Let us stipulate that Ron Paul is a highly imperfect messenger. He has all too frequently trafficked in conspiracy theories; his justifiable caution about government can veer uncomfortably close to paranoia. He has not had a truly convincing explanation for how his name ended up attached to newsletters in the 1980s that contained racist and anti-Semitic writings. And some of his advisers and associates have more than dubious backgrounds.
Let us also stipulate that Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee for president. If he wins Iowa, as polls now indicate is possible, he may well run second in New Hampshire, further deflating Newt and guaranteeing a long, drawn-out primary process. But after that, it’s hard to see where Paul wins outside of some western caucus states. And if he does stay near the front of the pack, the full weight of the Republican establishment will descend on him with a wrath hitherto unseen.
Advertisement
But, all that said, it is worth asking why his message seems to be catching on. Could it be that in a race where the frontrunners are the godfather of Obamacare and a guy who wants to fight crime by installing giant mirrors in space to illuminate our cities at night, there is an unmet desire among grassroots Republicans for a genuine limited-government conservative?
At a time when our country is drowning in debt, the other GOP candidates seem unwilling to venture much beyond the idea of cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse.” Paul, on the other hand, has a specific plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget next year, including abolishing five cabinet agencies. That may or may not be practical, but it speaks to those seeking a smaller, less costly, less intrusive government, in a way that other candidates, with their 59-point plans for carefully trimming this agency or that, do not.
Even on foreign policy, an area where Paul diverges most from the GOP mainstream, voters seem sympathetic to Paul, particularly when it comes to the idea that not every world hot spot represents an existential threat to America. There is good reason to wonder what victory in Afghanistan would really look like. They ask if war with Iran is the only solution. And, when we are committing more troops and treasure to countries as unrelated to national security as Uganda, they ask whether there is any limit to U.S. commitments. They may not answer these questions by proposing the same degree of non-involvement as Representative Paul, but neither are they excited by other candidates’ bellicosity.
Small-government Republicans have increasingly felt neglected in a Republican coalition dominated by social conservatives and defense hawks. The rise of the Tea Party should have been the first warning that there was discontent on the economic Right. The unexpected success of Ron Paul should be delivering a similar message.
Small-government, constitutionalist, economic conservatives are now demanding an equal place at the Republican table. It’s a message Republicans should pay attention to, no matter how flawed the messenger.
Justin Raimondo said it best,
"They think they can just ignore him. They believe their lies will destroy him. They will stop at nothing to sabotage the populist movement he has created almost single-handedly. But no matter. We will defeat the War Party, which is hated by ordinary Americans: we will beat and humiliate the regnant elites who think they can dictate the boundaries of the political discourse. Let the media loosen its cannons on their target and do their best to slime a near saintly man, whose gentleness and sincerity is a visible presence on that debate stage – and a stark contrast to the sleazy shifty-eyed Gingrich, the thousand-mile stare of Bachmann, and the palpable insincerity of the robotic Romney. The more the mainstream media attacks Paul, the more the Republican electorate – as well as Americans of all political stripes – will rally to his cause. We shall overcome."
Justin Raimondo said it best,
"They think they can just ignore him. They believe their lies will destroy him. They will stop at nothing to sabotage the populist movement he has created almost single-handedly. But no matter. We will defeat the War Party, which is hated by ordinary Americans: we will beat and humiliate the regnant elites who think they can dictate the boundaries of the political discourse. Let the media loosen its cannons on their target and do their best to slime a near saintly man, whose gentleness and sincerity is a visible presence on that debate stage – and a stark contrast to the sleazy shifty-eyed Gingrich, the thousand-mile stare of Bachmann, and the palpable insincerity of the robotic Romney. The more the mainstream media attacks Paul, the more the Republican electorate – as well as Americans of all political stripes – will rally to his cause. We shall overcome."
Despite the condescension of beltway libertarians like Michael Tanner and Nick "I'm so hip" Gillespie, as well as the anti-intellectual carping of the big government Republicans at the NRO editorial board, Ron Paul IS an acceptable candidate and millions will vote for him.
The real fact is that Ron Paul has done more for liberty and less government in the last eight years than NR or Cato has done in many decades.
