January 6, 2012
I should start by pointing out that I am hardly a fervent Ron Paul supporter.
Yes, I will probably vote for him in the general election if he gets the Republican nomination (not that I think that’s likely). If he is not nominated, however, my plan is to either vote for Obama or not vote. Even if I can vote for Paul, I will hardly be enthusiastic about him; I see him as the least evil of the dozen-or-so bastards running for an office that has without exception been occupied by thugs, incompetents, and mass murderers. Notice how I wrote “and,” not “or.”
That being said, it is important in any debate to address real issues, and not just regurgitate popular sound bites. If you have a real objection to a candidate or to a position, state that objection. If you just feel like criticizing someone for no reason, you need to stop wasting your time with me and apply for a job on The Sean Hannity Show.
The Issue
Probably 95% of the criticisms I’ve heard of Dr. Paul consist of the words “that,” “guy,” and “is crazy.” I’ve heard this from friends, family, coworkers, and homeless people off the street. It’s a defense mechanism: If you know nothing about politics but for some reason want to pretend to have opinions, Ron Paul’s purported insanity is a great topic.
No one, of course, bothers to actually provide any evidence of Paul’s mental illness. Are there medical records demonstrating that he is not mentally sound? Does he claim to be fleeing a Soviet plot on his life? Did he keep watching Glee after the second season? I’ve been shown no evidence of any of this; people just say that he’s insane as if it were self-evident.
This wouldn’t annoy me so much if it didn’t obscure real issues. Unlike virtually any other candidate, Ron Paul proposes policies that might actually change things if enacted. If Paul is crazy, however, it is easy to assume that all of his proposals are absurd, thus precluding any debate on the topic. If there are coherent arguments in favor of the Federal Reserve or the war in Afghanistan (I’ve yet to hear any), they’re never raised. The public is left with no means of evaluating the issues.
The Devil We Know
Another problem I have with the “Ron Paul is crazy” defense mechanism is that it obscures many far better reasons for hating him.
It’s similar to my objection to the “Obama was born in Kenya” myth. There are plenty of great reasons to hate Obama regardless of his birthplace, and there are plenty of great reasons to hate Paul regardless of his sanity.
Of course, non-libertarians hate Paul because they believe that the welfare state, imperialism, and/or fiat money are necessary. I won’t bother addressing those issues in this article, as it would require me to admit that non-libertarians have functioning brain cells. Even from a libertarian perspective, however, there are plenty of reasons to hate Paul.
For one thing, Paul has a long history of pork barrel spending. He has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks back to his home district, often for completely inane projects, such as subsidizing the shrimp industry. Paul defends this on the grounds that he is making up for the taxes taken out of his district, but that’s absurd; such an argument could justify any spending. Besides, much of federal money is not taxed out of his district, but rather is debt, to be taxed from future generations.
Then there’s the issue of Paul’s immigration stance. In between speeches on the virtues of free markets and free trade, Paul has called to secure the United States’ borders and deport any immigrants who are in the country illegally. This is, of course, blatant hypocrisy. There is no libertarian case to secure the border; immigration is just another form of trade, and one cannot oppose government intervention in the economy while simultaneously wanting the government to tell people where to live. The congressman has defended his position on the grounds that he merely wants to uphold the law, but that presupposes that American immigration laws are just. No libertarian with any credibility would deny that laws are not just in themselves, and should only be enforced if they serve a reasonable purpose. Paul himself has acknowledged this principle by supporting income tax resistance. In the case of illegal immigrants, however, he seeks to enforce a law with absolutely no moral legitimacy.
Some will also make the case that illegal immigrants scam the welfare system, increasing the size of government, but any intelligent libertarian will see that this misses the point. Government will continue to grow regardless of who is on the welfare rolls, and if the immigrants didn’t take these benefits, someone else would. The solution is to get rid of government spending, not to punish one particular group that benefits from it. Besides, mass deportation cannot be a rational solution; the expansion of government necessary to deport ten to twenty million people would far outweigh any savings in welfare spending.
Finally, there’s the issue of race. While I find Paul’s “racist” comments to be somewhat ambiguous, I acknowledge that they could represent dangerous sentiments. It’s certainly conceivable that Paul is racist; his fallacious immigration views would make far more sense in that light. Racism is, of course, an absurd and dangerous ideology, and I hardly need to make the case against it here. Suffice to say that it is unquestionably authoritarian, and libertarians in particular should feel ashamed to associate with it.
