Ron Paul: merely a Barry Goldwater without the gunpowder

I don't use the word "fascinating" very often to describe political movements, but that's just what the Ron Paul phenomenon is. It's fascinating because it's a strange sort of outlier, a borderline freak show, an insurrectionary abnormality within the normally staid and stuffy Republican Party.

Paul has ignited a dedicated and mushrooming base largely, as we know, because of the Iraq war. He alone among the Republican warhawk club of presidential candidates called a spade a spade early on -- that the war was an anticonstitutional betrayal of America's interests -- and thereby stood out from the snarling pack. In doing so, he also put to shame the Democratic candidates, excepting Dennis Kucinich, who have done little but waver and waffle on the war's status quo. Hence Paul has been able to draw visceral antiwar support from both sides of the blurred ideological divide.

When both parties get themselves mired in such an intolerable state of affairs, Ron Pauls happen. It's as simple and predictable as that, but no less fascinating. Because they usually take on a common-man, log-cabin, "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" kind of grassroots enthusiasm that's like a behemoth without a head. Support sprawls, and indignation and frustration rule, but usually in only one identifiable cause and direction; in this case, the Iraq war and demands for its end.

But if Paul's supporters, who are growing in numbers and financial contributions literally by the minute, were to scratch the surface of Paul's vocal frustration on their behalf, I doubt they'd like what they find. For, beyond the Iraq war issue, what Paul represents is a neo-New Rightest movement within an already reactionary political party. He takes the Republican clock -- already cranked back to the Gilded Age -- and turns it further back to the virtually non-governmental age of the early 19th century.

Paul is nothing new. He's just Barry Goldwater without the gunpowder.

For this Texas congressman, who has drawn a handsome government check for 20 years, simplicity reigns, just as it did for the Arizona senator. Government is bad, government can never be helpful, we were never so well off as we were in 1787.

The internal complexities of that era that led to, say, our bloodiest war, severe and repeated economic depressions and an unsustainable two-tiered class structure are easily overlooked, if only one would restrict oneself to a McGuffey's Reader view of American history and political philosophy.

This, Paul has done. For him, complexities begone -- and that's a seductive proposition for millions who are sick of, and confused by, the turmoil of modern, post-industrialized life. It's so simple, and comforting, to identify one enemy -- the government -- and envision a happy, carefree life with its perceived intrusions erased.

Take a look at Paul's Web site, and you'll soon see what I mean. It's chocked full of the most curious phenomena -- what you might call black-and-white ambiguities, all promising a simpler, and thereby happier, future.

Take, for instance, taxes. Paul likes lower ones, and who doesn't? How low, we can't say, because he doesn't. But he does say things like this: "Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing."

Well, for that single mother it might be for a while, until she realizes her and her children's health care is now kaput, her daycare subsidies are forever gone, her kids' school will continue to crumble, the federal highway she travels to work on is unattended, the air she breathes and the water she drinks are worsening in quality, her state and local taxes are now $400 a month in a failing attempt to compensate -- and her employer is now cashing all his goodies in with no capital gains to pay.

You want 1787? Or 1887? You can have it, but you won't want it for long. I can guarantee that, because neither did the folks who lived in 1787 and 1887.

There's no doubt Paul's antiwar, anti-imperialism message is a powerfully sensible one. Go beyond it, though -- turn down the siren song of simplicity, and turn up the muted lessons of history -- and your Paulite enthusiasm, if so possessed, is sure to drift away.

****

... to support p m carpenter's commentary -- and thank you!

Comments

[Hotrod54235]

PM,
Exactly correct. This is where the Libertarians fall off the wagon. They would abandon any oversight of anything economic, pitting the individual against the oligarchy. Not a pretty thing.

