I'm not a hardcore political guy, so forgive any ignorance in this post. I was discussing with my parents the different potential candidates for presidential nomination and Ron Paul came up. I explained that my understanding of his views is that he sticks pretty strongly to the constitution and subsequently defers to state's rights. That doesn't seem like a particularly novel concept. There was a time when I thought that is what the Republican party actually stood for, but I haven't seen it put into practice since I began following politics (early GWB era). My dad stated that he still thought Paul was a fringe (used in the derogatory sense) candidate. It seems nearly impossible for any third-party candidate to shake the fringe label, but is Ron Paul and his ideas still considered "fringe?"
Yes, Ron Paul is still considered fringe. Based on your post I'd say that you only really know about his most recently publicized positions, positions that were articulated by his fans and admirers in order to bolster his reputation. On a lot of issues he has a lot of appeal to "true" conservatives and libertarians. Further examination of his voting record, writings, articulated positions and core beliefs will lead you to discover that he is the definition of "fringe." Now, that does not mean you won't agree with him on a lot of things, or even everything. It also doesn't mean he isn't worthy of your vote as a presidential candidate. But if you think he is mainstream it means you haven't really looked into him enough.
Some of his ideas are very limited government and mainstream. Others of his ideas are fringe, such as going back to the gold standard. He also said the civil rights act was more about property than race relations He claimed that gender equal pay violated the volunteer contract He wanted to shut down the who department of education. Those ideas are fringe. Some of his other ideas I agree with, but plenty I disagree with though I don't think them fringe ideas.
No, it's not novel. It's been around since before South Carolina tried to secede the first time. Today, most people use those phrases as code words to describe a society they want rather than a functioning government. The people that like to claim their vision of the Constitution is the only legitimate one are usually called Republicans, and if there was any justice, they too would be considered fringe. (The Constitution, like the Bible, is a dangerous text if you rely solely on someone with an agenda to tell you what it means.) What makes Paul fringe are his extreme Randian economic views (in addition to having a bunch of loony positions now and in the past while finding sympathetic audiences in fringe groups) and that he doesn't adhere to the standard orthodoxy of what you just said. I think he honestly believes there is too much centralized power in our society (government/business), which is anathema to the current Republican leadership as they want as much power as they can get. They'll give him lip service, but that's all. However, because of his conservative (and loony) thinking, he is unable to give voice to those legitimate concerns in a way that connects with most Americans. Did I mention he's a Randian loon? What's his son's name again?
I agree with Paul on a majority of things, but the stuff we disagree on is pretty major and would be a hard pill to swallow. With Obama, and to a slightly greater extent, McCain, I disagreed with more of their stances than Paul, but the disagreements weren't as radical or polarized. I may vote for him in '12 if team Obama doesn't turn things around.
You can run, but you can't hide. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
Fairly on-par with my sentiments. My biggest beef with Paul is that simply saying "no" to everything is not practical policy. Obama drives me BONKERS with his often unnecessary pragmatism - but you have to admit, it's remarkably effective even with the ultra-recalcitrance being exemplified by our current republican children in congress.
This is one of the big myths - as if Ron Paul (or anybody) possesses a sacred original understanding of the constitution that nobody else has, rendered unto him in visionary form by the demi-god Framers. Bollocks. He sticks closely to his view of what it should be, and occasionally tosses out the parts that he doesn't want. "Framers" or not. The Framers were not blind worshippers of Von Mises and Hayek...considering that they weren't born at the time. And even if they were, who cares - the Framers believed in a lot of dumb things that we now know to be wrong.
Anybody without Fortune 500 financing is a fringe candidate. Money wields power, to get more money, ad infinitum.
Ron Paul isn't fringe, if it was a 160 years ago. I respect Ron Paul for his ideological consistency but a lot of the issues he rails about have long been decided.
I love how all the enlightened, liberal people on this board are implicitly supporting the bankers who brought us to our current situation by calling Paul's economic views fringe. Bankers are the very definition of the rich oppressing the poor. Economic policies that loosen their stranglehold over power would do more to promote economic equality than any income redistribution program ever could.
if lobbying that the federal reserve banking corporation finally be audited for the first time in 97 years is considered fringe, then i want to be from the outer limits of the galaxy
I'm "enlightened" because I have sufficient factual background to be able to identify that he is factually wrong and his theories and those of his disciples are mostly bogus. If that ends up "supporting the bankers" then so be it.
What happens when Ron eliminates the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service? You will bow to your corporate overlord.
i would vote for ron paul over anyone else. but i wouldnt put too much hope or credence in these recent polls. hes just not electable. look at all the support he got and all the money he raised in 2008 - he was the leading fundraiser among republicans by far. he energized young people. crazy as it sounds, i believe he would have put up the best fight against obama, especially w/ the youth/college voters. but the gop wanted nothing to do w/ him. republicans will never support him b/c he wants to get us out of iraq and afghanistan immediately, wants to reduce our military presence around the world (we have bases in 130 of 200 countries), calls for an end to the war on drugs, rescind the patriot act, close gitmo and is against a constitutional ban on gay marriage (he believes the government shouldnt be involved in marriage). at the least, i think its good that he is getting more attention from the cnn's and the msnbc's - i happened to catch him on ed schultz once for his "psycho talk" segment and schultz was being very rude to him initially, but by the end was friendly and has had him back several times. he is a frequent guest on rachel maddow and she seems to genuinely like him. bill mahr speaks highly of him. larry king has him on. he wasnt getting this much airtime even during the 2008 primaries. i do think people are catching onto what he is saying, but again, it wont translate to votes.
You show your misunderstanding of the ramifications of his policies by leaving off the final line of my original post.
This is why I myself and the young college crowd like him. I would love to reduce the military and end the war on drugs but as mentioned his Randian policies would never allow me to vote for him. On the flip side Republicans wouldn't support him because of the points that you mentioned. He basically offers something for everyone. He seems to be extreme left and extreme right all at once.
Hard core Anarchism/Libertarianism has a lot in common with Communism. They both are great on paper but they make the mistake of ignoring the animal nature of human behavior. We do not act altruistically for the benefit of all mankind - we are selfish, cruel, and petty - and we show this again and again. The best example I can think of to illustrate this is "The Radium Girls". This fact also probably explains some of his appeal to "the kids". They don't have enough experience with the realities of human behavior to see the flaws. The closest thing in the world to a true Libertarian utopia is Somalia. Sounds great, right? Somalia doesn't have any stinking "central bank" or "fat cat bankers".
Most would consider me to be pretty liberal, but I think a lot of what Ron Paul says has some credence. The rest of it is just bat **** crazy.
