JONATHAN SAID:
As an aside, I notice that this site has attacked Ron Paul more than any other political candidate (correct me if I'm wrong). Which I assume indicates that, Steve, you believe that Ron Paul is the worst or perhaps most dangerous candidate?
i) Some of his policies, if enacted, would be dangerous.
ii) He’s better in some respects and worse in other respects.
iii) However, it’s not just about Ron Paul. He’s a leader of a movement. The movement is bigger than Ron Paul.
I’m not just judging his candidacy by the candidate, but by the larger movement he spearheads.
To take some examples: in the past I’ve tangled with self-hating Americans like John Lofton and his venomous contributors. They are part of the movement.
I’ve tangled with Jew-haters like Mike Butler and Tim Harris. They are part of the movement.
I’ve tangled with white supremacists (“Kinists”). They are part of the movement.
Same thing with Stormfront. And I could go…and on…and on…
iv) On a related note, the Ron Paul movement has apparently corned a dark corner of the Reformed world. As a Calvinist, I take a personal interest in that unsavory development.
v) On another related note, the movement also has some roots in Xrecon. Now, I don’t regard that as inherently bad. Indeed, there are some good things about that association.
Unfortunately, Xrecon hasn’t matured properly. To a great extent it’s populated by the lunatic fringe.
There are exceptions. Doug Wilson and New St. Andrews may represent the last best hope of Xrecon.
However, I don’t know a lot about that. Frank Turk or Tim Enloe could probably offer a more informed perspective.
vi) Ron Paul’s movement is also redefining “true” conservatism. In the market place of ideas, Paul and his followers are entitled to define and promote their own version of conservatism, but I reserve the right to oppose that definition.
vii) Bottom line, it’s not just a question of supporting or opposing the candidate, but supporting or opposing the movement he represents.
Steve, do you really think that "self-hating Americans" (whatever that's supposed to mean) "Jew-haters" and "white supremacists" characterize the Ron Paul movement? Oh please. And this is awfully ironic coming from someone such as yourself, who throws around some of the nastiest anti-Muslim rhetoric I've heard.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess, it seems to me that what you really can't stand about Ron Paul is his non-interventionist foreign policy.
Any correlation btw Ron Paul Libertarianism and the R2K of Darryl Hart and Westminster Seminary West in Escondido?
ReplyDelete"He’s a leader of a movement."-Steve
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I never thought that way. He seemed to be the only authentic person who was in Congress, and wants to be president; and the others are simply saying things that they feel they need to say, to make themselves look good.
It's Ron Paul's integrity that I like. And the missing of honesty by all the others that I shun: smae old same old. Sad.
Would love to see our nation change. But I guess we will be the same old same old.
From my dark corner of the Reformed world, it seems to be young Calvinists who are attracted to Ron Paul. My assessment is that many Christians, including young Christians disaffected by the fruits of establishment politics, are looking for a protest candidate and have found it in Dr. Paul.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with all of his policies, but deeply respect his principles and share this sentiment with my brothers and sisters.
Ugh, again Unknown is me: Matt Kleinhans
ReplyDeletePoints i and ii are true of all the candidates. The rest of it reads like pretty typical guilt by association "smear the person because there are fringe elements who support him" rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Ron Paul isn't "redefining true conservatism" any more than these populist, big government clowns are that make up essentially all the rest of the candidates. If anything, the direction Paul would take conservatism is closer to its core and roots than any other candidate because it is more closely tied to the Constitution and smaller federal government. The populist wolves-in-sheeps-clothing that make up the rest of the field are really just big government Democrats in disguise. They're also generally neo-cons.
ReplyDeleteIf the Republican candidate is anyone other than Paul, I likely will vote 3rd party if there's a reasonable choice there, because the rest of the Republicans are bad news for our country. And if a Democrat wins, the blame will be squarely on the Republicans for fronting someone I couldn't in good conscience vote for as an alternative to the Dem candidate, since they're really just more of the same garbage as the Dem candidates these days and as the Repubs have been for the last couple elections. They got me to vote for Bush 43 the first time, because his pre-election platform was good. Then they turned him into a neo-con big government clown. Now they've lost my trust and I am determined to do my best to not get fooled again.
Steve
ReplyDeleteRon Paul’s movement is also redefining “true” conservatism.
What would you say true conservatism is?
I'm more familiar with conservatism in the UK than in the US; the conservatism of Roger Scruton, for instance.
Do you think conservatism is generally the same on both sides of the pond or do you think they are generally different?
I don't think there has to be a single definition of conservatism. I simply object to Ron Paul acting is if his idiosyncratic definition is the only legitimate definition. Even within libertarianism, there are various competing versions.
ReplyDeleteJEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, do you really think that 'self-hating Americans' (whatever that's supposed to mean) 'Jew-haters' and 'white supremacists' characterize the Ron Paul movement?"
That's a significant demographic component of his support.
"Oh please. And this is awfully ironic coming from someone such as yourself, who throws around some of the nastiest anti-Muslim rhetoric I've heard."
How is that ironic? Just the opposite.
JACOB SAID:
ReplyDelete"Points i and ii are true of all the candidates."
i is not true of all the candidates. You may think so, but I wasn't expressing your viewpoint.
