Why Are Ron Paul's Followers So Touchy?

I know that every candidate has passionate supporters, but it’s obvious that Ron Paul’s followers are especially passionate to the point of being downright touchy whenever he is strongly criticized. Or am I being unfair in my assessment?

Last week, I received an email via Townhall from an apparent Ron Paul supporter. He wrote, “You want war with Iran send your own [expletive] kids, not mine. Stop sucking up to Isreal [sic]. What a piece of [expletive] this Townhall spews. One can clearly see your [sic] for the Tea Party of Hate. I know becuase [sic] of your hate for Ron Paul.”

Now, the funny thing is that, in several dozen Townhall articles written in 2011, I mentioned Iran a total of twice (in passing, at that), I mentioned the Tea Party twice (in the space of one article, without criticism or endorsement), and most importantly, I never once mentioned the name of Ron Paul. Not once! Yet somehow I am fashioned a Ron Paul hater.

Obviously, this is just one email from an anti-Israel, anti-Tea Party, profanity-using, spelling-challenged reader, and in no way do I judge Ron Paul or the rest of his supporters by one foolish email. Of course not. And yet, there’s something all too familiar about this pro-Paul email, specifically, its unusually rabid tone.

It is an open secret that no one has supporters who are more devoted, loyal, or committed than Ron Paul, and if other candidates had followers as dedicated as his, the current political landscape would look very different.

So is that the answer to my question? Is it simply that Paul’s followers are more passionate than others, implying that they will also be more defensive and even touchy?

Or is this overly simplistic? Perhaps the real issue is that, for years, the media has seemingly failed to give Paul his due, giving other candidates more coverage and attention and even time to respond in public debates. And so Paul’s followers have simply had it with being slighted, becoming especially sensitive to criticism.

Or maybe Paul’s supporters have emulated some of his own style, being more didactic than dynamic and more cantankerous than charismatic? Maybe this is one the reasons they are attracted to him?

Or could it be that as a libertarian, he gives voice to causes and stands up for values that few other candidates believe in or espouse? Although he is a long-time politician, he is also outside the main stream on many key issues, and so, he is not only embraced as a political candidate but also as a champion of the people, an anti-establishment hero to be defended and backed with tenacity and zeal. It’s not every candidate who writes a book on “Revolution” and really means it. (Hey, when he talks about the need for revolutionary change, he’s speaking my language too.)

Or is it something else? Could it be that his positions are so extreme that it leaves his followers vulnerable and defensive? After all, when your candidate downplays the threat of radical Islam (even though its adherents probably surpass the adult population of America in number), when he chooses not to recognize the very real danger of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran (despite all the blood currently on Iran’s hands), when one of his former senior aides, Eric Dondero, claims that Paul is anti-Israel, how can his supporters not be hyper-sensitive to criticism? (According to Dondero, while Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite, he is “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. . . . He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”)

I actually have no axe to grind when it comes to Ron Paul, nor do I have a dog in this fight. Is he really anti-Israel, or is there a solid answer to the charges against him? Are his foreign policies naïve, or does he really understand the nature of anti-American “blowback”? Are some of his radical monetary proposals the very thing we need, or is he arguing for changes that can never occur? Has he been wishy-washy on important social issues like homosexual activism, or does he really espouse conservative morality? And is he a man of trustworthy character, or is he being dishonest when he disavows knowledge of many of his past newsletters?

These are questions for others to answer, and despite the hostile comments that can be expected in response to this article, I am not hostile to Ron Paul. My question has to do with his followers.

It might have something to do with their candidate being referred to as "nutjob" "wacko" "RuPaul", and a host of other ad hominems without any discussion of the substantiative issues, just summary dismissal of the positions because he is a "nutjob".

Or it might have something to do with the presumption that anyone who supports him is a "troofer", "Code Pinko", "druggie", or a 'nutjob' themselves.

That'd make most anyone a mite testy.

The sad reality is that the current fiscal course of this nation is unsustainable.

No matter who throws what at us from elsewhere, we've spent ourselves into the bloody poorhouse: We're broke.

Unless substantial and significant cuts are made in the size, scope, and expenditures of the Federal Government here at home, we won't be able to afford to defend ourselves--and we've already been invaded (what, between 12 and 40 million isn't an invasion?).

We send hundreds of billions of our dollars elsewhere annually to buy 'friends' in the world and call it foreign aid.

