 |
| (Photo credit: Associated Press) |
So I kept meaning to write a post on Newt Gingrich, but couldn’t find the time. Law school finals and papers kept interrupting.
But now that that’s behind me, at least for a few weeks, I can turn my attention back to politics.
And lo and behold, Ron Paul is rising in the polls. How did that happen? And why am I not thrilled? After all, he’s the limited government pro-constitution candidate.
Paul’s legion of followers have long complained that he is not taken seriously by the media. That is changing. Many recent articles have examined Paul’s association with conspiracy theorists and pandering to the political fringes, his liberal foreign policy, his tendency to resort to personal attacks, his naive promises, and his paranoia. A particularly interesting article written by a former staffer explores Paul’s initial opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as his theory that we should have stayed out of WWII.
PHC professor Gene Veith recently asked whether Paul could be the person to unite the left and right. If he means the fringes of each party--that part where the two become indistinguishable--he’s certainly correct. There’s a utopian streak running through many of his followers that is easy to place at either fringe.
Personally, I have my own list of reasons for opposing Paul. He sounds good because he runs on the “constitution” - but his understanding of that document is more akin to the anti-federalists and Confederates than Madison or Hamilton. Or, to use a more familiar analogy, his “constitutionalism” excites conservatives the same way Obama’s “change” excited liberals - it sounds good and allows the listener to project whatever he wants onto the candidate’s platform.
Furthermore, as the racist newsletter and association with conspiracy theorists indicates, Paul is a very poor judge of others. Dare I say he’s too trusting. Even if you like some of his ideas, it difficult to trust him to make good cabinet and judicial appointments. And then, as with the newsletters, could a president Paul explain away an embarrassing press releases or legislation with “I didn’t read it and disavow it?” Is this interview what Presidential press conferences will look like?
But now that that’s behind me, at least for a few weeks, I can turn my attention back to politics.
And lo and behold, Ron Paul is rising in the polls. How did that happen? And why am I not thrilled? After all, he’s the limited government pro-constitution candidate.
Paul’s legion of followers have long complained that he is not taken seriously by the media. That is changing. Many recent articles have examined Paul’s association with conspiracy theorists and pandering to the political fringes, his liberal foreign policy, his tendency to resort to personal attacks, his naive promises, and his paranoia. A particularly interesting article written by a former staffer explores Paul’s initial opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as his theory that we should have stayed out of WWII.
PHC professor Gene Veith recently asked whether Paul could be the person to unite the left and right. If he means the fringes of each party--that part where the two become indistinguishable--he’s certainly correct. There’s a utopian streak running through many of his followers that is easy to place at either fringe.
Personally, I have my own list of reasons for opposing Paul. He sounds good because he runs on the “constitution” - but his understanding of that document is more akin to the anti-federalists and Confederates than Madison or Hamilton. Or, to use a more familiar analogy, his “constitutionalism” excites conservatives the same way Obama’s “change” excited liberals - it sounds good and allows the listener to project whatever he wants onto the candidate’s platform.
Furthermore, as the racist newsletter and association with conspiracy theorists indicates, Paul is a very poor judge of others. Dare I say he’s too trusting. Even if you like some of his ideas, it difficult to trust him to make good cabinet and judicial appointments. And then, as with the newsletters, could a president Paul explain away an embarrassing press releases or legislation with “I didn’t read it and disavow it?” Is this interview what Presidential press conferences will look like?
And then there’s his foreign policy. He advocates just getting along with everyone. But as Jonah Goldberg at the National Review pointed out, he wasn’t particularly successful at that as a legislator:
Why not indeed. While in congress Paul sponsored 620 bills, 4 of which were voted on and one of which was signed into law. That one involved the sale of a customs house in Texas. Rather, Paul managed to get himself kicked off of the conservative group Young Americans for Freedom. He was voted worst follower by Congressional staff in 2006. He also was one of the very few dissenters from his party in a cause he is apparently passionate about . . . earmark spending (which he justifies asking for because he was going to vote against the bill anyway). In short, Paul’s weakness is his ideological inability to compromise or seek agreement.
Yet in foreign policy that is exactly what he condemns the United States for--believing it is the world’s only hope. He wants to solve problems by negotiating, but his record in congress indicates he is incapable of that--whether across the aisle or with his own party. And if he could not come to agreement with his own party leadership, why should we expect anything different from his talks with Ahmadinejad (despite their common belief that Israel should not exist)?
Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. In that time, he will rightly tell you, Congress has spent money with reckless abandon, expanded the state’s police powers, launched numerous wars without a declaration of war, and further embraced fiat money (he got into politics when Richard Nixon took us fully off the gold standard). During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing . . . nobody. He authored precious little legislation of any consequence.
Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?
Why not indeed. While in congress Paul sponsored 620 bills, 4 of which were voted on and one of which was signed into law. That one involved the sale of a customs house in Texas. Rather, Paul managed to get himself kicked off of the conservative group Young Americans for Freedom. He was voted worst follower by Congressional staff in 2006. He also was one of the very few dissenters from his party in a cause he is apparently passionate about . . . earmark spending (which he justifies asking for because he was going to vote against the bill anyway). In short, Paul’s weakness is his ideological inability to compromise or seek agreement.
Yet in foreign policy that is exactly what he condemns the United States for--believing it is the world’s only hope. He wants to solve problems by negotiating, but his record in congress indicates he is incapable of that--whether across the aisle or with his own party. And if he could not come to agreement with his own party leadership, why should we expect anything different from his talks with Ahmadinejad (despite their common belief that Israel should not exist)?
Who is this author? This doesn't seem to be the caliber of writing that typically goes out on Looking for Overland. I expect more thorough, charitable analysis and discussion, not a hit piece.
ReplyDeleteI must say this is an honest analysis, however much it feels like a hit piece. If Paul wants to run with the big dogs, he (and his acolytes) must realize that a lot of his crazy history, wacky actions, and stupid decisions will be aired, and that is fair and good in a free society.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=j1uc7x4a8SM
ReplyDeleteResponse to the interview
Anonymous, I'm sorry, as entertaining as that video was, it didn't change my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting statistic that he has been in Congress on and off for 30 years, and his single legislative accomplishment is selling a customs house in Texas.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a man who understands his ideology, but doesn't understand politics. This means that his ideology never becomes reality. The record shows him to be unfit for the presidency in my opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Sorry, I'm trying to be short so I apologize if I seem choppy and rude.)
ReplyDeleteNicholas, wait, does that mean that you think Ron Paul is a racist?
Personally, I would rather have a president who has passed one constitutional piece of legislation than a president who has gone along with his party's leadership in bringing no significant solutions to the table. Being "legislatively effective" is what has gotten America into the financial mess that it's in. For those of us who don't agree with Paul's foreign policy, we have to ask ourselves; which is more important? Bringing real financial solutions to the table now or not allowing Iran to get a nuke? No other Republican candidate in the race is willing to bring forth a pint by point plan that cuts 1.3 trillion dollars their first year in office and balance the budget in three years. Ron Paul does.
I'm in highschool and am homeschooled. My dad doesn't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for. Because of the Federal department he contracts under will be abolished under a Paul presidency, he will more than likely lose his job when Paul is elected. Yet, my dad believes that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who wants to bring honest, real solutions to the financial problems America faces today. "He's just what's best, not for us (my family), but for our country."
The YAF statements I read by that Marks guy were either some of the most dishonest or ignorant statements I've ever read about Ron Paul. If you'd like me to explain further just ask.
If Paul was voted as the worst follower of the lesser of two evils in Washington D.C. then that is absolutely fine with me.
I don't see how earmarking an unconstitutional bill is bad. If you can't gather the support to follow the constitution, use the perfectly constitutional measure of earmarking to prevent the legislation from having bad effects on your constituents.
Carson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful response.
No, I have not seen recent evidence that Paul is racist. However, what the newsletters indicate is that he either (a) cannot identify racism in his close associates and fails to manage what is done in his name or (b) is willing to use whatever language necessary to appease followers (in that case radical followers) whether he believes it or not. Yes, he has stated that he did not write the newsletters. However, what remains a mystery is who did and whether they are still part of his staff or part of his advisory team? That is the poor leadership demonstrated, rather than the actual substance of the articles. What he fails to realize is that actions done by his subordinates reflect on himself. Since the President is primarily an administrator, this is a serious failing.
The problem with Paul’s financial reforms is that they won’t see the light of day even if he were elected. The president’s power over legislation is largely one of persuasion – he has to persuade Congress to pass it. He does have veto power, but Congress can override that – which I anticipate happening a lot to a president Paul. And Paul’s history of being able to persuade congress is abysmal—even as a member. He couldn’t even work with his own party, but rather forged his own path on issues as insignificant as the attempt to band together against earmarks. That’s hardly a break over moral lines. Rather, it ensuring he remains popular in his home district (which is what earmarks are used for).
And the point of the YAF press release was again not to debate the substance, but to show that Paul can’t get along with those who should be his closest allies. As a previous commenter pointed out, he may understand ideology, but not politics. And that makes him unfit for the office.