"The rest of it reads like pretty typical guilt by association 'smear the person because there are fringe elements who support him' rhetoric."
i) They are fringe elements in relation to the electorate at large, but they're not fringe elements in relation to his supporters.
ii) It's not guilt-by-association to point out that when you empower the leader of a movement you thereby empower the movement he leads.
Even if the leader were somehow guiltless, supporting him would enable his supporters.
iii) Guilt-by-association isn't inherently fallacious. I'm not culpable if my brother-in-law belongs to the KKK, but I am culpable if I belong to the KKK. Even if I haven't done anything overtly racist, my voluntary membership in the KKK does confer on me a corporate identity.
iv) In addition, it's not just the folks who support Ron Paul, but the folks Ron Paul supports.
Jacob said...
ReplyDelete"If anything, the direction Paul would take conservatism is closer to its core and roots than any other candidate because it is more closely tied to the Constitution and smaller federal government."
You say that because you support Ron Paul's candidacy. Obviously I don't share your viewpoint.
And I don't concede that his idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution makes him a Constitutionalist.
"They got me to vote for Bush 43 the first time, because his pre-election platform was good."
No one got me to vote for Bush 43. I voted for him (twice) because he was better than Gore or Kerry. Given that choice, I'd do the same thing.
Such is life. We play the hand we're dealt.
"Then they turned him into a neo-con big government clown."
No one turned him into that. He never ran as a dove or a small gov't guy.
"Now they've lost my trust and I am determined to do my best to not get fooled again."
I wasn't fooled, and I don't vote based on trust.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"That's a significant demographic component of his support."
Do you care to hazard a guess as to how sizable this "component" is?
"It's not just the folks who support Ron Paul, but the folks Ron Paul supports."
Who does Ron Paul support that is so unsavory in your estimation?
"How is that ironic? Just the opposite."
Steve, you're trying to paint Ron Paul as some sort of racist, or worse, and yet you yourself practice some of the most absurd, hateful demagoguing of Muslims I've seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
ReplyDelete43 did run on a humble foreign policy, no nation building. Not exactly a dove, but he was incredibly cautious- almost sounds like Ron Paul sometimes!
"iii) However, it’s not just about Ron Paul. He’s a leader of a movement... self-hating Americans... Jew-haters... Kinists"
ReplyDeleteLet's grant for sake of argument that Ron Paul gets more support from the aforementioned groups than other candidates.
This simple fact wouldn't mean that Paul's political views per se result in positions unique to those groups (e.g. Jew-hating).
So I don't really see the significance of this. Perhaps Jew-haters also tend to be libertarian-ish. That doesn't indicate to me that Jew-haters, as such, are part of the Libertarian movement. At least not in any significant way that would tarnish the reputation of libertarianism. (Of course Jew-haters (et. al.) would be part of the Libertarian movement in the trivial sense that they may belong to the Libertarian party, but in that trivial sense it seems reasonable to suppose Jew-haters (et. al.) are part of the Republican and Democratic movement too.)
"i) Some of his policies, if enacted, would be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI assume you have in mind Ron Paul's foreign policy. I'm not convinced it is dangerous. Nevertheless...
The type of spending that Republicans like George W. Bush enacted and person's like Santorum are likely to continue is also dangerous, economically speaking.
As I mentioned in a different thread, even if one buys into the pro-war imperialist policies of "mainstream" Republicans like McCain et al, there simply is no sustainable way for us to execute such a foreign policy.
Of course, you may raise taxes. And a Republican like Santorum may do that. But I recall that, several months ago, Triablogue promoted a link to a video interview with the Hoover Institute in which an economist said that this sort of Republican would be the worst possible thing for our economy right now (or something along those lines).
I don't know what (iv) is referring to. I thought all Reformed world was a dark corner.
ReplyDeleteConcerning (v), I've never heard of Xrecon.
Concerning (vi), what historical claim do big spending, pro-war Republicans have to the label "conservativism" in so far as that label represents a certain set of ideals (which I take it at least consists in limited gov't that doesn't police the world)?
P.S. Thanks for addressing my question to begin with.
Concerning (v), I've never heard of Xrecon.
ReplyDeleteI think that is Steve's shorthand for Christian Reconstructionism (notice: "Doug Wilson and New St. Andrews may represent [its] last best hope").
3girldad is right.
ReplyDelete"No one got me to vote for Bush 43. I voted for him (twice) because he was better than Gore or Kerry. Given that choice, I'd do the same thing."-Steve
ReplyDeleteMe too.
I'm glad Bush was president during 9-11, instead of Gore. George W. wasn't a very good president, but he is a good American in my book. I would be a lousy President as well, but I do appreciate this nation I am privileged to live in.
Thank You Lord for letting me be free. And Help me to use this freedom to glory in Your mercy and love, and to share the Gospel of Christ to all that i can. Amen.
Since Ron Paul supporters in this thread have repeated some of the misleading claims they've made in the past, I want to link to some previous threads in which those claims have been discussed. Should we believe that there's no significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans? That Rick Santorum would spend about as much as Obama has, for example? That voting for a third party candidate makes sense? See the comments sections of the threads here and here. And here's a post from 2008 in which I discussed some of the many major differences between Obama and McCain.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans should choose Romney as their nominee, even though he's not the best candidate in some ways. He has a significant electability advantage over the others. They're too much of a risk. There's still time for them to improve their electability sufficiently, but I doubt they will. Romney has a lot of problems, but he's running on a platform that's more conservative than most Americans, and he'd be far better than Obama. Voting for a third party wouldn't make sense in this context, for reasons I've explained in the threads I linked earlier.
