During Tuesday night's New Hampshire Primary election coverage, Lawrence O'Donnell hilariously and saliently described Ron Paul as "not a candidate," therefore Jon Huntsman was the realistic second place winner, though not technically since he placed third on paper. Likewise, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum recently wrote that Ron Paul is a "crackpot."
Naturally, they're both correct. Times a thousand.
But a million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Or can they? In other words, Ron Paul supporters are easily some of the most exuberant, die-hard, overzealous political activists around, and you'll probably get a hearty sampling of that zealotry in the comments below this post. Nevertheless, the perpetual question about a movement like this is: how can so many people be so completely delusional?
The word "cult" is often employed in political contests, but seldom in recent history has it been more appropriate than when describing the so-called Ron Paul Revolution. Specifically, Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination (and he doesn't really want to); if a miracle happens and he actually does win the nomination and, subsequently, the presidency, he has no chance to successfully govern; and his libertarianism is pure hocus-pocus science fiction, evidenced by the fact that it's never been successfully implemented. Ever. But Ron Paul's supporters don't know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects.
To paraphrase the underpants gnomes from South Park, the Ron Paul supporters' plan for success is as follows:
Phase 1: Vote for Ron Paul.
Phase 2: ?????
Phase 3: Liberty!
At the risk of over-explaining the joke, the question marks represent the un-electability of Ron Paul. No matter how vocal and activated the fanboys might become between now and the would-be nomination of Mitt Romney, there aren't enough votes. There is no conceivable path to the nomination, and an even narrower path to the White House. Why can't he win anything? The aforementioned crackpot factor. During every general election cycle each party has a crackpot candidate. Ron Paul is the quadrennial Republican crackpot. (On the Democratic side there was Mike Gravel in 2008 and, this year, domestic terrorist Randall Terry.)
Perhaps Ron Paul is self-aware enough to realize this, but he sounds almost as delusional as his people.
"I've been electable. I've won 12 elections already," he said on CBS. "It's amazing that I do so much better than those other candidates that are all electable. They're in fourth, fifth and sixth place and they're electable. All of a sudden they say I'm not electable. I don't know how that adds up."
An eighth grade social studies student knows why this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. It's significantly more achievable to be elected by a relatively homogeneous community of 100,000 voters than it is to be elected nationwide by 100 million. So the notion that he was elected 12 times in his congressional district is meaningless on the national stage.
For this and a variety of other reasons, very few people take Ron Paul seriously outside of his imaginary Galt's Gulch cult compound. The reality is that our political system has remained relatively intact for 224 years because most people, despite their gretzing, are actually comfortable with the continuity it provides. If voters were as militantly anti-system as they claim to be in anecdotal conversations, they would elect fewer incumbents and more fringy third-party challengers. Ron Paul would have a better shot if anti-system fantasy replaced comfy, complacent reality.
Only slightly better.
The election of Ron Paul is a minor conundrum compared with implementing his libertarian ideas. If we presuppose that he wins and then achieves any of his proposed changes to the system in the face of a divided electorate, few working coalitions and no party support in Congress, those policies would absolutely crush the economy and, ultimately, the very "liberty" which Ron Paul cultists repeat like hiccups in response to any challenges to their leader.
Despite an era when deregulated corporations and financial institutions pushed the world economy to the brink of another Great Depression, Ron Paul's agenda would remove almost all restrictions on the market.
Certainly, rich white men would continue to prosper under the laissez-faire policies of a Ron Paul administration. Until the inevitable crash. More on that presently. But minorities and women would fall prey to free market discrimination and subjugation. While "liberty" is the calling card of a Ron Paul supporter, they don't appear to understand how liberty would be denied to women and minorities.
Among other monikers, Ron Paul fancies himself a "constitutionalist," but that strict adherence to the Constitution ends with the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, in accordance with its judicial review powers, decided that the 14th Amendment includes a right to privacy and, thus, the right for a woman to have an abortion. I fail to understand how constitutionalists and those who cling so dearly to the ideals of limited government and "liberty" can so casually and oppressively order strict government regulations dictating what occurs within the bodies of every woman of child-bearing age.