We spend further hundreds of billions annually to police the world (but haven't secured our own southern border).

We need to decide what is most essential and cut back to that, or fund it if need be, with cuts elsewhere.

Who is going to lead the way?

Which of the current candidates will stop the car and turn around, and which will sail through the warning markers, barricades, and right off the cliff?

Who has the resillience to veto and keep vetoing what Congress throws on the desk until they get it right?

We're running out of room to put on the brakes, the cuts will have to be draconian to be effective, and the Congress and many of the cronies in the executive branch are multimillionaires and aren't likely to feel the pain that the average schmuck who voted them into a position to get wealthy will, the whole time we've been lied to and told "Everything will be all right, if we just spend another trillion."

So it is little surprise that the already disaffected youth who are looking at college loans to pay off (if they can get a job), perpetual slavery through having to pay the taxes to pay the bills which have been racked up want to pull the plug on pissing away their future and dooming them to a life of totalitarian poverty. Another four years of the status quo or even only a small change won't cut it, and they are looking at a poorer quality of life than their parents or grandparents had and they know it.

The assumption they are stupid or 'wackjobs' for supporting someone who at least claims that he would make the sort of cuts necessary to begin to set things on the right path, fiscally, pisses them off because its their future, and far from as assured that those who dismiss the candidate and the promised draconian cuts assume they have in store for themselves.

They see the light at the end of the current tunnel, and they know it's an oncoming train. They resent the crap out of being told they're nuts for wanting to get off the tracks, change direction or simply hit reverse.

I'm a great-grandpa, and I talk with 'kids'.

No one else is talking the sort of change they need in order to not have war, poverty, or desolation right here at home without any further outside influences. If we're broke, forget defense. Economic strategies are part of asymmetrical warfare, and we've been punked.

Our enemies within are perceived by his supporters as a far more imminent threat than jihadis overseas, despite 9/11.

Those of us who grew up in relatively free times, unencumbered by the thousands of rules, laws, and regulations (in fact, whole agencies and their rules) that exist now can understand the hankering of youth for a time when there were fewer rules, when a youngster was free to make modest mistakes without acquiring a criminal record, and when major crimes were not tolerated. and when one could reasonably dream of going west and prospecting for gold, or finding pirate treasure or the like without the government there to shackle you and seize what you had worked for. We had our dreams, and they want that, too. Now the government wants a chunk of your paycheck if you're a youngster (one of the rude awakenings of life), and they know it is only going to get worse or the money they make won't be worth anything and they resent it.

The only candidate they see willing to grapple with the issues of too large government and too much spending in a meaningful way, the one they see as not just another politician is Ron Paul, now that Cain has been electronically lynched.

None of the others are likely to cut anything beyond just limiting increases (and calling that a 'cut'--Democrat math), at least as far as the younger set sees it, and they link the summary dismissal of the candidate with the summary dismissal of their future, often by those they see as 'having it made'.

So sure, they are thin skinned about it. In fact, anyone who looks at that aspect might be. I noticed other candidates' supporters were a mite thin skinned too (some Perry supporters for sure, although not all).

Everyone is feeling 'it', knowing this nation, our Liberty, and our future are in trouble. We need to make the right choice, and we need to win. It is time to quit scurrying about looking for salvation and roll up our sleeves and decide who will get the job done. Either that or cache some more ammo and supplies...

At least those who support Paul aren't supporting Obama.

When you try to take away something that gives people pleasure, they get very testy and agitated. Ron Paul’s base wants legalized drugs, and that’s about it. That’s why they’re described as alienated and disaffected from the political process. No other issues matter to them.

Yep, that's the sort of colon fill that'll make folks thin skinned.

With the Sinaloa Cartel controlling more of our border than the US Government, maybe using the tactic which broke the backs of the rumrunners (repealing the prohibition) will strip the profit motive behind the current mess, cut down on turf-related crime (no money in it), and bring the substantial underground economy out into the light where it can be taxed.

It would strip the politicians who have kept our border hanging open of one more source of corruption, too.

Funny how people said that prohibition of alcohol just wouldn't work, but the parallel situation will.

And before you go off half-cocked, I don't use any of the illicit drugs, and wouldn't if they were legal.

As far as the effects on our society, well, those who use them use them anyway, and then if caught, we get to buy them three hots and a cot while they learn how to be hardcore criminals. Lovely.

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.