There can be exceptions to what I've outlined above. For example, if Romney would be leading Obama by a wide margin going into election day, it might make sense for some people to vote for a third party candidate or not vote. My comments above are a generalization. Or say it looks like Romney's going to get the nomination, but you want to use your vote to express support for some other candidate, like Santorum. That could make sense in some contexts. I'd allow some exceptions, but I think it generally makes sense to vote for Romney.
It's obvious why a lot of these fringe groups are attracted to Ron Paul... it's because most of these fringe groups hate the government. Think about it... if you were a 9/11 Truther, and you thought the terror attacks were orchestrated by the federal government, why wouldn't you support a candidate like Ron Paul who wants to tackle big government head on?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is not a racist, an anti-semitic, or an isolationist. People who continue to spout off this garbage are people who refuse to do their research and choose to get all their information about him from FOX, CNN, and MSNBC.
I guess I'm part of the "dark corner" of the Reformed world that Paul has persuaded. I fail to see how un-Christian libertarianism is. If it is un-Reformed, so be it.
It's not just that fringe groups are attracted to Ron Paul. Those are the circles he moves in. He's cultivated that following.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteSince Ron Paul supporters in this thread have repeated some of the misleading claims they've made in the past, I want to link to some previous threads in which those claims have been discussed. Should we believe that there's no significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans? That Rick Santorum would spend about as much as Obama has, for example? That voting for a third party candidate makes sense?"
Speaking for myself, I haven't staked my position out on the grounds that Joe Republican = Joe Democrat or that Santorum's spending will be "about as much as" Obama's. (If I have and I've since forgotten then I could easily retract that stronger claim. This still wouldn't necessarily make a Santorum type candidate acceptable, as I think criticisms of supporting a Santorum--on the grounds that there spending policies and gov't growth ideas and pro-war ideas are similar enough to democrats to be unaccaptable for conservatives--would still stand. This doesn't require that Santorum = Obama or Joe Democrat. It may be that Santorum is better than Obama, will spend less than Obama, will grow the gov't less than Obama, but will still take our country in the wrong direction with relatively smaller steps.) And your remark about voting third party doesn't make much sense in this context, since Paul isn't currently running on a third party ticket, but on the Republican.
Anyway, I support your appeal for people to read the first thread you link to and that I participated in, as I don't think your arguments were on target. As for the other threads you link to, I haven't read them yet.
"Or say it looks like Romney's going to get the nomination, but you want to use your vote to express support for some other candidate, like Santorum. That could make sense in some contexts. I'd allow some exceptions, but I think it generally makes sense to vote for Romney."
This is vague, but is similar to one of my points in the first thread you link to.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"It's not just that fringe groups are attracted to Ron Paul. Those are the circles he moves in. He's cultivated that following."
Ron Paul moves within the circles of self-haters, Jew-haters, and white supremacists? Humor us and be specific. Name names. Who are these haters whose circles Ron Paul moves in?
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI've documented that repeatedly. Learn how to read. Try the Laubach Way.
Oh come on Steve, humor me. What exactly are you referring to? The Ron Paul newsletters?
ReplyDeleteJason said: "He has a significant electability advantage over the others."
ReplyDeleteJason, what do you think about the CBS poll?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/
Or were you suggesting that even though Paul polls pretty closely to Romney against Obama, he's more of a risk?
Jeff, I believe it's in reference to Lew Rockwell and the many others associated with Paul that Steve is referring to.
ReplyDelete"If anything, the direction Paul would take conservatism is closer to its core and roots than any other candidate because it is more closely tied to the Constitution and smaller federal government."
ReplyDeleteYou say that because you support Ron Paul's candidacy. Obviously I don't share your viewpoint.
No, I simply prefer him over the other choices and I am defending what I feel are unfair or misleading accusations.
Also, Bush 43 did indeed run on a platform of smaller government, this is documented. Once he was elected, and even more-so after 9/11, neo-cons heavily influenced him toward big government populist ways.
On a practical note, I doubt Ron Paul could win in the general election against Obama.
ReplyDeleteRP is the ideal caucus candidate in this cycle. But if he can't win in Iowa, then where can he win?
I believe RP garnered the majority of his votes in Iowa from young male voters (~25%), which is my demographic, and moderate-liberals voters (~40%). If he's nominated for the GOP ticket, I doubt he'd have enough clout to attract other conservatives and people in the GOP. I bet many would sit out. I think it's likely it'd look worse than McCain.
While RP has some good ideas, liberals would expose his loony ideas in the race. Not to mention tar him with allegations which RP supporters - or at least the ones in this combox - would vehemently deny but which nevertheless could potentially stick (e.g. anti-Semitism, racism, Lew Rockwell stuff). It doesn't matter if it's true so much as if it's perceived to be true by enough voters. Someone like Santorum and likely even Romney could probably survive the liberal onslaught. But I doubt RP could. What's the worst you can say about Santorum or Romney? Much if not most of their perceived baggage has already been aired in the mainstream media. Not so RP.