So Paul is clearly a hypocrite, and may also be racist. These are real reasons to oppose him. People should be talking about these issues rather than arbitrarily declaring his insanity and then changing the subject.
Dangerous Deviance?
Of course, when people say that Ron Paul is crazy, what they really mean is that he is outside the mainstream. His views are radical, and he takes positions that most Americans would never even consider. Paul is crazy, people say, because he’s on the fringe.
Certainly Paul’s views are radical, but since when does that define a person as crazy? The mainstream is hardly a realm of sanity. One hundred years ago, the mainstream view was that women were inferior to men; are modern views of gender equality crazy? Two hundred years ago, race-based slavery was commonplace; does that make support for racial equality crazy?
A far better criterion for deciding whether an idea is crazy is coherence: if an idea is logically consistent, it’s sane. This test, however, would seem to make Paul a lot more sane than any of his critics. The idea that the government can promote freedom by bombing people is crazy. The idea that the government can spend its way out of a recession is crazy. If anything, Paul is restoring sanity to the political arena, not abandoning it.
- Print print this page
- Discuss 24 comments, Blog about
Comments
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
Interesting Blog. I don't agree with all of it, but I do know this for a fact: Ron Paul is far from crazy!! As you state towards the end of your blog, maybe he is bringing sanity to the race, not the contrary! He is making the most sense of our upside-down world we now inhabit. Ron Paul 2012!!!
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I appreciate he brings a different approach to the GOP side. An interesting article discusses his controversial foreign policy: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-greatness-of-ron-paul/250827/
sgmartin 1 year, 4 months ago
I think this underscores a bigger issue. The fact that any candidate endorses views that one doesn't support is insufficient grounds for accusing them of being crazy - or any individual for that matter.
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
Well, now Ron Paul has finished a strong second in NH, and is second in delegates, the Republican party will HAVE to listen to his platform and what at least a quarter of the republican party wants!! What part would they throw out, Social issues, Freedom, Non-intervention, Monetary policy?? They are going to have to finally realize, we are unhappy with the status quo. Politics as usual had better be over. Even if Mitt gets the nomination, and President wins re-election, Washington knows that there is a sizeable section of the populace that is not happy with the way they are running the country!! Oh, and Ron Paul is NOT CRAZY!! :)
LaissezFaire 1 year, 4 months ago
The reason Ron Paul appears crazy is because no one thinks like this today. This type of thinking was the norm over 100 years ago. Had Paul been around at the time of the Revolution, he would have no doubt been a signer of the declaration of independence. You also have another choice if he dosn't get the nomination, it's called the Libertarian Party.
RmeMP 1 year, 4 months ago
The problem, I believe, with Ron Paul is his foreign policy - his want for America to come home from every military base that we have overseas and just pretend that no other country exists.... Until one of them attacks us.
The main problem with this theory, is that time and time again history has shown us that man can not keep his hands to himself. There will come a time when some fool out there will attack us - be it the Japanese, or the Taliban, it will happen. When that time comes, it helps to have Allies, and you get Allies by helping them when they are in need. That is why we have bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc...
Ron Paul can not simply bring all the troops home and then tell all of our Allies they are on their own. The evil in this world is held largely in check out of fear of the United States, and if we tell everyone good luck with your problems, then the evil countries would pounce on their targets.
Like it or not, we ARE the worlds "police" - and if we quit being so, then anarchy would consume and devour our planet.
AndrewSoboeiro 1 year, 4 months ago
To RmeMP (I can't figure out how to reply, so I'm just going to post it):
This is pure nonsense. The United States has done far more to advance evil in this world than to "hold it in check." Considering the countless dictatorships the U.S. has supported (Diem, Somoza, Batista, Mobutu, Hussein, Suharto, Pol Pot, etc.), the countless crimes that the U.S. and her allies committed (Agent Orange, Hiroshima, Dresden), and the countless pointless wars that the United States has fought (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, the Phillipine-American war, etc.), the world would be far better off without the U.S. constantly intervening. Certainly there are other terrors in the world besides the United States, but it doesn't help for the American military to go around killing people.
The U.S. is a target for terrorism largely as a result of U.S. terrorism. 9/11 was certainly evil, but it pales in comparison to the horrors committed by the U.S. against Muslims for generations. American imperialism has only made the world LESS safe and LESS free, and it's high time the U.S. got out of foreign affairs.