Paul has awakened a new generation of young people to the need for greater individual liberty, economic freedom, less war and smaller government - and these young people do not read NRO (and certainly won't now).
Paul has also awakened no small number of older folks like me who have been long time NR and NRO readers and who are only lately realizing how we have been lied to by an endless string of self professed "conservative" writers and commentators who have done little more than shill for Republican-brand big government.
I was under the impression Cato was a libertarian think tank. I personally enjoyed Cato's podcast on economic issues.
From this article, It seems Cato is a established GOP mouthpiece. I don't understand how a "libertarian" think-tank would try to mar a similar libertarian Ron Paul's recent success like it is here. It would seem like the best interest of Cato would be to support a candidate of similar ideologies such as Ron Paul, rather than deface his success and ineffectually give credit to big government runners like Newt/Gingrich.
The only point conveyed in this article is that Cato does not truly "uphold the idea of liberty" like it's statement of purpose states on it's website.
Sir, your article has several contradictions. On the one hand, you agree, albeit reluctantly, w/ Dr. Paul's main positions. However, you then say he is 'highly imperfect'. You say that he is 'justifiably cautious' toward government, but just too much so? You also don' like his advisors, despite the fact that they are not running. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Paul is the only prinicipled, consistent, honest candidate of the bunch. The rest of simply woefully inferior. As for his (un) electibility - I don't buy that argument. I will always vote for a candidate based on his views, rather than how his hair or suit looks. Ron Paul 2012!!!
The Republican establishment gave us George Bush, the War in Iraq, the bailouts, the Patriot Act, and started bloating the deficit long before Obama exploded it. This small-government Republican will continue supporting Ron Paul in his efforts to upset the establishment.
It would be nice if earmark king Ron Paul were honest, but he’s as big a liar as Barack Obama and just as delusional. Paul lies about his eagerness to funnel taxpayer money to his special interests ($157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011 and over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010), his racist newsletter, his taking donations from anti-Semites and racists, his sympathy for anti-American militias, his Muslim ties, his pro-jihadist foreign policy, his opposition to American exceptionalism, his support for pro-abortion candidates, his pro-homosexual agenda, his anti-Semitism, the list could go on and on about the dishonesty and disingenuousness of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a DC insider who like his political soulmate Barack Obama thinks he's a latter day "messiah" when he's nothing more than a sleazy politician wrapped in a bigot.
Yet another garbage article published without questions asked in the NRO by its repugnant editors and authored by the utterly-discredited libertarian Michael Tanner. Why the NRO continues to publish his screeds is a mystery.
His entire article is a litany of lies.
For starters, Ron Paul is not honest; he's the most dishonest politician I've seen in a long time. This is the man who preaches fiscal conservatism on one hand and brings hundreds of millions of pork dollars to his home district every year. He lards up App bills with tons of porks for his district, then casts meaningless votes against their final passage, knowing they won't be stopped.
Furthermore, Tanner falsely claims:
"Even on foreign policy, an area where Paul diverges most from the GOP mainstream, voters seem sympathetic to Paul, particularly when it comes to the idea that not every world hot spot represents an existential threat to America."
Garbage. As multiple polls show, the vast majority of Americans reject Paul's insane, isolationist views and his demands of deep defense cuts. The most recent poll on the subject shows that 82% of Americans - a whopping 82% - oppose any further defense cuts, including the sequester. Previous polls have shown that a sizeable majority of Americans opposes any defense cuts, and would be willing to defend at least crucial allies like Britain and Japan. Afghanistan is hardly the only issue on which the vast majority of Republicans disagree with Ron Paul.
Tanner claims that:
"They may not answer these questions by proposing the same degree of non-involvement as Representative Paul, but neither are they excited by other candidates’ bellicosity."
Other candidates' bellicosity? What bellicosity? What candidate promises war with any country? NONE. Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum have merely said that IF there is no other option they will bomb Iran to stop its nuclear weapon program, but only IF there is no other choice. The claim that they are belligerent is false and insulting. Tanner and the NRO owe these five candidates an apology, as these five candidates would be well justified to sue the NRO.
But Tanner's most ridiculous claim is this:
"Small-government Republicans have increasingly felt neglected in a Republican coalition dominated by social conservatives and defense hawks. (...) Small-government, constitutionalist, economic conservatives are now demanding an equal place at the Republican table."