And would enough conservatives come to RP's defense if this occurred? I think most would be reticent to do so. Especially in light of the fact that RP has taken such an adverse and hostile stance against other influential conservatives.
And unlike Santorum or Romney, RP isn't exactly quick on his feet when it comes to rhetorical cut and thrust. Maybe he used to be back in the day but not now. By the way, his age could be a concern too, unlike say Santorum and Romney.
If all this is true, then it'd seem likely if RP is nominated the POTUS would go to Obama.
People drop Lew Rockwell's name as if the very mention of it is supposed to make us run for the hills. But does anyone else here have any real familiarity with Rockwell? (I certainly do, and I think Lew is great, even if I have certain differences with him). Or is Steve just mindlessly regurgitating the talking points he's heard?
ReplyDeleteRockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteI think you're probably right about most of that. However, I don't think he isn't quick on his feet. From what I have seen of him, he is usually well prepared and thought out in all his responses. Perhaps it isn't that he is rhetorically slow, but that he is answering the issues from a context that's unfamiliar to the average audience.
Jason wrote: "He has a significant electability advantage over the others."
ReplyDeleteSuppose there were evidence that Ron Paul does better with independents? Would that make him more electable?
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"People drop Lew Rockwell's name as if the very mention of it is supposed to make us run for the hills. But does anyone else here have any real familiarity with Rockwell? (I certainly do, and I think Lew is great, even if I have certain differences with him). Or is Steve just mindlessly regurgitating the talking points he's heard?"
1. Well, for what it's worth, I'm familiar with Rockwell and I think he's imbalanced to put it mildly. Also, I'd agree with Steve's assessment. But that wasn't my point in the above comment.
2. Rather my point was that it doesn't matter whether it's true, per se. It's whether it's perceived to be true by enough voters. If the Democratic smear campaign does its job, then the truth will be secondary.
3. Also, with due respect, it doesn't matter what you may think of Rockwell. Rather my point is I would think most Americans wouldn't exactly find the associations palatable either on their own as they stand or particularly if they're exaggerated by the smear campaign.
4. By the way, I'd tend to think there are probably vastly more RP supporters online than in the general voting populace. And I'd tend to think many if not most of the RP supporters online are passionate RP supporters too - unlike in the general voting populace where there are more blurred lines.
(Sure, it looks like RP should finish second in the NH primary. But the NH primary allows undeclared voters to vote. I think this too could inflate numbers.)
5. Again I'm not talking about RP's merits and demerits, per se. Rather I'm talking about his electability. And mainly his electability vis-a-vis Obama. Again I just doubt RP could win against Obama even if on the offchance he is somehow nominated (also which I would doubt is realistic).
Jonathan said:
"However, I don't think he isn't quick on his feet. From what I have seen of him, he is usually well prepared and thought out in all his responses. Perhaps it isn't that he is rhetorically slow, but that he is answering the issues from a context that's unfamiliar to the average audience."
Hm, that could be. Maybe on an objective scale or at least in comparison to all other Americans in general RP would be above average.
But I guess I mean in comparison to Santorum or Romney (whom I would be reluctant to support) or Obama, I think RP seems to come off as less proficient. Gingrich is probably the best in terms of rhetorical skill, but at this point I also doubt he'll get the nomination.
Of course, the question is whether rhetorical aptitude and panache are necessary to be elected. Bush 43 is far from rhetorically gifted, either against Gore or Kerry or maybe even in general, but he won.
Judging by stuff like the FSP, isn't NH a more libertarian state than most other states?
ReplyDeleteRP has finished second in NH. But why not first?
If RP can't win as either a solid caucus candidate in Iowa or as a solid libertarian in NH, then where can he win?
rockingwithhawking said:
ReplyDelete"Well, for what it's worth, I'm familiar with Rockwell and I think he's imbalanced to put it mildly."
That's fine, although I would be interested in a critique of Rockwell a bit more specific than that. What I was responding to was Steve's silly accusation that Ron Paul walks in the circles of self-haters, Jew-haters, and white supremacists.
"Rather my point was that it doesn't matter whether it's true, per se. It's whether it's perceived to be true by enough voters."
Agreed.
"If RP can't win as either a solid caucus candidate in Iowa or as a solid libertarian in NH, then where can he win?"
If enough voters took this advice, Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination.
As for going head-to-head against Obama, the national polls have indicated that Ron Paul would mount a very strong challenge. The charges of racism, antisemitism, etc. are old news by now and most people, I think, can see these charges for the hollow smear tactics they are. On the positive side, Ron Paul would devour Obama in head-to-head debates. Perhaps not in terms of rhetorical eloquence, but certainly in terms of argumentative substance. He would give all but the most dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Democratic voters strong reason to take notice.
RE Why 2nd place finish... Proximity to Massachusetts perhaps? :)
ReplyDeleteJeff said:
ReplyDelete"If enough voters took this advice, Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination."