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
RmeMP, you know that as a vet, I understand EXACTLY how you feel about this. I was assigned to AWACS when it first got started, and as such, we went to many of the world's "hotspots". Sometimes I have to catch myself in my thinking "Shoot them all and let God sort them out". The older l get, and the more l see in this world, l think maybe Ron Paul has a better foreign policy than even I first thought. If we shut off ALL foreign aid it might be a blessing in disguise. He states, "If we quit giving Israel money and weapons, AND quit giving their ENEMIES foreign aid, they are more than capable of taking care of themselves. I am thinking maybe that is a good thing. And, if they kill each other, well, so be it.
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Did the US support Pol Pot? I know we supported Lon Nol, who was of course overthrown by Pol Pot. Not really the point of your post, but a matter of historical interest.
AndrewSoboeiro 1 year, 4 months ago
To Nezumi:
It's not conclusive, but there is some evidence that the US supported Pol Pot after the Vietnamese ousted him, and that the devastation from the American bombing of Cambodia (which killed hundreds of thousands on its own) helped Pol Pot get into power in the first place. It's not conclusive evidence, of course: http://www.newstatesman.com/200004170017
Considering some of the other lunatics the US has supported (Hussein, Suharto, Mobutu, etc.), it would hardly surprise me that Pol Pot received US aid.
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Interesting - I'll read more about it. At that time, we were aligning with China against the Soviets and their Vietnamese allies, so supporting Khmer Rouge fits within that strategic thinking.
Given the current situation with Iran, I wonder why the media does not go into more detail about the 1953 US/UK sponsored coup against Mosaddegh.
AndrewSoboeiro 1 year, 4 months ago
Probably because, if people understood that the roots of the current Iranian crisis go back to American imperialism, they'd be less likely to support the coming war with Iran.
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
That, but it had more to do with the British persuading us to overthrow the government to protect their petroleum revenues established during their imperial period and under threat by rising Iranian nationalism and indignity over shared revenues with the host country and poor worker conditions. "All the Shah's Men" - is a good book on the subject. But yes, you are right, very few people here know we are at least partially responsible for the Mullahs coming to power in 1979. When Carter was asked about it in 1979 he responded "That is ancient history" - but the Iranians had long memories.
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
I was in Riyadh, SA during the hostage crisis "rescue attempt". I say then, and will say now, we should have hired the Israeli's to do it for us. Barring that, we should have told Tehran, "You have 24 hours to have those 52 people in Switzerland, or there will be no more Iran/Persia or whatever you were called. It would have vanished off the map. As a Ron Paul supporter, I have had to change my views on handling these types of situations, but that was a sad day when we botched the rescue!!
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Yukon - it was a sad day indeed - I remember it even though I was just a kid at the time.
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
But yes Nezumi, people seem to forget that our interventionalist policies are what led to the Shah being put into power. We have supported so many dictators over the years. I was stationed in the Philippines during the days of Marcos, a horrible dictator that we supported, and spent some time in Korea when Pak Chung He was dictator there. Another one we supported. The list is a very long one, and just another reason I feel Ron Paul's NONinterventionalist platform might be just the ticket to help our image around the world. I am not so naive to think that islamic terrorist like us, but we should leave them be unless they attack us directly, then "Katie bar the door".
RmeMP 1 year, 4 months ago
@Andrew:
I can tell that you have never served a day in the military, let alone any really amount of time, and that's ok; however, if you ever do I assure you that you're foreign policy feelings would change. You see, as a military member, you are privy to certain facts that most Americans have NO IDEA about; unfortunately, as hard as it is, you just have to believe me (or ask Yukon).
Now that I said that, let's get back to Ron Paul. In addition to his failed foreign policy (in my opinion, along with MOST military minded people), the other problem that I have with him is his inability to negociate with others. He is very strict, non bending, non compromising - which as a person I respect, however, as a politician or president is very detrimental. How good of a president do you really think he'll be when he wants everything his way or the highway? One of the WORST traits a president can have, is the inability to work with the hill to come to compromises which would benefit the American people. Don't believe me? All you have to do is look at how polorizing Oblunder has been and ask yourself how well that is working out for the public?
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Yukon, I'll go a step further - I'd bet 95% of Americans have no idea that we were responsible for overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and setting up the Shah (with his military partners) back in power.
