Posted on 01/02/2012 12:19:23 PM PST by Kaslin
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.
Why are they so touchy? Or am I being unfair?
Actually, it is especially here on FR.
They get much more respect, err less disrespect at World Nut Daily or Little Green Footballs etc.
Places to the right of DU, but still pandering to hedonism.
I am okay if they move their activism there.
If by some miracle Ron Paul were the Republican candidate going against Obama, then these Freepers would have to make a decision:
Would they rather have Obama, who is most likely sane, or Ron Paul, whom they claim is totally insane, as president?
Would they rather have Obama, who may be incompetent and ideologically skewed but is generally considered at least moderately intelligent, or someone who is so damned stupid as to be a racist and anti-semite as president?
I am virtually certain that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. If he is, however, I will be glad to vote for him rather than Obama. I am as certain that he is not a loon or a racist or an anti-semite, as I am certain that he will not be the nominee.
Fortunately for those Freepers that claim that Paul is a lunatic and a dunce they will most likely not have to consider whether such a person is preferable to Obama.
Personally I believe that libertarianism is a fatally flawed ideology. Ron Paul, as many have noted, is not a libertarian purist. He is a politician, after all. Also, he would have to work with a decidedly non-libertarian congress. This might actually be a good synergy.
The biggest compaint against Paul is that he wouldn't go to war to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians. He has gone on record as supporting the congress's right to declare war. I'm certain that if the congress felt we needed to go to war to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, then Paul would prosecute the war in a manner that would achieve success. He wouldn't like it, but he would see it as his job as chief executive to execute the will of Congress.
Arguing, no.. reasonable debating yes. I learn well by defending, sometimes unsuccessfully, my own views. I just hope we return to sanity and rational thinking after the debate.. if we have free access to internet forums like FR. Thanks for the wise advice.
Thank you. Watched the whole interview from start to finish, and Ron Paul did not even come close to saying Ronald Reagan was a “failure who makes Carter look like a conservative.” Yet one more wholly unsubstantiated asssertion about Ron Paul. But that’s okay. I’m getting used to it.
Wow, but not surprised.
You challenged mnehring to show a source that Paul said Reagan was a failure, provided the link and you agree with Paul. sigh
I never mentioned Carter.
I showed you the link that Paul said Reagan was a failure, and that is what he said.
I've been on lots of threads with libertarians and I don't see the libertarians on FR as being particularly hedonistic.
There have been no calls for public nudity, wife-swapping, dope smoking, etc.
I suppose one can claim that opposition to the War On Drugs is 'hedonistic', but that would be simplistic. There are many non-pot-smoking, non-coke-snorting citizens that oppose the War On Drugs for various non-hedonistic reasons.
Of course if you are able to read their minds and know that tens of thousands of pages of thoughtful commentary, statistics, and historical data opposing the War On Drugs is just cover for their nefarious plans to turn the USA into a druggy paradise then that is another thing entirely.
“Ron Paul is to the Constitution as Fred Phelps is to the Bible.”
- - - -
Ouch and true.
Okay. Thank you. I have to agree that, insofar as Ronald Reagan failed to implement a reduction in government, he was a failure. The conservative idea is “smaller government.” Get it? Not a government slowly gowing bigger. Get it? Or is that another “koncept for kooks?”
“Why Are Ron Paul’s Followers So Touchy?”
Tinfoil chafes their scalps.
Correct. A reflection of the fact the Republicans, through the primary process, are not as accepting of fools who associate with bigots and criminals as Democrats. I acknowledge the dem choice wasn't as clear, but none of the other GOP candidates approach Paul in that context.
Then you have to blame Paul as well as he was in Congress during that time and he failed to do anything. (remember where these bill start). At that, Paul has failed to do anything, ever. He is just the joker who sits around and talks, talks, talks, but never accomplishes.
Can you imagine hiring a CEO for a company and getting the guy who never actually accomplished anything but made a lot of proclamations. This is 1000 times worse.
The association with Carter is what prompted me to request a source. It was not your association, but another persons' who has since said, "oops." And yes, Reagan failed to shrink government. Are you proud of that or something?
It's a stage that every new political movement goes through: every one of them. Of course, the thin-skinedness in my movement is perfectly justified :)
Only time heals. For example, the Objectivists were notorious for being very thin-skinned in the 1950s and '60s. Some of them still are, but others have learned to let the hostility to Ayn Rand roll off their backs. Some actually laugh.
Ron Paul himself is somewhat thin-skinned because he's had to face a lot of crap throughout his life. Every old libertarian, or quasi-libertarian, has.
It makes me wonder: Paul said that this campaign will be his last. He'll be gone, but the movement will continue. I wonder what it would be like once they find a new leader. If they can find one with a thicker skin, they might calm down.
Another reason why Paul supporters tend to be thin-skinned is that they don't have the "historically inevitable" tranquillizer that the Marxists had. Many of them are partial to doomsaying, which implies that the current historical trend is against (not for) them. If they become convinced, through whatever means, that the libertarian future is "inevitable" - then, they'd calm down.
Perhaps you don't spend as much time on FR as I do, but there are tons of threads posted, wherein Ron Paul's lunatic positions have been discussed in great detail.
So much so, in fact, that the community as a whole is passed the point of delineating them again at every mention of his name.
When it comes to increasing goverment business and busybodies, I have absolutely no problem with someone in there who has “failed” and who promises to continue to fail. Ron Paul: I hope he fails [to increase the size and scope of federal government]. It’s hard swatting off the leaches and lemmings clinging to the federal teat. What have you done to help? Voted for anyone who’s brought about smaller government lately?
So you rip Reagan for ‘failing’ but you praise Paul for ‘failing’ to do the same thing you (and he) ripped Reagan for.
Me thinks you have stopped chugging brew and switched to kool aid a long time ago.
I think the first 10 posts answer the question pretty eloquently.
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.