1. Hm, is this advice even realistic? I doubt every candidate besides Romney and RP will drop out right now.
2. Of course, this cuts many different ways. Why doesn't RP drop out, for instance? If RP had dropped out of NH, then perhaps his votes would've gone elsewhere. Maybe more to Romney, maybe to Huntsman, maybe to Gingrich, maybe to Santorum. If RP drops out of SC, then perhaps his votes would go elsewhere.
3. But this wasn't my point in any case. Please re-read above.
"As for going head-to-head against Obama, the national polls have indicated that Ron Paul would mount a very strong challenge."
1. "A very strong challenge" isn't equivalent to electoral college victory.
I don't know which poll(s) you're referring to since you don't cite any poll(s). Are there polls which have looked at how an Obama vs. RP matchup would play out in the electoral college? Or are they looking strictly at the national popular vote?
But even if we look at the national popular vote, each of these polls show RP losing. On average the RCP poll calculates RP would lose by 6.8 points.
2. Polls attempt to gauge sentiments. Which way the wind is blowing. As such polls may or may not be accurate prognosticators. But (among other things) what I'm trying to do is point out potential handicaps and liabilities in RP's electability based on more concrete stuff like RP's beliefs and values, what he's said, his associations, how he's performed thus far, etc.
"The charges of racism, antisemitism, etc. are old news by now and most people, I think, can see these charges for the hollow smear tactics they are."
I'd disagree. I don't think most Americans are familiar enough with RP's (shall we say) less reasonable views.
Plus, RP's less reasonable ideas will doubtless get a lot more attention and presumably exaggerated by the mainstream media if the Democratic smear campaign has anything to say about it.
"On the positive side, Ron Paul would devour Obama in head-to-head debates. Perhaps not in terms of rhetorical eloquence, but certainly in terms of argumentative substance. He would give all but the most dyed-in-the-wool, establishment Democratic voters strong reason to take notice."
1. RP is a bit of a mixed bag in debates. Sometimes he sounds eminently reasonable. But on his off days RP can come off shrill and crazed. Again I'm not saying he is or isn't shrill and crazed but that's the perception.
Obama almost always comes off cool and level-headed even when he's blabbering about nothing.
2. RP might win on substance but lose on eloquence. But what would count more with voters? Or would voters not care at all?
Of course, the question is whether even if RP wins on substance whether that'd give him a bump in the votes. Debates may or may not make a difference in this regard. It's probably too hard to gauge this far in advance of the debates. If RP even makes it that far.
Some commenters have asked me about Ron Paul's electability. Rocking with Hawking has already made some good points on the subject, but I'll summarize my view.
ReplyDeleteWe have to look at a few things. First, how electable is Paul among Republicans? How likely is he to get the nomination? See here. Second, where does he stand in the polling against Obama? See here. Third, how are his numbers likely to change if he becomes the nominee? The answer to that question depends on factors like the ones Rocking with Hawking has brought up. And I think he's made some good points. Paul is relatively old, he often comes across as exasperated and frustrated and angry, it would be easy for the likes of David Letterman and Saturday Night Live to mock him, he has too many negative associations with other individuals and groups, etc. Once voters are more familiar with the newsletters that went out under Paul's name, his associations with unpopular September 11 theories, etc., his numbers probably will go down significantly. Then there are the problems with his positions on spending, foreign policy, and other issues. Once his positions receive more attention and scrutiny, it's doubtful that his polling numbers will do anything but go down. He hasn't yet received the sort of prominent scrutiny that some more mainstream candidates have. It's likely that his tendency to trail Obama in the polls will get even worse if he's subjected to more scrutiny as the Republican nominee.
By the way, what about the positive attention Paul is getting now that's positive only or largely because of his current context? For example, how many Democrats and independents who commend Paul for his opposition to the war in Iraq, his view of terrorism, etc. will be so positive about him once he's being compared to Obama rather than other Republicans? I suspect that Paul has a higher standing with Democrats and independents at this point than he would as the Republican nominee, since Democrats and independents have reason to be more focused on their agreements with him at this stage. The same liberal news organization or independent commentator who gives Paul so much positive coverage now, in a context in which he's being compared to other Republicans, could easily take a much different approach once the context changes to a campaign between Paul and Obama. The Democrats and independents who currently say they'd vote for Paul over Obama probably will be largely influenced by media, commentators, etc. who would be much less positive about Paul in the future than they are now.
ReplyDeleteMATT KLEINHANS SAID:
ReplyDelete"43 did run on a humble foreign policy, no nation building."
i) Bush 43 ran on a pre-9/11 platform. He didn't anticipate 9/11. When he was caught off-guard, he amended his foreign policy.
ii) Even when he was running for president, his opposition to nation-building wasn't in reference to national security but humanitarian schemes.
Jonathan said...
ReplyDelete“As I mentioned in a different thread, even if one buys into the pro-war imperialist policies of ‘mainstream’ Republicans like McCain et al, there simply is no sustainable way for us to execute such a foreign policy.”
i) Of course, I don’t accept the way you frame the issue–“imperialist policies.” Since I reject the false premise, I reject your conclusion.
ii) It’s not defense spending that’s unsustainable. In the past, defense spending was a larger share of GNP, yet we weren’t facing the same humongous deficits.
The main threat to national solvency are the unfunded mandates of the ripening entitlement programs.
