I’ve been asked or told about Ron Paul many times over the last months, usually on the assumption that I’d respond positively. It always pained me to explain that while I broadly agree with Paul on policy (with some glaring exceptions like immigration and abortion), I could not work up significant enthusiasm for the campaign, nor even support it (apart from joining his Facebook group, which I’ve left).
First, Paul’s supporters wildly overestimate the chances of the campaign’s success, whether that be election, nomination, or even just effectively growing the constituency for freedom. He never had any chance of winning and I’m happy for the demonstration that merely speaking the truth on national TV doesn’t change anything. Of course many libertarians will ignore that truth and continue throwing money at false hopes.
And while there were bright spots, Paul was an extremely problematic messenger for freedom. He’s a marginal kook, he attracts hardcore kooks, and the fundamental basis of his argument — the U.S. constitution as holy writ — is about the least interesting and least convincing argument possible. In other words, Paul is an embarrassment. (Of course almost every politicianhuman spouts nonsense almost continuously, but more or less conventional nonsense that is not accorded the kookiness factor richly deserved.)
However, I had no idea how problematic and embarrassing Paul would be. While it is conceivable that Paul is not a racist and did not write any of the racist items in his newsletter and did not authorize or know about any of those items, I assign these probabilities ranging from medium to almost nil. Paul’s response is evasive and painful to watch, despite his attempt to redeem himself by focusing on the drug war.
If you really need to read more go here. I urge anyone who has supported Paul in public or private to reverse that support, immediately.
Go to AlexMerced.com and read my video response to this issue, and my commentary on much of his platform. I think your being kinda harsh.
Cheers. This says pretty much exactly my position on him — past and current — as well. I wanted to be able to like Ron Paul as the most liberty-respecting candidate if nothing else, but never could.
[…] good friend Mike Linksvayer is so wrong, politically, once […]
Mike,
Not clear on what your position on the Iraq war is. Probably a non-kooky “We’re there now so lets stay in”. I’m sure you say in your blogs, but not in any of your references. I see you don’t agree with Rudy’s non- kooky position “We need more enemies”. Sadly, everyone else still in the race is non-kooky or a socialist except Ron Paul.
So find us a non-kooky candidate truely against the war. I assure you the MSM, AIPAC and the War parties will make him or her look kooky if the see a threat. I give you Pat Buchanan and Jimmy Carter as examples.
So sadly although you may not be a MSM shill you are certainly a nieve
victim.
Bob D., see my Iraq category. I agree with Paul on this subject.
The MSM, whatever its faults, did not make Paul look like a kook, he is a kook.
I have to agree fully. I’m not even from the US and I am sick of his name already. It just seems that the only people that will vote for him are digg users and people who would normally not even vote.
You have to hand it to the guy though, he is showing how powerful the Internet can be… I bet the next time it will be used loads more by everyone.
Thanks for this post, as it contains information about controversies regarding Ron Paul of which I was not aware. I had already determined not to support Mr. Paul. As with so many candidates, a good hour spent at his campaign website with his own avowed positions is sufficient for me to know that his form of libertarianism does not appeal to me, before we even reach these more troubling allegations. There is a reasonable basis to debate the size of government, but that does not mean that Ron Paul is the appropriate avatar for one side of that debate.
Great post, the classic “kook” speech. I did find an error though.
“Of course many libertarians will ignore that truth and continue throwing money at false hopes.”
Didn’t you mean “truth and continue throwing false money at hopes.”
This was written almost two years ago, I wonder how people’s opinions on him have changed. Everything he said would happen has happened and he sometimes says it years before it does. In other words, if we listened to him, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. Of course, that is just a “kook” talking who thinks how today’s actions will affect tomorrow versus only thinking in the present.