[Dan]

Your commentary about the Paul candidacy strikes me as one of short-sightedness and simplicity. Much the same as your accusations regarding Mr. Paul's views. First of all Ron Paul isn't a single-issue candidate. Aside from his views on illegal and ill-advised foreign interference and incursions, he stands for a return to fiscal sanity and personal rights and freedoms, actually believing that the constitution is still a relevant document which deserves more than just lip-service. And Mr. Paul's lack of specifics on issues which concern you is fairly commonplace in the world of politics for various reasons. Some due to limited access to the real facts and figures regarding such matters. I, in no way, feel that a vote for Ron Paul will eradicate Democratic influence in Washington. If anything, his respect for our constitution and government's balance of powers will prevent strong-arm political practices, which stifle and prevent a comprehensive respect for individual rights and diversity of ideas. He may also inspire those who, for political reasons, have thus far shown little backbone to move forward on issues of importance. It's time for real change and moderation, and few others afford that hope. It boils down to a matter of trust and independence. Which candidate can I trust to do what is right for all and which candidate is free from unhealthy political influences.

[Scott Clayton]

Yep, those guys that created the constitution hated the way our country turned out in 1787? 1887?

Isn't an oligarchy a form of government?

[Mooser]

For this Texas congressman, who has drawn a handsome government check for 20 years, simplicity reigns, just as it did for the Arizona senator. Government is bad, government can never be helpful, we were never so well off as we were in 1787

Ron Paul fans, see that part about the "handsome government check"? That's the part you can't get away from.
No matter what Mr. Paul says, he is the quintessential government beaureaucrat. No matter what he says about it, he sure never found a way to make a living without it.

[Ames Gilbert]

Mooser, you are referring to Dr Ron Paul, a medical doctor who ran a successful medical practice for a big chunk of his life and delivered over 4,000 babies. Then he tried to do something about our political system…

[Deep Soul]

Nice hit piece attempt. You urge readers to go beneath the surface of Paul's rhetoric yet you do nothing of the sort in your criticism. RP's support is not fundamentally based on Iraq; the reasons are as diverse as those who support him. But whatever,go ahead and cast your vote for some CFR, Trilateral, WTO-lovin' candidate and enjoy your slavery.

[Zee]

Paulites? Don't you mean moRons? Now you've done it, pm. You've incurred the wrath of a cult. Just like the 9/11 conspiratard nitwits you'll have these moRons on your ass big time. Yeah, "Deep Soul" --- go beyond the shallow net-roots and learn about moRon Paul's racist past, not to mention his prediction of the collapse of our money system decades ago. Besides, the net-roots phenom is a sham, too...Wired had an article on how the moRon cult is using illegal BOTS to flood emails, etc. in support of the anti-choice pro-gun no-gummint except when I say so cult figure.

[Deep Soul]

Spam bots don't donate $4.2 million in one day. Wait 'til the next money bomb hits...

RP is not one to make predictions as you suggest; Austrian economics recognizes the human element involved and that the system is held together by human confidence. If people en masse assign no worth to Federal Reserve notes then....they become worthless. If people continue to believe that debt-money is good, then the system will march on.

RP is not racist. He has publicly noted the unfairness of the criminal justice system toward blacks. Want his take on racism? then step a little beyond the swift-boating: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

[JeffLeon]

Except for his Iraq views, Ron Paul pushes all the usual Libertarian idiocies: unregulated commerce; excusing the wealthy from taxation; pretending that the elderly, the very young and the sick can fend for themselves; and blah, blah, blah.

Sure, I like watching Paul make stuffed-shirt Republicans squirm. God bless him, he's having a blast and some of you are too. It's harmless fun.

But Ron Paul, wealthy anti-government government employee cashing a government paycheck, is a fleeting phenomenon. Remember Perot. And enjoy it while it lasts.

[Deep Soul]

if one wants to see change in the gov't, what better way than to get inside of it?

[Zee]

No, Deep Crap, I don't need to take your cult-word on his racism. He spent years on a newsletter that spelled out his foul racism. You deal with it.

[Zee]

And who cares how much money he parts from moRons? The bots were still illegal.

[Jonathan]

The Ron Paul candidacy is a sign of a healthy democratic process, and he pushes ideas and gives voice to a large group of voters which has been completely marginalized by our current system. A huge number of people rallied around the Democrats during the last election - enough to give them the majority is both houses, even despite our rigged election, which is something - and then were completely abandoned.

Ron Paul is one of the few (only?) candidates who will actually openly suggest that the Bush administration would use a terrorist attack or other national crisis to overturn the constitution and stay in power; or foresaw the disaster and lies surrounding the Iraq war.

