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?
Here is an informative review of the book here.
If we could elect someone like Ron Paul with a conservative majorty in Congress, we could write a 2,000 page “emergency stimilus package” that no one has time to read and knock the socialists back to the stone age. We could knock the Feds back to the constitution and wreck the globalist agenda of treaties in two days.
Then there’s the fact that if you don’t think our policy of handouts to poor Blacks generation after generation are a good thing, or you don’t think affirmative action is a good thing overall, you simply have to be racist in some folks’ eyes.
I’ve seen this smear so many times, it’s just a given anymore.
Thanks for your comments sbMKE.
That’s pretty much my take on it too. I have never attended any meetings though, so it wasn’t something I could say for sure. I’ve never seen an example of their literature that backed the charge that the org was racist, so I’ve never considered them to be.
I appreciate your comments.
Thanks. That was my suspicion from the get go. I think you’re right from what others have been saying.
The problem with that points out the difference between conservatives and leftists: American constitutionalists don't riot, burn down cities, and assassinate opponents when they lose.
No, the JBS is not a "racist" organization.
The idea comes from years ago when the MSM ran a smear campaign.
Clearly, Charles Johnson doesn't know anything about the JBS.
I don't know much about the JBS, other cringing reflexively when some one brought them up as an authoritative source.
But, it would not be a long shot to guess that the JBS supported States Rights during the Civil Rights era, opposing Johnson's Great Society federal actions. That, alone, could have gotten them branded "racists".
There is some vetting of new members, and any candidate who is racist is not accepted.
Furthermore, if any member is later found to be racist, his membership is revoked.
You've got it!
But it would have to be "someone like Ron Paul, not RP himself because he's too old to run again -- and we'd need to fill Congress first so that we could get it past.
What makes me laugh is when neocons criticize the support RP gets, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats -- and Liberal ones, to boot. Don't they get that this is A GOOD THING given that he isn't compromising a single Constitutional principle to do it?
You MUST steal Democrats in order to win! And stealing active Liberal Democrats is the best, because they are the organizers that get others to vote with them! Take one high profile Lib Democrat away from the Democrats, and you've taken hundreds (if not thousands) of their votes!
Frankly I don't give a damn if Stormfront, the JBS and 9/11 Truthers support RP. I do give a damn if he supports them -- which he doesn't, and he has said so.
I am no Ron Paul fan, in fact I have barely read, and never listened, to the man. However, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, in fact I would appreciate it if you would give me a synopsis of his Foreign policy, that his foreign policy adheres pretty much the constitution. I believe it says in the constitution we should not become involved in foreign wars. Not to say we shouldn't have beat the crap out of Afghanistan, I agree with that one, I supported Bush on Iraq, but was never sure if that was the right thing to do, or if we even had the moral authority to go in there. I know, he was working on Nukes, but we could have stopped that by simply bombing the crap out of Iraq now and then.
What I am trying to say is: If a person is against fighting except on American soil and leaving other countries to the sovereignty, as long as their plans don't include hurting us, then he is not a "kook, but a constitutionalists.
Like I said, I need to listen and read Paul much more than I already have, but if you have any input to give me on his foreign policy, I mean facts not broad statements about kookery, I would truly appreciate it.
Why would a treaty promoting genuine free trade need 900 pages (in the case of NAFTA) to say: “there shall be no barriers to trade between our countries”?
Ditto for me, LGF leans very much to the left now, haven't been on their site in years.
LGF & Charles Johnson are a joke. He is about as liberal as they come.
If you Google Ron Paul, you can find his own words about foreign policy. I'd rather you read it from him and not my interpretation.
In my opinion, though, his non-interventionalist policies just won't work in today's world and, in fact, could be quite dangerous for us. I'd rather engage the enemy on their soil and prevent wars from happening on ours if we can.
No violence. Just action. We have thought about it long enough. Time to act.
Thanks. I appreciate having my perception confirmed.
(he mentions Ron Paul as, "a Constitutionalist with impeccable credentials for loyalty to the United States and its survival as dreamed by our founding fathers") http://www.newswithviews.com/Kress/joe28.htm
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.