RmeMP 1 year, 4 months ago
Ugh... This feels like 2008 all over again; none of the candidates are a slam dunk against arguably the worst president in history - yet a defeat this year is simply out of the question. I don't trust Mitt or Newt to keep their word, they both have flip flopped too much for my liking; I like the fact that Ron has fundamentals that he doesn't waiver from - but honestly, its still his foreign policy that just scares the hell out of me. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, and I know nobody wants yet another war (including me) but we simply can NOT let Iran have nuclear weapons... We need someone that will stop them, or at least give Israel the green light to do it themselves. If Ron would make that commitment, then maybe he'd get my support.
Yukonjohn 1 year, 4 months ago
RmeMP, You know, we see things alot alike many times. As l have said in other posts, l want ALL parties to get along and move this country forward. I have no doubt about your patriotism or your love for this dear country of ours. That said, Ron Paul has said, we quit giving aid to other nations and they can handle their problems as they see fit. If we quit giving aid to Israel AND their enemies, they can handle any problem that arises with one OR ALL of their neighbors. Israel sometimes is held back by the fact that the US gives them aid, and with this administration, who wants to "roll over" to the islamic countries, they might feel the need to NOT act against Iran or others. Ron Paul just wants us to "butt out" of their affairs. He believes in keeping a SUBSTANTIAL military, just not have them meddling in other nation's affairs. I honestly believe that the tide is turning. With this latest thing about Romney and his Mexican ties, that the Romney family is OBVIOUSLY embarrassed over, maybe Ron Paul is looking better and better to many!!
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Rme, to a degree I agree with you about Iran, but some other nasty characters also have nukes and do not have many scruples about proliferating them - it seems like such an enormous cost in lives and treasure to take out 1 player in another land war (and occupation), when N.Korea and Pakistan (if it collapses - not unimaginable) would gladly sell nukes to our enemies as well. We could whack-a-mole ourselves into true financial collapse.
If Israel starts a war with Iran, we will have to finish it, unless they use their own nukes and turn the place into a smoking parking lot.
RmeMP 1 year, 4 months ago
I stayed up and watched the entire debate last night, and I had decided to give Dr. Paul another fair chance to swing my vote - it didn't happen. If any of you watched it, then SURELY you heard the many, loud boos and laughs from the audience in response to his answers to questions directed at him. I'm sorry, I sat there for 2 hrs and kept score based on the answers that were given by all candidates and for ME, Dr. Paul finished dead last.
I still respect your views and your opinions to vote for Dr. Paul if you'd like to, but for me, if I were voting today, it would NOT be for Dr. Paul.
Yukon, I concur with you in regards to the fact that we seem to agree on many issues, sadly I don't think this will be one of them :(
AndrewSoboeiro 1 year, 4 months ago
To RmeMP,
No, I have not served in the military, but I have spoken to many people who have, or have read their writings, and many of them agree with me more or less on foreign policy. There is a considerable diversity of opinion within the military, and the notion that being in the military somehow gives someone a particular perspective is bunk.
Furthermore, I simply cannot accept that being in the military automatically makes one an expert on foreign policy. Certainly it's a valuable perspective to have, but there are many perspectives that are relevant, and no one can hold all of them. History, economics, sociology, and anthropology all relate heavily to foreign policy, but virtually no one is an expert in ALL of these fields (and certainly serving in the military does not make on an expert in all of them). Your experience in the military is A perspective; my study of history is another.
"we simply can NOT let Iran have nuclear weapons" Why? I agree that it would be horrible for Iran to have nuclear weapons, but there are a lot of horrible systems that already have nuclear weapons. I would argue that North Korea and Pakistan are far more dangerous than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. Why is it so essential that Iran in particular not obtain the atom bomb?
Furthermore, how do you propose the United States keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands? Should she go to war with Iran? You do realize the enormous fiscal strain that the United States government is under; as the national debt flies skyward and the population is mired in poverty, another war is simply not practical.
Even if the United States could handle a war with Iran, and could successfully stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons, Iran is only one country. There are countless other dangerous dictatorships in the world, and any one of them could decide to go after nuclear technology. The U.S. simply cannot keep extinguishing dictatorships left and right; every time she did so, she would become weaker, giving the next dictatorship less reason to fear her, and more incentive to obtain weapons for herself.
Nezumi 1 year, 4 months ago
Fascinating interviews about the covert war with Iran on "Talk of the Nation" yesterday: http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=01-17-2012
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID