The Ron Paul Movement

Among the other firsts of his campaign, Ron Paul is probably the only presidential contender to be compared to a Samuel L. Jackson movie. The Texas congressman, a dark horse candidate for the Republican nomination, was being lightly grilled by Kevin Pereira, a host on the videogame-oriented cable channel G4. "Young people online, they were really psyched about Snakes on a Plane, but that didn't translate into big ticket sales for Sam Jackson," Pereira said. "Are you worried that page views on a MySpace page might not translate to primary votes?"

The reference was to the Internet sensation of 2006, an action movie whose cheesy title and premise had sparked a burst of online creativity: mash-ups, mock trailers, parody films, blogger in-jokes. Hollywood interpreted this activity as "buzz," and New Line Cinema inflated its hopes for the movie's box office take. When the film instead did about as well as you'd expect from a picture called Snakes on a Plane, the keepers of the conventional wisdom declared that this was proof of the great gulf between what's popular on the Internet and what sells in the material world.

Ron Paul is popular on the Internet, too, with more YouTube subscribers than any other candidate, the fastest-growing political presence in MySpace, a constant perch atop the Technorati rankings, and a near-Olympian record at winning unscientific Web polls. Like Snakes, he is the subject of scads of homemade videos and passionate blog posts. When Pereira mentioned the movie, he was making a clear comparison: Yes, your online fans are noisy, but will their enthusiasm actually translate into electoral success?

It's an interesting analogy, because the conventional wisdom about Snakes on a Plane is backwards. The reason the online anticipation for Snakes didn't translate into big ticket sales is because there actually wasn't much online anticipation for the movie. Yes, some of those parodists were interested in seeing the finished film, whose notoriety has given it minor cult status. But the others couldn't care less about the studio's product. Their online activity was an end in itself, a great big belly laugh at the expense of goofy high-concept movies. Their riffs and spoofs were far more entertaining than any actual feature about airborne reptiles was likely to be. Those fans weren't waiting for a show. They were the show.

That's one difference between Snakes and Paul: The congressman's fans really do want him to do as well as possible in the polls. But victory isn't the only thing on their minds. For many of them it isn't even the topmost thing on their minds. Like those Snakes on a Plane spoofs, the grassroots activity around Paul's campaign is interesting and valuable in itself. Here are three reasons why:

It's transpartisan. Paul's fan base stretches all the way from Howard Phillips to Alexander Cockburn. His libertarian message has resonance, as you'd expect, among free-marketeers dismayed by the GOP's love affair with federal spending. It is also attractive, as you'd expect, to lefties who like his opposition to the Iraq war and the post-9/11 incursions on our civil liberties. But the race has no shortage of anti-spending conservatives and antiwar liberals. Paul is especially appealing to people who don't fit the narrow stereotypes of Blue and Red: to decentralist Democrats, anti-imperialist Republicans, and a rainbow of independents.

The Internet makes it easier for such dispersed minorities to find each other, and the congressman's candidacy has given them a new reason to seek each other out. When Pittsburgh's Paul backers gathered via the MeetUp site, which arranges get-togethers for users who share a common interest, the blogger Mike Tennant attended. He found at least one Democrat, at least one anarchist, several disillusioned Bush supporters, a member of the Libertarian Party, a member of the right-wing Constitution Party, "and a whole roomful of folks disillusioned with the two-party duopoly... The one thing that unites us all is a desire to have a president who actually believes in liberty and has a record to match his rhetoric." Paul fans have been arguing forcefully for their candidate at both the conservative Web hub FreeRepublic and its liberal counterpart, Daily Kos—where, to be sure, they are met by angry opposition from more conventional Republicans and Democrats.

It's idea-driven. Were you wondering how Paul answered that question about Snakes on a Plane? He said, "I don't worry much about that at all. I worry about understanding the issues and presenting the case and seeing if I can get people to support these views." Some politicians are in this race because they really want to run the country. Some are in it because they want to be vice president, or be secretary of state, or extract some other prize from the eventual nominee. Paul is in it to inject ideas into the campaign. He wants to get votes, of course, but like Henry Clay he'd rather be right than be president. (Unlike Clay, he really is right most of the time.)

