Posted on 05/08/2009 12:39:32 AM PDT by jmc813
For the past couple of months I’ve been writing about the “mainstreaming” of paleo-libertarian Ron Paul; he’s been a regular guest on Fox News and other networks, and his drones have been heavily involved in organizing “tea party” demonstrations. Lots of LGF readers didn’t want to believe this was happening.
Well, it really is happening.
The weird economic theories of Ron Paul are Winning GOP Converts.
A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on.
And then there are the luncheons. The off-the-record talks have brought in speakers such as ex-CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer, libertarian investigative reporter James Bovard, iconoclastic terrorism scholar Robert Pape, and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Perhaps the most influential guest has been Thomas Woods, a conservative scholar whose previous books include “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush,” and whose current book “Meltdown” has inspired Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to question Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about economic fundamentals.
Paul’s unexpected and sudden clout with his fellow Republicans — even some of Paul’s staff have been surprised with the momentum of his “Audit the Fed” bill — come as the GOP engages in a tortured internal dialogue about its future. Since January, no small number of new coalitions have formed between current members of Congress, former advisors to President George W. Bush, and perennial party leaders such as former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). Few of those conservatives, however, have spent much time criticizing the very foundations of America’s modern economic system and worrying about a 1929-style crash. Few of them had a drawer stuffed with off-brand economic ideas and forgotten libertarian texts, ready to explain what needed to be done. Ron Paul did, and as a result the ideas that made the Republican establishment irate enough to bounce him from a few primary debates are more popular than ever.
And chief among these new converts — one of the very kookiest Representatives in Congress, Michele Bachmann, the one-woman GOP anti-science crusader.
But the most prominent new face is Bachmann, the rising conservative star who left C-SPAN and YouTube watchers scratching their heads with a constitutional grilling that seemed to puzzle Geithner. “What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08?” asked Bachmann during a hearing on March 24. “What in the Constitution could you point to to give authority to the Treasury’s extraordinary actions that have been taken?”
Bachmann “goes to these luncheons on a weekly basis,” said Debbee Keller, Bachmann’s press secretary. Keller noted that Bachmann was reading “Meltdown,” which argues that the New Deal failed and that the Federal Reserve is responsible for the current economic crisis. “Just as Austrian theory suggests,” wrote Woods, “the Fed’s mischief was responsible for the Great Depression.”
“I had a feeling she’d have some interest in the book,” said Woods, “because she asked some good questions. She was taking notes. She was asking if this or that point could be found in the book. I thought I recognized a sincere person who wanted knowledge, not the usual politician who couldn’t care less about what the truth is and just wanted to propagandize.”
Paul didn’t take credit for turning Bachmann on to Austrian theory (”He’ll give credit to everyone on the planet except himself,” laughed Woods) but said he was pleased to see more members of Congress delving into economics. “She’s very open to studying,” said Paul. “In fact, she’s been working really hard to get me back to Minneapolis. She says, ‘You’ll get such a great reception there!’”
And Ron Paul’s oldest racist friends, the John Birch Society, couldn’t be happier about his new legitimacy.
It’s been a rapid rise for an idea that, only months ago, was located firmly in the political fringe. The John Birch Society, the far-right group that Paul has often defended from media criticism, was one of the first groups to encourage members to contact their members of Congress to support an audit of the Fed.
This is a deeply disturbing development; for more reasons why Ron Paul should not be brought into the mainstream of the GOP, see: Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
I’m under no illusions that the GOP will pay attention to me, but isn’t there anyone in the party who sees how disastrous this is becoming?
If I’m not mistaken, the John Birch Society is closely affiliated with: http://www.thenewamerican.com/
***I thought it was mainly an older Constitutionalist Conservative group.***
That’s what makes them racist. /s
Your other points are opinion, but this is false: “Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.”
He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
> He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?
His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.
Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.
Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?
Just because the black members of the John Birch Society refer to themselves as negroes (a far better term in my view) does not make them racist.
I don't agree with their conspiracy theories, but they seem like patriotic Americans to me.
He’s an Alex Jones clone.
“None of the Above”
He certainly does attract some off-the-beaten-path followers and some of them seem to worship him in a cult-like manner.
I think Ron Paul has some great ideas on the economy, but is too "out there" on many other issues, foreign policy being just one.
I believe Ron Paul might make a very good Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't support him as presidential material at all.
***How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?***
Does opposition to the PATRIOT Act necessarily make one unpatriotic? Does opposition to the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 make one against economic stabilization?
Free trade agreements don’t necessarily constitute free trade. All you need for free trade is to lower tariffs and lift any embargoes. Free trade isn’t a policy; it’s a lack of a policy.
***His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.***
Even if he is a stone cold racist, what policies exactly is he thinking of enacting that harms minorities? Last time I checked he wanted government to do very little.
***Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.***
Giving the government a monopoly on the creation of money and credit and its price through setting or manipulating the interest rate (the price of money) is better? Last time I checked, government monopolies are bad for the economy and price controls distort economic calculation and decision.
***Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?***
I don’t agree with him on everything, but I certainly don’t think we ought to be favoring sides as heavily as we do know. We give out too much aid to both sides and we constantly fight yesterday’s friend. I’d like to see a middle ground.
1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
Who?
2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
I agree there are some subtle differences. But they are very subtle.
There are radical differences.
Does Obama support uninfringed 2nd Amendment? Paul does.
Does Obama support the dissolution of the Department of Education and many others? Paul does.
I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites. You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Little Charles Johnson hates him. So do you. Ergo, by your logic, you love Charles Johnson.
... who's going out with a whimper.
Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such "associations".
Ron Paul, the only republican Cindy Sheehan can stomach. Birds of a feather.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
The dems are only doing their jobs. It's like the line from Cape Fear - "seems to me the prosecutor was just doing his job councilor" (or something like that.) RP is just a true believer.
> Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such “associations”.
Would Stormfront count as a racist group?
>> 1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
> Who?
Stormfront.
>> 2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
> Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
Going to gold standard would cause deflation.
>> 3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
> Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
Except NAFTA?
>> 4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
> Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
Actually, Obama appears to be quite friendly with the Saudis. I was thinking more along the lines of Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Poland, Georgia, etc.
> I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites.
Sorry, they are about as different as Stalin and Hitler. I just can’t figure out which is which.
> You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Well, I am pretty sure I am not affiliated with RNC. I guess that means I must be ignorant.
Exactamundo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.