What utter garbage. Economic conservatives have always had an equal place at the Republican table, and these days they have the #1 place. The claim they are being neglected is a blatant lie; they now control the party. It is us defense conservatives who are being neglected and thrown out of the party like trash, while our repeated pleas have been met only with repeat injuries. The GOP has been on a defense-cutting odyssey since 2009, and is still an accomplice of President Obama in gutting defense. Republicans voted for Obama's 2009, 2010 and 2011 defense cuts, including the CR and the 2011 Gates defense cuts. They voted for the New START treaty. They voted for the debt ceiling deal. Most Republicans are now refusing to even consider sparing the DOD from the sequester mechanism, which will cut defense spending by $1.065 trillion over the next decade. We are being bombarded daily by outlets such as the NRO, the Daily Caller, HumanEvents, Fox News, and others with lies about defense spending, calls for deep defense cuts, and claims that anyone who doesn't support them is not a conservative. These "conservative" outlets also continue to tell us that the Pentagon is just another big government program, that defense is a mere "pet project" of some people, and that any spending cut is not a cut if defense spending is not cut radically. And yet Tanner dares to claim that fiscal conservatives are the ones being neglected?
Furthermore, Tanner lies that
"The rise of the Tea Party should have been the first warning that there was discontent on the economic Right. The unexpected success of Ron Paul should be delivering a similar message."
WRONG. Ron Paul's rise is fueled SOLELY by Democrats and independents. They are the ones who support Ron Paul, not mainstream Republicans. The most recent polls show that the majority of Ron Paul supporters in Iowa and nationwide are Democrats and indies, not Republicans. Why do they support him? Because they know he would be the easiest opponent for Obama to beat, by far. They know he stands no chance of beating Obama and they want the GOP to nominate him. After the IA caucus is over, they'll register as Democrats or independents again.
It is one thing for Tanner to state his own opinions. It is quite another for him to invoke the American people - especially when they reject the insane opinions of his and Paul's by huge margins.
The American Republic is as dead as Cicero? Has the Republican Party once and for all capitulated to the Progressive Movement? Sure they throw a few rhetorical crumbs to Conservatives, once elected they move ahead with the business of the State's Empire.
I am staunchly conservative across the board. I support protection for unborn children, traditional marriage, fiscally conservative policies, and a strong defense. Ron Paul supports NONE of them.
I am the author of my own spending cuts blueprint and the Blueprint for a Smaller Federal Government, published in 2009 at colony14. I support the FairTax, abolition of the IRS, and repealing the 16th Amendment. So I AM a fiscal conservative.
I also support robust funding for defense and oppose defense cuts, which is perfectly in line with conservative ideology, INCLUDING fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism does not mean, and does not require, defense cuts. And contrary to your insulting claim that I'm a "kooky ol' defense hawk", I'm 23, so I am hardly old, and I'm certainly not kooky.
I have often read in NRO about the "hysterical" tone of Paul's supporters. Thank you for providing us with an example of such a tone from his detractors.
Sir, your accusations hold no water. Try as you may, you are wrong on every count. I am not sure where you get the idea that, "...the American people...reject the insane opinions of his and Paul's by huge margins," especially seeing his latest polling numbers.
I have no idea why you hate this man, but you need to shake yourself. You don't have to vote for the guy, but your slander is unbecoming and ignorant. By the powers of deduction, that makes you ignorant.
LOL - such an ignorant remark. Here is a link to several hundred polls taken from around the country - and you can objectively fact check each and every one of them - that prove how factually false you are:
I wonder if all of Paul's supporters are actually this clueless.
Dozens of polls covering a small handfull of states.
So what if Paul is doing well in Iowa right now. Iowa is just one state, when you examine the nationwide polls, Paul barely ranks above the margin of error.
The worst thing to happen to the republican party is the allowance of neo-con thought to infiltrate the party. The age of neo-conservatism has run its course and is evident by the fear they portray at the thought of a Ron Paul nomination. The american people are sick and tired of the lies from both parties, and we will not let the media or the establishment pick our candidates. The lessor of 2 evils is still evil.
