Skip to comments.Is Ron Paul the New Lyndon LaRouche?
Posted on 01/15/2012 11:28:12 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
Lyndon LaRouche was a prolific writer who developed a cult-like following and eight times, between 1976 and 2004, sought the presidency, seven times for the Democratic ticket. He wrote and spoke often about the economy and spun wild conspiracy theories. For example, he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug dealer. The Nations Bob Dreyfuss, a LaRouche acolyte who dedicated his first book to his former boss and had it published by LaRouches publisher, argued in it that Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most influential living historian of the Middle East, was a nefarious force behind Ayatollah Khomeini and Irans Islamic Revolution.
LaRouche achieved a particularly loyal following among college students. He anchored enough of his writing in fact that the 30 percent or so that was pure bunk became, for the gullible or willingly blind, believable. His writings adhered to the idea that falsehoods spoken with conviction and precision became credible. Like Ron Paul, he certainly was consistent in his willingness to believe the worst motivations of government officials or his opponents. While LaRouche reached the pinnacle of his influence in the pre-internet age, he managed to spread his conspiracies not only through teaching classes, but also through myriad pamphlets, leaflets, and newspapers. LaRouche is still around, of course, but a conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations has undercut his credibility among the young and disaffected enough so that he has returned to purely marginal status.
Into the vacuum left by LaRouche came Ron Paul. Without doubt, some of what Paul says makes sense. Americans are concerned with tremendous government waste and the intrusion of nanny-state governance into our daily lives. But, on foreign policy and defense, Paul supplements his isolationism with the same mold of conspiracy as LaRouche. Many of the Bush lied, Americans died, Cheney led a secret cabal conspiracies which Pauls followersif not Dr. Paul himselfseize upon have their origins with LaRouche acolytes like Dreyfuss or former Pentagon official and congressional candidate Karen Kwiatkowski, who seemingly hopped from the LaRouche bandwagon to Pauls. Paul may not publish so many newsletters any morewith good reasonbut his followers have certainly taken full advantage of cyberspace to connect imaginary dots and weave creative conspiracies that put the old LaRouchites and even Maxine Waters to shame.
The Iowa Caucus results suggest Paul has peaked. Good conspiracies never die, however. Paul has become the Lyndon LaRouche of the 21st century, an increasingly marginal figure with a disproportionately poisonous and vocal following, one which will never win elections, but will satisfy itself by spinning wild conspiracy theories and trolling comments pages on internet news sites for decades to come.
Maybe more like the new Ross Perot?
Except I think Ross Perot had a sane foreign policy.
Back in the 1970’s Paul was seen as great conservative.
Rand Paul pointed out in an appearance recently that his father was one of only four Republican members of Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.
Paul was rated one of the most conservative members of the House back some 30 or so years ago along with fellow Texas member Dick Armey.
Paul is opposing the foreign policy establishment just like he did in the 1970’s when they pushed detente with the Soviets.
Today the foreign policy makers value a New World Order and fight limited wars.
I support our troops in Afghanistan but its pretty obvious the enemy there is backed by Pakistani elements that aren’t being defeated on the battlefield.
Paul argues against the wars but comes off as the anti-war nut who supports America’s enemies.
That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.
I would vote for Newt in SC, but Paul is capturing hearts and Sarah Palin says we can’t ignore his voters.
Well duh. I’ve been pointing out the similarities between the Paulistinians and the LaRoushis for a long time.
With the proportional delegate scheme the GOP is using this year, Lyndon LaRouche II has a fairly decent shot at winning. Do not underestimate this 911 Truther to be as incompetent as LaRouche. He has a plan and may take over the convention no matter that the outcome for the other candidates is.
“That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.”
I think if Paul could make that argument more effectively, it would do him a lot of good: that he’s not against all wars but against poorly executed, limited ones that don’t have the full national backing needed for a massive engagement and a decisive victory. I think that’s his point. And he’s right.
So what's new?
In my opinion, conspiracy theorizing hacks like Larouche, and Paul have much credibility. Through the scope of hindsight, what they have spoken of, has not only come to pass, but has been seen as mainstream news. NOW we call them nuts, but they are and were right about the course of history.
Lyndon’s still breathing, isn’t he? What do we need a new one for.
Went TDY to the Pentagon to teach a few times. Couldn’t get over that they allowed the LaRouche alcolytes to set up on the steps leading to the entrances and pass out the commie tracts.
For example, he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug dealer.
She was. The US federal government government is involved in dealing drugs and gun smuggling. Everyone but the writer apparently knows this.
Given that we haven’t managed to actually win a war since 1945 (with the possible exception of Grenada) why is there so much surprise that an anti-going to war feeling is gaining traction in this country???
"Winning the war...." march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Dither for a while about who the bad guys are, march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Evaluate collateral damage. Decide who the bad guys are. March in. Gather and evacuate the collateral damage. Kill the bad guys. March out.
Have an argument about "concentration camps." Have an argument about right and wrong. Have an argument about force versus diplomacy. Have an argument about freedom of religion. Have an argument about America's place in the world.
Forget it. Whine that no one likes us. Eat more cake.
Everyone here realizes that Lyndon Laruche was a commie right? I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, but comparing him to a communist? No, not a good comparison....
As I recall from my college and grad school years in the 70's, left wing splinter groups, largely offshoots of the student radicalism of the period, were appearing and disappearing faster than one could keep track of them. Most of them may not have amounted to more than a dozen grad students with a mimeograph machine, but they seemed to have plenty of money to travel, and to publish obscure, mostly short-lived journals. It's a sociologically interesting phenomenon; ordinary political movements don't behave that way. The 70's radicals made today's libertarians look like consensus builders.
I've always supposed this reflex towards rabid factionalism had something to do with the Stalinist and conspiratorialist roots of so many of the red diaper babies who made up the leadership of the movement. The old lefty traditions of authoritarian control of a centralized party line dies hard. The style became internalized and still infects the left. There is still a dividing line between democratically inclined liberals, who are willing to accept a diversity of viewpoints, and leftist dogmatists who have a great deal of difficulty accepting any real political pluralism.
Anyhow ... I've always wondered where LaRouche gets his money. Does anyone have any insight into his financing?
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.