Furthermore, with the rolling back of the Civil Rights Act, entire sectors of the free market would be free to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender. At the state and local level, we would see an inevitable return of Jim Crow laws that allowed, among other things, poll taxes and neo-slavery, and so the growing American minority population would find itself trapped in a new American apartheid without any recourse for justice.
But, you know, "liberty!"
About that inevitable crash. Ron Paul would cut $1 trillion in spending from the budget in his first year. That's not $1 trillion spread out over a number of years -- he's talking about $1 trillion in 2013 alone. Without robust consumer spending, low unemployment and high GDP, these cuts would lead to a massive and inextricably deep depression. And I mean inextricable. There wouldn't be any means of escape since his subsequent budgets would continue to slash and burn everything in sight . Meanwhile, the aforementioned deregulated businesses -- the ones that aren't destroyed by the crash -- would swoop in like vultures to exploit the disaster, and the divide between the super wealthy and everyone else would grow beyond comprehension.
Then again, pot and heroin would be legalized and the United States would wall ourselves off from the rest of the world -- a policy that worked out really well in the 1930s. By the way, if you believe Ron Paul is anti-war, think again. Some of his top donors are defense contractors, he voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against terrorists, and he proposed HR 3076 which would have unleashed a government-financed private army of mercenaries and assassins to indiscriminately and unaccountably kill terrorists irrespective of nationality.
But, you know, "liberty!"
And Ron Paul cultists wonder why no one else takes their guy seriously.
See, Ron Paul isn't a candidate. He's a meme. Much like a popular YouTube video, Twitter hashtag or literary blog metaphor, if you're aware of it, you're savvy -- you're one of them. Ron Paul is a shibboleth for nihilistic hipsters. If you can work "Ron Paul" and "liberty!" into a tweet, you're one of them. You're anti-establishment. People who are devoted to Ron Paul appear to be more interested in the fantastical, fictitious idea of President Ron Paul than the realistic manifestation of President Ron Paul.
Nevertheless, this underpants gnome will soldier on as a spoiler, potentially weakening Mitt Romney's efforts by emboldening the right flank against the moderate frontrunner who's awkwardly struggling and desperately failing to appear more right-wing. And that's fine with me, but don't expect too many non-cultists to take Ron Paul seriously enough to win, much less govern.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
You can also listen on iTunes, on The Huffington Post and on WPWC 1480AM in Washington, DC
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Ethan Rome: Gingrich Is Now a Socialist, and Other Lessons From New Hampshire
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
This article is meant to persuade at face value because it cannot do so in context with its lack of factual backing. He offers no example of why Ron Paul is "Not electable" or a "Crack pot" he simply gives quotes of other people saying so. He exclaims that, we the followers, are easily magnatized to a cult-like leader. If he were to read the polls, other than the ones so fitting to his own bias desires, he'd see that Ron Paul voters are considered the most well versed in political understanding. He says that americans are, (my turn to quote) "The reality is that our political system has remained relatively intact for 224 years because most people, despite their gretzing, are actually comfortable with the continuity it provides." If you look at history, and the polls, you'd understand that it's not their comfort in this systems continuity, but their surrendered hope in it's change and functionality.
While many Ron Paul fans will be upset, and it was even an anti-ron paul supporter link that lead me to this article, take pause for a moment. This is just another empty article, that when read fully, and broken down, is beneficial to Ron Paul and his cause and our ideals. It proves our point more than deter us from our knowledge based actions.
Ok so you attack his logic in the first sentence of the quote. Which I understand, thats a valid statement. Simply because he's electable in one small community doesn't mean hes electable throughout the U.S. We get it. But you failed to argue the logic in the rest of his quote.... I know why, cause YOU CAN'T. Ron Paul has consistently been in the top-tier and yet the media paints him as being unelectable while at the same time have had field days with canidates lower then him in the polls such as Bachmann and Perry, one who already dropped out of the race and the other who will soon follow.