“Of course, you may raise taxes. And a Republican like Santorum may do that. But I recall that, several months ago, Triablogue promoted a link to a video interview with the Hoover Institute in which an economist said that this sort of Republican would be the worst possible thing for our economy right now (or something along those lines).”
i) No, we don’t need to raise taxes. We need to slash the budget, privatize entitlement programs (eventually phasing them out), &c. Lowering taxes is stimulative, which generates revenue.
ii) I like some of RP’s ideas for budget reduction. However, unilateral disarmament is not a prudent way to balance the budget.
“Concerning (vi), what historical claim do big spending, pro-war Republicans have to the label ‘conservativism’ in so far as that label represents a certain set of ideals (which I take it at least consists in limited gov't that doesn't police the world)?”
i) This characterization betrays the inability of Ron Paul supporters to dialogue with anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. You constantly build your own assumptions (e.g. “imperialism,” “police the world”) into your objections. But, of course, folks like me don’t share your assumptions. Therefore, that’s not something you can take for granted when you debate people who don’t come to the issues from the same presumptive framework.
Ron Paul supporters spend too much time reading their in-house literature and talking to each other. What is obvious or axiomatic to them isn’t obvious or axiomatic to someone outside their clique.
ii) Even “pro-war” is terribly ambiguous.
“So I don't really see the significance of this.”
It’s significant if a vote for Ron Paul is, in effect, a vote for the movement he leads.
“…but in that trivial sense it seems reasonable to suppose Jew-haters (et. al.) are part of the Republican and Democratic movement too.)”
i) The other GOP candidates aren’t leaders of a movement.
ii) Anti-Semitism is increasingly fashionable among Democrats. That’s just one more reason not to be a Democrat.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"...and yet you yourself practice some of the most absurd, hateful demagoguing of Muslims I've seen."
You don't need to keep reminding us that you're a bootlicker for jihadis. Figure out something else to talk about or go away.
This blog is not a soapbox for you to defend our enemies. If you want to be a doormat for terrorists, start your own blog.
Turretinfan said...
ReplyDelete"Suppose there were evidence that Ron Paul does better with independents? Would that make him more electable?"
It would make him more electable if he can attract independents while hanging on to the Republican base. He has yet to demonstrate sufficient appeal with either group. You don't win the nomination by coming in second or third.
Or course, Santorum also has to up his game. The picture ought to be clearer after S. Carolina and Florida.
Steve,
ReplyDeletei) Of course, I don’t accept the way you frame the issue–“imperialist policies.” Since I reject the false premise, I reject your conclusion.
I may call McCain's approach to politics "pro-war" and "imperialist," and you may call them "sensible" and "prudent" (or whatever you may call them) but McCain's policies are what they are and I don't see that the different labels builds a false premise into the discussion that automatically attempts to make me the winner, since I gave that label a specific example. In other words, I'm not trying to use "boo words" (as philosopher Jamie Whyte might say).
ii) It’s not defense spending that’s unsustainable. In the past, defense spending was a larger share of GNP, yet we weren’t facing the same humongous deficits.
I'm not sure about that. I would, yet again, reference the Eland book that I have in the past.
i) No, we don’t need to raise taxes. We need to slash the budget, privatize entitlement programs (eventually phasing them out), &c. Lowering taxes is stimulative, which generates revenue.
Naturally, as a Ron Paul supporter, I agree that we can and should do those things and that we don't *need* to raise taxes. I'm not convinced this is the route Romney or Santorum would take though. (Hence my Hoover Institute reference.)
i) This characterization betrays the inability of Ron Paul supporters to dialogue with anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. You constantly build your own assumptions (e.g. “imperialism,” “police the world”) into your objections. But, of course, folks like me don’t share your assumptions. Therefore, that’s not something you can take for granted when you debate people who don’t come to the issues from the same presumptive framework.
Again, I tied my labels to a specific example (McCain) and I could add others (G. W. Bush). While it builds the assumption into the dialogue that these are bad/undesirable, that's only natural.
Ron Paul supporters spend too much time reading their in-house literature and talking to each other. What is obvious or axiomatic to them isn’t obvious or axiomatic to someone outside their clique.
You talk a lot about Ron Paul supporters as if they are a monolithic group or movement. I'm not sure how much of that is rhetorical caricature and how much you actually believe it to be the case.
I haven't seen any studies on Ron Paul supporters. But I don't see Ron Paul supporters as being significantly different than G. W. Bush supporters or Sarah Palin supporters. Granted, that might not be an entirely good thing, but that's just the way people attach themselves to politics and political figures... not simply the way people attach themselves to Paul.
If there actually is such a thing as a "Paulbot" group or "Paulistinian" or whatever, I certainly don't think I would fit into that category and your caricature as someone who "spend[s] too much time reading their in-house literature and talking to each other. certainly doesn't fit.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'm not really into politics and you may be surprised that I read most of my "online politics" from here.
As far as "off-line" politics, I don't read much of that either. But here is a list of political-esque books I've read in the last two years (from my Goodreads site):
Living in God's Two Kingdoms - DVD
A Biblical Case for NL - DVD
Politics According to the Bible - Wayne Grudem
The Little Book of Economics - Greg Ip
Natural Law & The Two Kingdoms - DVD
Applied Economics - Thomas Sowell
The Vision of the Anointed - Thomas Sowell
Politics for Christians - Francis Beckwith
The Reckless Mind - Mark Lilla
The Empire Has No Clothes - Ivan Eland
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators - David Chilton
Christian Zionism - Stephen Sizer
Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
Liberal Fascism - Jonah Goldberg
And I started reading, but haven't finished James Davidson Hunter's "To Change the World."
As you can see from that list, I dont read much in politics (relatively speaking I guess), certainly not widely, and the majority of what I do read is, I think, fairly mainstream Christian conservative stuff (Thomas Sowell, right?).
In fact, the only books on that list that would be favorable to a Paulbot are the 3 books by Eland, Rand, Sizer... and I didn't even Rand.
I don't think I'm particularly unique as a Paul supporter. From what I gather, Paul gets a lot of support not from some dark movement of libertarian-esque book clubs who only carry on dialogues with each other, but from disenchanted Republicans, people who used to be Bush supporters, etc. The dark, cultish idea of Paul Supporters is more a story the media and David Bahnsen like to tell themselves before going to bed at night ;)
We can argue all day long about who's most electable, but at the end of the day that whole argument assumes that the main goal here is to get a Republican elected, no matter who that happens to be. The whole lesser-of-two-evils mentality prevalent for so long among so many voters (Democrat and Republican) has been a resounding failure, and I don't know how many more election cycles we're going to have to suffer through before enough people come to realize that and start thinking outside the "electability" box.
ReplyDeleteWould Romney, or Santorum, or Gingrich be a different president than Obama? Sure, but mostly in terms of rhetoric and superficial details. The state will continue to metastasize at its current astonishing and disheartening rate.
Only Ron Paul has raised fundamental questions of governance. He's the only viable presidential candidate in recent memory to challenge the endless wars, the endless bailouts, the endless spying and torturing, the endless explosion of debt, the endless currency debasement, the endless immorality emanating from Washington.
And I'm out, and off my soapbox for now...
Wanted to say something on this too,
ReplyDeleteii) I like some of RP’s ideas for budget reduction. However, unilateral disarmament is not a prudent way to balance the budget.
I don't think it's either unilateral disarmament or our current modus operandi in foreign policy. Nor do I think Ron Paul wants unilateral disarmament... although maybe you're saying that Ron Paul's policies are equivalent to UD in the same way that I'm saying Bush-type policies are imperialistic. In which case, while I still don't think it's an either/or scenario, I'm more sympathetic to it (though not entirely convinced either).
"You don't win the nomination by coming in second or third."
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, he could win the nomination that way. If he consistently comes in 2nd or 3rd while others take turns coming in first, he could end up with more delegates than any one of the others.
I doubt that will happen.
Still - it's hard to imagine the GOP base voting for Obama or staying home if the GOP candidate is RP. It's more likely that RP's base will stay home (or even vote for Obama) if he's not nominated.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"We can argue all day long about who's most electable, but at the end of the day that whole argument assumes that the main goal here is to get a Republican elected, no matter who that happens to be. The whole lesser-of-two-evils mentality prevalent for so long among so many voters (Democrat and Republican) has been a resounding failure, and I don't know how many more election cycles we're going to have to suffer through before enough people come to realize that and start thinking outside the 'electability' box."
Here's an obvious problem with your point: Ron Paul is currently running as a Republican.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"We can argue all day long about who's most electable, but at the end of the day that whole argument assumes that the main goal here is to get a Republican elected, no matter who that happens to be. The whole lesser-of-two-evils mentality prevalent for so long among so many voters (Democrat and Republican) has been a resounding failure, and I don't know how many more election cycles we're going to have to suffer through before enough people come to realize that and start thinking outside the 'electability' box."
If everyone agrees RP isn't electable, then why vote for him over someone who is electable (e.g. Santorum, Obama)? To make some sort of a statement?
rockingwithhawking said:
ReplyDelete"Here's an obvious problem with your point: Ron Paul is currently running as a Republican."
Huh? Not sure how that's a problem with my point.
"If everyone agrees RP isn't electable, then why vote for him over someone who is electable (e.g. Santorum, Obama)? To make some sort of a statement?"
Who said that "everyone agrees" that RP isn't electable? I think he's highly electable. My point, though, was that I don't know how many more elections we're going to have to suffer through before enough voters recognize the "lesser-of-two-evils" mindset as the bankrupt, dead-end approach that it is.
Having to choose between "the lesser of two evils" is not a mindset, it is a feature of a political system that was designed in the context of a fallen world. Even if one's favorite candidate becomes the nominee, in the end you are still left with a choice between "the lesser of two evils". How could it be any other way? Or to put it another way, "what's the alternative"?
ReplyDeleteJEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"The whole lesser-of-two-evils mentality prevalent for so long among so many voters (Democrat and Republican) has been a resounding failure."
At the risk of stating the obvious, the alternative to the lesser of two evils is the greater of two evils.
LOL Steve.
ReplyDeleteShame on you TurretinFan for your ingratiating sychophantic laughter.
ReplyDelete;-)
JONATHAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't know what (iv) is referring to. I thought all Reformed world was a dark corner."
No. Calvinism is a bright corner in a dark world.