More importantly, Ron Paul is willing to discuss the problems with the government, and it's tendency towards tyranny; in this sense, it's not so much that he wants to turn back the clock to the early days of the country, but rather he's bringing concerns about an overly powerful central government to the forefront, concerns that lie at the basis of why this country was formed in the first place.

Compared to any of the other Republicans, supporting Ron Paul is a no-brainer for me.

BUT, I must say that I agree with Mr. Carpenter's larger point. I've long since though that Libertarianism was simply Anarchy for grown-ups, and is just as untenable. Ron Paul wants to essentially eliminate the Federal Government, from the IRS to the FBI. People tend to support this, since the government (run by Bush and Co.) has been at the root of so much our recent misery.

But think about what this would wind up causing. Scientific research would nearly end within the US, and the Universities would crumble from the top down. Crime which is normally curtailed by the FBI would run rampant. Hey, Ron Paul likes the Internet, that's great. The Internet was created by a federal research project (the ARPA-net). Oh, the irony.

The Part II of Ron Paul's philosophy (listen to what he says!) is that companies can run the country just fine. Do people really believe that? I mean, if Halliburton and Exon were in charge, everything would be just great?

I love watching Ron Paul debate, and I think his recent support is great. But I think that the idea that he could actually effectively run the country, or that the country could function essentially without a Federal government, is a little simplistic, to say the least.

[Angelina MaldeTesta]

Hey, out there? Anyone ever heard of Mike Gravel?
No wavering or waffling on his part - he's pretty clear:
You want out of Iraq? Filibuster, call for vote on the war everyday, filibuster, cut off funds, filibuster.
He knows - he released the Pentagon Papers and successfully filibustered to end the draft.
Now, again - anyone out there ever heard of Mike Gravel?

[t quigly]

Some of these comments are staggering. A few condemn him for 'drawing a handsome government check' - now, which candidates have not?
Dr. Paul is forthright in his policies - and has been consistently for 30 years. He is humble, intelligent, and sharp, as he discusses his policies and clearly answers all questions on all subjects put to him by interviewers.
The populace is so used to idiotDuhhbya and to the spin of normal political discourse, that Dr. Paul's clear, intelligent and concise message confuses some of that populace. But to most of us, it is a welcome breath of fresh air and hope.
Ron Paul 2008.

[Journo]

I cover politics; Carpenter is ignoring one of Paul's biggest draws -- his demands for the restoration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the end to this non-stop "War on Terror" that threatens our republic more than any threat we've faced in the past, because it guarantees the end of our civil liberties as well as endless war.

Paul is demonized by people like Carpenter who obviously never listened to him in the debates.

Paul says that the most effective government is on a local level -- only the insane would disagree with that -- what I need in Arizona is different from what someone in Iowa needs.

Paul believes that we could not attack and invade foreign countries were it not for the truly absurd amount of federal income tax we pay. According to the National Priorities Project, 45% of your personal federal income tax goes to the Pentagon.

In the meantime, Hitlery "Bomb Iran for Israel" Clinton - who has received more from the military armaments industry than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, and Obama the Pakistan invader, get a free pass from the spineless wimps who make up the Democrats' support base.

Ask yourself, what has the Democratic party done for you? Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, FDR have all gotten us into, or escalated, wars.

The Democrats are now in power and gave Mukasey their support. They refuse to get us out of Iraq and the DLC is active in supporting an attack on Iran. For Israel.

That will guarantee a further restriction of our inalienable rights, because not only will every single one of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide hate us, the rest of the world will hate us too. Which will give the government the spurious *excuse* it needs to take the wrecking ball to what is left of our Bill of Rights.

Again, I cover politics (and war) -- I plan to give as much as I can to Ron Paul's candidacy.

And if you want to save your kids, demand from *your* congresspeople that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) register as a foreign agent. Also demand that they make the U.S.', and not Israel's interest their first priority, which would mean NO ATTACK ON IRAN.