He only read the first sentence in the Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall pass no law.”
Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002
What a 'crackpot'.
Unfortunately, there are those who think simplistic ideas can solve the problems of this complex nation, and the reason they advocate such ideas is their impatience and unwillingness to think and learn. Part of the problem is, they have been indoctrinated into thinking that an omipotent being controls the universe, and that, accordingly, omnipotent forces control businesses and economies, therefore they believe that in a single stroke, complex problems with multiple causes can instantly be solved by, for example, cutting American foreign policy action to nil, abolishing taxation and so forth.
This is infantile thinking about politics – the idea that some kind of omnipotent parent can swoop down and make everything better by flipping a switch. It is a political mind-set that is incredibly dangerous – as are politicians who exploit the kind of ignorance that finds comfort in it.
The dollar, today, has 4% of the value it did in 1913 when the federal reserve was created. The dollar is devalued by printing money which is first distributed to BIg Banks. It takes awhile for the market to realize their is more money in the system and that it is consequentially worth less (supply and demand) Because Big Banks received the money first the reap large profits because the dollar still had its initial value. By the time these dollars trickle down to the common American, the dollar has much less value. Essentially this is a transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to walstreet and every American needs to understand this concept because it is bankrupting the American people.
Ron Paul 2012
I think Dr Paul's message is getting out there and average americans are not that dumb and they are talking about it. It will be a ground race and the energy and effort is for Paul. Media is for the rest and I just don't think the media has that power any more.
I could be wrong. A month ago I felt that if Paul could get 2nd then at least his message would get out there and we would see some change. Now I feel there is a real chance that he takes it and that would be a good thing for America and the world. One who uses his head to see around the problem and bring the US respect again.
If Paul finishes 2nd or even a strong 3rd, Romney will have to let him speak at the convention.
And before and after Paul speaks, the media will go over the newsletters again, because...well, because they're odious and headline-grabbing.
When people tune in to get a look at the GOP nominee's speech, they will see a little ticker at the bottom of the screen that includes the words "Ron Paul" and "race war" and "22% of GOP vote" in the same sentence. What a great time for independents and mainstream voters who don't pay attention to what happens until there are two nominees to get to know Romney!
And if Paul doesn't get a chance to speak, his supporters will blame the GOP and either not vote strongly for Romney or not volunteer for him. They may vote for Johnson. All that is good for President Obama.
If Paul doesn't do well, he might blame the GOP party bosses and go 3rd party so he can get his message out -- and hand President Obama the election.
But even if he doesn't do well and simply fades back to running his publishing empire, he pulled and is pulling Romney farther right. Some of Paul's ideas are good, or at least sound good at first. But the vast majority of what he says is unrealistic, if not undesirable.
Looking at the field of GOP candidates right now, their quality is so low that Obama wins anyway.
I plan to vote for Paul in the hopes that mainstream politicians will eventually take notice of the sorts of change so many Americans are looking for now.
He's the only candidate I can recall from my adult life who doesn't campaign by solely pandering to emotion.
Ok you wanted to know about a policy that is unrealistic if not undesirable? Easy. Paul wants to disband our foreign intelligence services. It's loony enough to think about bringing home ALL of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. But the idea that we would not only be defenseless abroad, but BLIND abroad, with NO idea what any of our enemies are doing because we no longer have a CIA, NSA, or any other foreign intelligence service, is unrealistic and undesirable, to say the least.
We don't even need to get into the undesirable Paul notions of taking away the federal government's ability to prevent and punish discrimination by state/local government or private parties.
You're talking about Ron Paul, who said that instead of fighting the Civil War, Lincoln should have just bought all the slaves and then freed them. Of course, that wouldn't stop slave owners from buying more slaves with the new money, or kidnapping free black people and then enslaving them. It would have bankrupted the Federal government and vastly enriched the people who thought it was okay to enslave black people. Why am I not surprised that Ron Paul came up with this idea? (He said it on Meet the Press back in 2007, and it's all over the internet, before you fall back on the standard denial defense...).