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.

Are you 6 years old?

No, merely quoting one of the great classics of American literature. Plus, I tend to diagnose whacked-out poo-brain in anyone who thinks Bradley Manning is a patriot, takes Alex Jones seriously as a journalist or believes shrimp marketing campaigns financed with borrowed Chinese money are about smaller government.

It is a game since you are changing the subject from why are Paul supporters feeling put upon to Paul himself. Ron Paul has been discussed to death. There is nothing more to be said about him.

It does concern me, a bit, that all pretense of civility has been thrown to the wind and all threads discussing this candidate become a contest to come up with the most outrageous, most infantile, most shocking insult possible against Paul and anyone who dares not to damn his soul to hell.

It is obvious why Paul supporters may feel abused to anyone with slightest degree of human empathy.

We decry the left's use of terms like "tea bagger" to derisively refer to Tea Party proponents, but I first saw the term used right here on FR on a Ron Paul thread, to refer to the "small governemt" following he had.

The person who coined it seemed quite proud of it, and even included a like to the Wiki article describing it's sexual connotations so that everyone would know what it meant.

THAT’S not what makes him insane.....those things are the only SANE thing he says. The anti-Semitism etc. is what makes him crazy.

The "anti-semitism" charge is just one of the ways his political opponents try to smear him. He's not anti-semitic, he just doesn't have the same "Israel can do no wrong" attitude that many other politicians have. Take a look at this video, since you brought up that charge.

Not helping Israel is CRAZY!

Paul opposes foreign aid not just to Israel, but to ALL nations. When you think about his position and consider that we have given tons of money to Israel's enemies, his position doesn't hurt Israel at all. If we give 3 billion a year to Israel, and 12 billion to Israel's enemies, then Israel has the net disadvantage, so ending foreign aid to both actually HELPS Israel.

The bottom line is, Paul believes in the independence and sovereignty of all nations, Israel included. He believes in the biblical principle that "the borrower is servant to the lender" - and just as he opposes generational welfare that causes people to be dependent on the government and gives the government control over people, it's the same idea with other nations. We should not be interfering in their affairs or trying to control them, just as we want other nations to respect OUR sovereignty and not interfere with OUR affairs. I don't think that is "insane" at all, the opposite, in fact!

I think you are tapping on a right thick skull, Silverback, as that is the simplest explanation for RP’s followers, as shown on this thread. Over and over it has been pointed out here why he is called a loon, and they conveniently breeze right by that, and repeat the same tired whine...

Oh, please....

“I think the first 10 posts answer the question pretty eloquently.”

“The answer is obvious to anyone not possessed by the ugly spirit of hatred”

“Are you 6 years old?”

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.