Posted on 12/27/2017 7:21:22 AM PST by EdnaMode
Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul says a yearlong economic boom under President Trump is “a bit of an illusion” and that debt, inflation, and inequality could cause turmoil that benefits a “hardcore nucleus” of libertarians.
The libertarian Republican leader told the Washington Examiner that Trump could face a strong challenger in the 2020 GOP primary, especially if “things are really much worse."
“The big opening for us is the fact that this system is coming apart. We’re on the verge of something like what happened in ‘89 when the Soviet system just collapsed,” he said. “I’m just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully as the Soviet system.”
Paul doesn’t believe the U.S. will break into separate countries, but instead expects a rethink of monetary policy and an end to what he considers a U.S. “empire” overseas.
“We have ownership of these countries, but it’s not quite like the Soviets did,” he said. “I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that’s when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, ‘Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this.’”
Paul said “the country’s feeling a lot better, but it’s all on borrowed money” and that “the whole system’s an illusion” built on corporate, personal, and governmental debt. “It’s a bubble economy in many many different ways and it’s going to come unglued,” he said.
The former congressman for years has presented issues in stark terms, refreshingly so for supporters and with an alarmist edge in the eyes of detractors.
Paul rose to prominence with 2008 and 2012 GOP presidential bids, running on an anti-war, pro-civil liberties message. When his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., appeared well positioned for a 2016 presidential run, news outlets declared the country was experiencing a “libertarian moment.”
“The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we’ve been doing well,” Paul said, describing a large "hardcore nucleus" of conference-attending enthusiasts.
Although broadly critical of Trump, Paul likes the president's talk about removing government regulations and implementing tax cuts.
“Trump’s being a good cheerleader. He’s a cheerleader for Wall Street, and I keep my fingers crossed, maybe lowering some of the taxes will help, certainly lowering the regulations. But I think the problems are so deep and structural,” he said.
Paul said he's disappointed with Trump's foreign policy, especially his approach toward North Korea and his support for Saudi Arabia's military role in Yemen.
“I think the foreign policy is a total disaster. Trump’s approach sounds good one day but the next day he’s antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there," he said.
Domestically, Paul views Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a threat to civil liberties and said he would be “delighted” if Trump fired him, though he’s not hopeful the replacement would be better.
The former congressman said he continues to view the U.S. as being on a path to fascism — on a long historical arch featuring authoritarian policies of Presidents Lincoln and Wilson.
“This time when we have a permanent war on terrorism there’s no backing off — and with the war on immigrants, and the borders,” he said. “Anybody who thinks we’re not doing too badly has not been flying on an airplane lately. That’s about as authoritarian-fascism as you can get.”
Paul said government policies that steer money to the wealthy create understandable anger among poorer Americans — pointing to the success of Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, in his 2016 campaign for the Democratic nomination. Paul said a libertarian answer, halting inflation and "crony capitalism," would result in more freedom.
“We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian,” he said, “but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate [in 2020] is very possible.”
"If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today," Paul said.
It is funny. I’d guess the opposite; Trump’s base is if anything even more firm and determined and larger than they were the first time around. Any politician running against him in the primaries will be politically finished.
There are a number of billionaires out there who think, just because he did it, any billionaire can do it. They do not know the voter, they don’t know Trump, and they don’t frankly know themselves either.
Ron Paul may be half baked sometimes, but it’s important for people like him to be involved in the political process. Some of the things he says here are absolutely true, and these libertarians are valuable in keeping the GOP from adopting a full-scale globalist agenda.
I call B.S. on this. Please cite any evidence to support this statement. The U.S. would not have needed to go through the idiotic song and dance to get the U.N. involved if this was true.
That is why they didn’t have a military to speak of.
This would make your first part of this statement even more ludicrous. Signing a mutual defense treaty with a country that has no military is the height of irresponsibility.
Kuwait didn't need a mutual defense treaty with the U.S. for the same reason they didn't need a military. Countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had already done a thoroughly effective job of buying influence in the U.S. directly -- to the point where the U.S. government remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of these royal families to this day.
Do you think it's just a coincidence that the U.S. has pissed away thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in military campaigns that were undertaken on behalf of real estate investment partners of the Bush family?
You’re not being helpful, Ron. In fact, I’d call that aiding and abetting the enemies of the republic.
Ditto.
And monkeys may fly...
At the end of the century I was one of those Libertarian Party members attending the nominating conferences. Just after the 9/11 attack, I saw the schism building between those in the Libertarian Party that saw attacks by Islam as initiation of force (thus requiring a principled libertarian response), and those that thought the use of force by Islam was retaliation for transgressions by the the US (Paulists, etc.). That woke me up to the fact that the whole large "L" libertarian party was all smoke and mirrors. Half of the party members were were drawn from disgruntled Democrats and the other half, disgruntled Republicans. It was a loose coalition only held together by cleverly worded buzz phrases. The party leaders know this. Michael Cloud hosts seminars to teach outreach methods to lure in new members by avoiding and deflecting off-putting arguments and presenting cleverly worded statements that many couldn't disagree with.
The one that jumped out at me is, "let peaceful individuals cross borders freely." The thing they will not answer is, who will ever know if an individual is peaceful?
David Bergland, the 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, has performed studies of Libertarian Party enthusiasts at every conference and convention for decades. He asks attendees to fill out Myers-Briggs personality surveys and Keirsey Temperament sorters to categorize the members. Their quest has been an ongoing effort to find words that will bring the rest of the 90% of personality types in our nation into their coalition. A hopeless mission.
Some of the seminar takeaways:
1. Politics is war conducted by other means
2. Politics is a war of position
3. In political war the aggressor usually wins
4. Position is defined by Fear and Hope
5. Weapons of political war are symbols that evoke these feelings.
6. Victory lies on the side of the People
Never, ever, ever, under and circumstances define an issue by any means other than Fear and Hope.
Libertarians are anti-Socialist but...
I am aware of the situation in the Middle East at the time. I am also aware the president and Congress committed the nation to a war without the formal declaration of war required by the Constitution. The Constitution makes no provision for mutual defense treaties forcing the nation into war without the required Congressional action.
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.