For Paul, it's a victory just to be on stage with Rudolph Giuliani arguing for a non-interventionist foreign policy, because it serves as a reminder that it's possible to be a fiscal conservative with bourgeois cultural instincts and yet oppose the occupation of Iraq and the effort to extend that war into Iran. That novelty, coupled with his fans' online activity, has earned Paul a rash of TV interviews: In the last two months, he has appeared on This Week, The Daily Show, Tucker, Lou Dobbs Tonight, and The Colbert Report, among other venues, raising his profile far above the other second-tier candidates. Each appearance is an opportunity not just to ask for votes but to express his anti-statist ideas, spreading a message rarely heard in the context of a presidential campaign.

It has a life of its own. After Jesse Jackson's populist campaign did unexpectedly well in 1988, many of his supporters hoped the Rainbow Coalition would become an independent grassroots force. But Jackson was more interested in his own political career, and he opted to make it a smaller group he could control. Similarly, Ross Perot resisted every effort to make the Reform Party something more than a vehicle for his presidential ambitions. When it slipped out of his control anyway, and in 2000 gave the world two competing presidential nominees, he stiffed both and endorsed George Bush instead.

A different fate befell the left-wing "netroots" that embraced Howard Dean in 2004 and Ned Lamont (among others) in 2006. They've maintained their decentralized character, and they're obviously larger than any particular pol. But unlike the Perot movement or even the Rainbow Coalition, which included left-wing independents as well as Democrats, the netroots aren't larger than one particular party. They may hate the Democratic establishment, but they're still devoted Democrats.

The Paul movement is different. Unlike the Jackson and Perot campaigns, it is open, decentralized, and largely driven by activists operating without any direction from the candidate or his staff. Unlike the netroots, it has no particular attachment to the party whose nomination its candidate is seeking. Paul himself left the Republican fold in the '80s to run for president as a Libertarian, and he still has friendly ties to that party. When he returned to the GOP and to Congress in the election of '96, the national party establishment threw its weight behind his opponent in the primaries, an incumbent who had originally been elected as a Democrat. Paul turned to independent sources to fill his campaign coffers, raising substantial sums from the libertarian, constitutionalist, and hard-money movements. Those have always been his chief base of support.

Barring a complete meltdown of the party gatekeeping apparatus, Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee next year. And he says he has no plans to run as an independent. But you can't erase all the traces of a self-directed, transpartisan, idea-driven movement. Long after Snakes on a Plane was relegated to the cult-movie shelf, the people who spoofed it online are still writing blogs and editing mini-movies, applying the skills they honed mocking an action flick. Howard Dean is just a party functionary today, but the troops who assembled themselves behind him are still active in the trenches, their original leader nearly forgotten. I suspect that Paul will have a longer shelf life than Dean or Snakes. But whatever becomes of him after this election, his fans will still be there, organizing rallies, editing their YouTube videos, launching their own political campaigns, and spreading ideas.

Christians can debate, stand up for their beliefs, and fight when necessary. Those with 'agendas' will always look for something that allows them to say 'what kind of Christian are you'? Many times, not always, but many times they are vocal Christ deniers themselves and have little credibility to be a judge or analyst of Christian beliefs or values.

Guess what - people that you don't consider to be Christians (that is, anyone whose faith or lack thereof doesn't follow in rigid lockstep with yours) can stand up and fight for their beliefs when necessary as well, and you just can't stand that, can you?

You whine and carry on about all the abuse the people you boast about having gotten banned heaped on you and your kind, but you don't mention the fact that you and/or your fellow "Christians" dished it right back out in spades. And what did these people you're so proud of having run off do? Among other things -

They objected to being considered not Christians because they were Catholics or Mormons.
They objected to your belief that anyone who is not a Christian cannot be a proper American citizen, and that they should either "get right with God" or get the hell out.
They objected to being called called communists, abortionists, eugenicists, Nazis, traitors, and much, much worse, because you insist on completely dismantling all science and science education in this country and sending us back to the Dark Ages, just like the Wahabbists.
They objected to your attitude that the power of the state should be used to enforce your idea of what the rest of us should read or watch, who we should choose as friends, what we should say, how we should dress and behave, what we should believe. At least the liberals freely admit they want to completely control our lives.

