They all have the same powers once elected.This empty argument applies to all.Why don't you just come out and say you don't want to see a third party candidate siphon votes from the GOP.This is EXACTLY what I want.I want the people(unelected)who run the party to get the message loud and clear.

[L.N. Smithee]

This piece is not so much about Ron Paul than about the importance of civil, reasoned debate,

I agree. Ping me when Paul stops steering questions about the practicality of his ideas into rants about "neocons."

[MNJohnnie]

Still failing to meet this challenge. Don't care what YOUR opinion is based on what Paul's bills mean. Bill Paul offered knowing he had ZERO chance of passage. That does not address the what a Paul administration would do.

Challenge still stands.

With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me What and how Paul would do anything.

Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any other canidate or politican. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO projection of what you FEEL Paul would do. Present to us, with links so we can see them for ourselves, REAL plans from Dr Paul showing how and what he would do as President.

So far you have all failed. You continue to present what YOU feel about Paul as "Fact". Those are not facts. Those are your opinions. Facts are not opinions. Learn the difference.

[Theodore R.]

I did not vote for Buchanan in 2000, but I regret not having done so.

[humblegunner]

We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots.

OK, Paultards it is, with permission.

[humblegunner]

Why are people frighted of scorpians? Or bums? Or snakes? Or jihadists? Drunk drivers?

Fess up.. whose bum has "frighted" you?

[MNJohnnie]

So you want to play?

Ok still waiting. Maybe you can answer? Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me WHAT and HOW Paul would do anything.

Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

So, you Paulites want civility?

Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. Not projections of your opinion of what you think Paul would do. Opinions are not facts. It nice you have feelings but they are irrelevent in discussing Paul's qualifications for the job.

So present to us REAL plans from Dr Paul, with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.

[toddlintown]

“I thought he was refering to Spock who did too much LDS in the sixties.”

Ah yes, Berkeley.

[the808bass]

If you want to send your money to Zimbabwe,Croatia,or even Iraq,you have a right to do so.Give till it hurts,as you'll be making up for me.

Ok, I'll send our $60 total. And it is partially a matter of how much. If it's a $1.50, then it's a non-issue. If it's $30/person, it's almost a non-issue. And how would I be concerned about my pocketbook here? That's a non-sequitur. Of course, a large amount of the foreign aid went to Israel, so we know Ron's against that.

[the808bass]

Republicans(generally) have long stood for states rights.For this they have been attacked by the democrats as racists,and have drawn support from racists who believe the democrats' demagoguery.

The contortions which one has to bend into to make that sentence make a modicum of sense is mind-boggling. There's a much shorter road for the Neo-Nazis when they support Ron Paul because he won't allow (in their mind and based upon his statements) the Zionists to rule us. That's a little more direct than

states right ---> attacked by Democrats (which doesn't make sense to begin with) ---> support from racists who believe Democrats (which almost makes sense)

[dighton]

A scary ping, boys and girls!

OWWWWWWWOOOOOOO!

[the808bass]

How does ANY candidate do anything?

You may have seen other campaigns issue plans for things like healthcare, taxes and other things. That's at least how they propose to do "anything."

This is EXACTLY what I want.

Let's say that you were successful. Not just at not having a "big-government" Republican elected, but that you had libertarians and "true" conservatives gain say a 52-48 majority in the Senate and a 10 seat advantage in the House. Whatcha gonna get done? About as much as the Democrats are getting done in the Legislature these days. I know, I know. It's about principles and let actual results be damned. And while I can understand that and even respect it, it's utterly devoid of substance. As your votes would end up actually advancing none of the proposed ideas. I share a lot of your frustration with the current Republican leadership which is more concerned with retaining power than actually doing anything, let alone doing anything with Republican principles. I do not arrive at the same final conclusions as you.

So, to say "He's for abolishing the IRS" is a lot like saying "Bush is for privatizing portions of Social Security." So what? At the end of 4 or even 8 years of a Ron Paul ReLOVEution we'd still have an IRS. We'd still have a CIA. We'd still have NAFTA, GATT and NATO. We'd still be in the UN. So what's all the ballyhoo about? Much ado about nothing.

Plus I think he's a little loopy.

[lormand]

Being anti-Iraq war is a fatal position here on Freerepublic.

Anyone who openly supports this position deserves to get booted off, IMO. Short of that, they should not have a good day here on this forum.

[Hostage]

I haven’t been paying attention? I have been reading posts with other Fred Thompson supporters since April of this year.

I have seen all the criticisms and all the rebuttals. The criticisms amount to less than a hill of beans in all cases I have seen.

The reason you see ‘Fear the Fred’ and ‘FredPhobic’, etc. is because those in the know are tired of repeating the information over and over again to those that think they know something but are unknowingly clueless or incorrigible.

If you are sick of Fred supporters shoving ‘Fear the Fred’ down your throat, then try doing your homework and reading about him. Search ‘Sturm Ruger’ or ‘Politicalmom’ and they will take you to a comprehensive reading list that contains all answers about Fred Thompson including responses to bogus criticisms of his past.

Real, valid criticisms? I think not, I’ve seen them all and none of them are valid.

[CJ Wolf]

“So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric.”

That’s a good question. However, I’d like to point out that your post is pretty hysterical and hyper emotive as well, you even get a name call in there with “Paulites”. That aside you ask a good question.

Sometimes you gotta state your goals before you lay out the plan. How bout you pick one goal you like that you would like to see a plan to accomplish it for?

[dragnet2]

Ron Paul doesn’t understand the war on terror, or doesn’t take it seriously at all. Probably both.

Hmmm..

Does our Federal government take it seriously when the Federal Government allows, encourages, and even aids and abets this illegal, violent invasion of our borders during war time? Even the Presidents spokes person basically compared millions entering this country from who knows where during wartime, to a mere traffic ticket or violation.

[traviskicks]

I’m not quite sure why Paul loves that word ‘neocon’... I kind of cringe every time he uses it.

[the808bass]

Even the Presidents spokes person basically compared millions entering this country from who knows where during wartime, to a mere traffic ticket or violation.

Which doesn't address the other problem of Ron Paul's complete lack of understanding of the problems with radical Islam. But it does switch us to something you'd really like to talk about. So until our Government closes the borders, it cannot battle terrorism? Non-starter of an argument.

[traviskicks]

well, if he does win the election, the congress will likely do at least a fair portion of what he believes, just like Reagan was able to cut taxes etc.. even with the democrats holding both house and senate, because he had a national mandate to do those things, as he ran on them and won big, the electorate would vote out their represenatives that opposed him too much.

That said, I would welcome a sort of budget battle, heck, the best thing that happened during the clinton years was the gridlock of government.

I would love to see Paul sit in the oval office and veto 9 out of 10 bills crossing his desk, lol, just imagine the reaction of all those congress critters... And yea, you’re right they could override him.

This is all quite speculative tho, but obviously Presidential candidates do run on doing things outside the purview of their constitional role, in fact, most of what they run on, HealthCare, SS, pretty much all domestic issues fall in this category.