[trace brown]

Progressive blogger attacks on Dr. Ron Paul are perplexing. For the last 7 years, bloggers have lambasted this mal-administration for it's illegal invasions, deadly occupations and aggressive foreign 'policy'. Dr. Paul says out now! (vs. all candidates but 2 who out-macho each other for more invasions). He advocates diplomacy and communication with all governments.
Progressive bloggers have complained about runaway spending. For 30 years, Dr. Paul has been a fiscal conservative.
Bloggers have laughed at Duhhhbya for his ignorance. Dr. Paul is intelligent and professional communicator.
Bloggers complain about Bush breaking laws. Dr. Paul has always been a strict constitutionalist.
These are just a few points on which Dr. Paul is advocating the same policies as progressive bloggers. But bloggers attack him. It is a mystery.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” (Gandhi) - it looks like Dr. Paul is on his way to winning.
note to Journo - I agree with your posting, although our taxes are not paying for these illegal wars - we can't amass enough money for them, so are borrowing from China to pay for them. Digusting.

[Jah Red]

ONe thing about tax or more noted Income taxes.

None of it goes to the government anyway. It goes to pay the interest on our debt to the FED.

None of it would ever go to a health care program.

Read the Grace Commission Report!!

Also look at IRS evelope E-179 (Rev. 6-92).

An envelope you pay your income taxes in it shows you how you check will be endorsed.

"Pay any FRB, this is in payment of US Obligation"

[Zee]

"Progressive blogger attacks on Dr. Ron Paul are perplexing"

Don't worry your moRon head over it, trace brown-bot..however, it's very very simple. Racism is YOUR side's bread and butter. We find it offensive. Obviously, white power supremacy and the hate talk newsletter your Gud Herr Doktor put out for years is a-ok with you.

Obviously his pro-gun, anti-choice is your cup of tea. It's not ours.

And as far as the nutcase theories on our currency collapsing, moRon Paul has been beating that hysteria for decades and to the moRons who lap it up, I guess 30 years of IMPENDING DOOM!!!!!! is a way of life, huh?

[Zee]

The bots are out in force. Total cult mentality. Illegality a-ok with them. Nutcase theories, gummint interfering with women's bodies, and white power supremacy all aaaaaaa-ok with them. That's "Constitutionalists" for you.

[Jah Red]

I'm a rastafarian and are you calling me a racist because i support Ron Paul?

[Zee]

No, faux-rasta. I'd be calling YOU a self-loathing moRon for supporting a racist.

[Zee]

pm, I do have to congratulate you for taking on these moRon bots. It's a ton of fun exposing cult nuts.

[Journo]

I was at the peace rally/ protest of Bush's second non-selection, in Los Angeles.

None of us, i.e., the participants, were in possession of anything more lethal than cardboard signs.

Then the tanks rolled-up, with soldiers carrying guns. I have pictures but a simple web search will find other pictures of the tanks.

The tanks stopped in front of us, then rounded the block and stopped in front of us again, blocking the crosswalk in front of the L.A. Westwood Federal building.

If they had opened fire, what were we supposed to do? Whack the sides of the tanks with our peace signs?

(We found out later that they were not true tanks, but tanks-lite -- I believe they are called something like ARVs -- but they certainly looked like tanks to my civilian eyes and to the eyes of my fellow protesters)

All to say, that since that day, I, a person who was formerly for gun control, now am a complete supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

As I believe it was Jefferson who said, the government should be afraid of the people and not vice versa.

I have traveled in 21 countries, many run by despots. When revolution comes to this country it will be all those *yahoos* out there in the *heartland* with unregistered weapons who will save our skinny, little, yuppie asses.

And another point: if Ron Paul were elected he would still have to deal with the two sides of the same raw deal Rethug-DimboCraps in Congress.

So the chances of America becoming a Libertarian state are almost nil. But since Paul will give back the power usurped by the executive branch during George the Second's reign (when Hitlery/ Benito Thuguliani, etc., certainly will not), we are guaranteed a restoration of the system of checks and balances that has kept this country going for lo these centuries.

And yet Carpenter prefers the skull-duggery of the completely pro-Israel DLC and a war in Iran to an honest candidate, Ron Paul, with a very honest agenda.

GO RON GO.

[Brian]

How can anyone think that our dollar is collapsing? Our economy is doing great, running smoothly with no problems. In the matter of fact, check out this site and look at impressed the rest of the world is with our progress.
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/noviembre/mar20/47dolar.html