By the way, I'm not banned here (yet), I post at DC, and I have donated money in the past to Free Republic. If you go to the donor list, you'll see my name there. Radio Astronomer has been banned from here, he admins at DC, and his name is on the Free Republic donor list as well. So your comment about how no one who was banned from here ever gave money to Jim is just another one of your lies. But it's in the service of the Lord, so it's all good, right?

Yeah, Jim makes the rules, and if he wants to enforce them on only one side that's his right. And you can, and I'm sure you will, try and have me banned for standing up to your bullying tactics. You'll probably succeed, too.

But that's all you can do to me.

It's a great big internet out there, and I'll go on just fine at DC.

You have your rights, and I have my right to say what I want somewhere else and fight with everything I have to ensure that authoritarians like you never gain any real power.

And you just can't stand that.

Not one of your bullet points in your diatribe applies to me. I challenge you to find my quotes that support those statements.

In addition to that, you stated:

"So your comment about how no one who was banned from here ever gave money to Jim is just another one of your lies."

I said no such thing. What I said was:

"A list of the banned DC'ers was checked on a FReepathon thread and conclusively, not one was a monthly or dollar-a-day donor. "

My statement is factually correct, and verifiable. Your statement, on the other hand, is your own interpretation of what I said. I never said it. But, even though I never said it, you call me a liar for something I did not say, which can be readily verified right here on this thread.

I don't mind disagreements, but your comments are invalid and rage filled, with no valid relevance to me or my posts.

Sorry to disappoint you. I have no desire to see you banned, but you are doing a good job of drawing attention to your desire all by yourself.

I’m not so insecure in my faith that I have to mock and bait others to get them banned for the sake of not having to see them post here.

I don’t have to talk to people who only believe the way I do. I can actually have friends who are mormons, catholics, baptists, athiests, or have no belief at all. I often talk to others where faith/church/God never enter the conversation.

*************

With this and your previous posts on this thread, I agree. I've also seen some of your posts over the years, trussell. Imho, you are an asset to Free Republic, something I cannot always say about a fellow FReeper.

Yet, I also believe that some of those who are no longer here, whether by their own choice or not, do not leave us the less for it. Some were constant disrupters, who must have been keeping the Mods way too busy. It is also very possible that some, if not all, of those who did make a contribution may at some time return. It has happened, from what I have seen.

I said -

You whine and carry on about all the abuse the people you boast about having gotten banned heaped on you and your kind, but you don't mention the fact that you and/or your fellow "Christians" dished it right back out in spades. And what did these people you're so proud of having run off do?

My "bullet points" did not apply only to you, but to a group of fundamentalists that you are a part of here who think they are the only true Christians, and that anyone else who doesn't think and believe exactly the way you do is just a piece of trash to be kicked around and crapped on. So who's misrepresenting who now?

If you want quotes, they're legion. Start on the crevo threads and look at the name-calling from your fellow "true Christians." Then move on to the bug zapper thread that you consider to be your crowning achievement on this site. Those two just scratch the surface, but they'll keep you busy for a while.

While you're on those crevo threads, take a look at what is accepted as "science" by the "true Christians" - geocentrism, hollow earth theories, snake oil and quack medicine, assertions that the space program is a fraud. I can point you to another thread where a poster claimed that spectroscopy is "junk science", and therefore the idea that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion of hydrogen is another fraud. The only people that challenged him were on the evo side of the fence.

As for your comments about FR donors, right now I know two people at another forum who were monthly donors to FR, except that they changed their screen names when they moved on after their banning here. I'm sure I can find many more with a bit of asking around.

Besides, people who donate to FR have the option to not have their names listed on the donor lists (monthly and otherwise), so it's almost certain that there were monthly donors who have been banned. You have no leg to stand on when you state -

My statement is factually correct, and verifiable.

Since you've been here since 1999, I have to assume you know about anonymous donations - so therefore you lied.

From your attitude, it appears you only consider money from monthly and dollar-a-day donors to be "worthy" money. Just like only your "true Christian" pals are worthy people, I suppose. I guess you'd better stop having FReepathons then - you wouldn't want Jim to have to contaminate himself with any of that tainted one-time donor cash the 'Thons bring in.

My "bullet points" did not apply only to you, but to a group of fundamentalists that you are a part of here who think they are the only true Christians

Your bullet points don't apply to me, period. End of sentence. I am not a part of any group or pack on FR. I am my own man and I speak my own mind based on my own convictions. If you have issues with other people on FR, take it up with them, I have nothing to do with your bullet points and you have nothing to show that I do. Period.

In other words, you have absolutely nothing to back up your accusations against me.

If you want quotes, they're legion...look at the name-calling from your fellow "true Christians."

None, none, none of which are my quotes that align with your specific accusations.

Then you went on to say:

I know two people at another forum who were monthly donors to FR, except that they changed their screen names when they moved on after their banning here. I'm sure I can find many more with a bit of asking around.

My statement is factually correct, and verifiable.

My statement is based on the widely published monthly donor lists and dollar-a-day lists. You are making statements about people who 'changed their screen name' and 'I'm sure I can find more' and 'it's almost certain there were monthly donors who were banned'.

Unless you can prove that, it's all speculation for anyone who objectively would follow this and try and determine who is truthful or not.

Since you've been here since 1999, I have to assume you know about anonymous donations - so therefore you lied.

Lied about what? An unknown, un-named, un-documented person that I'm supposed to somehow magically know has been an anonymous donor?

I'll tell you what; if you can prove any of what you are saying, I have no reason not to accept it as true. Until then, any reasonable person will agree that the published list is a basis for facts, an unpublished, un-named, unknown anonymous possibility is not.

From your attitude, it appears you only consider money from monthly and dollar-a-day donors to be "worthy" money.

Once again you fall victim to your own lack of background and context. My reason for even mentioning monthlies and dollar-a-days is because trussell stated:

"interesting that the new group don’t help get the freepathons complete as fast as the ones who were banned did."

This is quite an inaccurate statement, which I then pointed out the fact that none of the banned posters (at that time) were on either of those lists. Since the monthly/dollar-a-days account for almost 50% of the donations, there was no significant impact from there departure.

The most important issue here is that you, trussell, along with ok_now, the returning banned poster who has been banned agin, and one of the other DC'ers, have once again perverted a thread about political discussion with your rants and obsessions. My comments about insults was in context of a long and civil discussion with another poster about the topic being discussed on this thread.

But once again, you have put your personal agenda ahead of the the real purpose for FR in the first place...a political forum for discussion about conservative principals. You invited yourself into the conversation, you started the discussion, you chose to engage with me, you changed the topic. You both made all the accusations...mostly directed to others, not directly to me, because you don't have any substance to anything that you bring to the discussion.

Maybe you need to know that you can bring 25 more of your friends and try the same thing...it's not going to go anywhere. Maybe you should learn your lesson and go howl at someone else. Here, or elsewhere, I don't care either way.

Don’t lump trussell in with me - I do not believe that she and I have ever posted to one another, so don’t attempt to imply that we’re somehow in collusion. Don’t even think of using me to get her banned.

Having said that, in my opinion she is more of a Christian than you can ever hope to be.

The only reason this discussion ever came up was because you were the one bragging on an open forum about how you got several posters banned by baiting them. That’s called trolling, and on most forums I’ve ever been a part of that’s one of the fastest ways to get yourself banned. I guess it’s accepted practice here now, as long as you’re on the right side in Jim’s view.

My original statement stands - you cannot, using the donor lists, conclusively prove that posters who were banned and are now over at DC never gave any money to Free Republic, as monthly or one time donors. Between the anonymous donors and the people who changed names when they moved on, the data set you’re working with has too many holes to reach that conclusion. Your implication is that we are and were nothing but a bunch of deadbeats is simply a baseless smear.

You want another scalp on your belt, go tell Robinson to take mine. Leave everyone else out of this.

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.