Neal and Steve,
ReplyDeleteMy point is that no one is forcing you to vote for any particular candidate, so the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm is false. I consider Obama, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all to represent evil governance to roughly the same degree. All four are nearly identical when it comes to the most important issues facing us: war, debt, civil liberties, currency debasement, endless bailouts, etc.
If any supporters of the aforementioned gentlemen would like to outline why their preferred candidate truly would be a significant departure from Obama, I'm all ears.
No. Calvinism is a bright corner in a dark world.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I'm Reformed. I was just joshing.
As I recall, Jeff is a self-identified anarchist.
ReplyDeleteJeff said:
ReplyDelete"Huh? Not sure how that's a problem with my point."
You said both Democrat and Republican voters are possessed of a "lesser-of-two-evils mentality."
RP is part of the GOP. Since he's a GOP candidate, it's reasonable to presume he's been and is a GOP voter too. So on the face of it it'd seem RP likewise shares in this "lesser-of-two-evils mentality" in some sense. If it's a problem, then it's a problem for RP too.
In addition RP is actively soliciting GOP votes to garner delegates and super delegates at the GOP national convention. So on the face of it it'd seem RP contributes to this "lesser-of-two-evils mentality" in some sense. If it's a problem, then RP is part of the problem too.
"Who said that 'everyone agrees' that RP isn't electable? I think he's highly electable."
First it's a counterfactual conditional.
Also, others like Jason Engwer and I gave reasons above for why we don't think RP is electable. Maybe they're good reasons, maybe not. But you've hardly interacted with our reasons.
"My point, though, was that I don't know how many more elections we're going to have to suffer through before enough voters recognize the 'lesser-of-two-evils' mindset as the bankrupt, dead-end approach that it is."
So you say. But why? What's wrong with, say, trying to make the most of the cards we're dealt?
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"My point is that no one is forcing you to vote for any particular candidate, so the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm is false."
How does this necessarily follow? I don't see how the fact that we're not forced to vote for anyone, the fact that we can abstain from casting a vote for any candidate, means therefore "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm is false."
Say we have a 10 point scale where 1 is the least evil and 10 is the most evil. Say it was Ron Paul vs. Obama in the general election. Say RP is the lesser of two evils. Say RP is a 9 whereas Obama is a 10. Say I abstain from voting for either RP or Obama. How does the fact that I can abstain from voting for either RP or Obama mean "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm is false"?
Indeed, say it came down to RP vs. Obama. Our political system and process left us with these two choices.
ReplyDeleteIf what you say is true, why wouldn't it be possible to advise people who think and vote in terms of "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm" to refrain from voting for either candidate? Don't vote for Obama or RP if you're going in with "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or" mindset or mentality, right?
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"As I recall, Jeff is a self-identified anarchist."
Indeed, though that's irrelevant to this discussion. I'll repeat what I said to you a while ago:
"I consider ending our murderous foreign occupations (RP is one of the very few national politicians who would actually do this) to be a far higher priority than taking an absolutist position against political involvement."
rockingwithhawking said:
ReplyDelete"So on the face of it it'd seem RP contributes to this "lesser-of-two-evils mentality" in some sense. If it's a problem, then RP is part of the problem too."
I wasn't taking a swipe at the GOP and the Dems per se, but rather, to repeat myself, at that mindset which assumes that the main goal in a presidential election is to get either the GOP or the Democratic candidate elected, no matter who that candidate happens to be, and no matter how bad that candidate's policy positions are.
"If what you say is true, why wouldn't it be possible to advise people who think and vote in terms of "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm" to refrain from voting for either candidate? Don't vote for Obama or RP if you're going in with "the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or" mindset or mentality, right?"
Sure, of course. It all depends on who's defining the "lesser" and "greater" evil. If you think of RP as a 9 on the evil scale and Obama as a 10, then I see no reason why you should vote for RP. I've been trying to present the case for why I consider Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum to rank very similarly on the evil scale (that is, they all would continue to pursue--to roughly the same degree--the highly destructive path the US government is on), whereas a Ron Paul presidency would be a highly positive development. If you disagree with that assessment, you're certainly free to explain why.
To put it succinctly: What frustrates me is the mentality that assumes that (for example) we ought to vote for Romney (or whomever), because at least he's not quite as bad as Obama. If one considers a candidate to be bad/evil, why vote for him or her?
Try this reductio on for size:
ReplyDeleteImagine that "our political system and process left us with these two choices": Hitler, and Stalin. Which is the lesser evil? Is it our solemn duty to vote for Stalin, because at least he's not quite as bad as Hitler (or vice versa)? Hey, we're just "trying to make the most of the cards we're dealt," right?
At what point do you wake up and realize the system is broken, and finally refuse to play the wretched cards you've been dealt?
Jeff wrote:
ReplyDelete"I wasn't taking a swipe at the GOP and the Dems per se, but rather, to repeat myself, at that mindset which assumes that the main goal in a presidential election is to get either the GOP or the Democratic candidate elected, no matter who that candidate happens to be, and no matter how bad that candidate's policy positions are."
Who's been arguing for that position? You keep asking questions that have already been answered and making claims that have already been refuted. See the threads I linked earlier. And there have been a lot of other discussions of a similar nature elsewhere on the blog. Not only do you frequently assume what you haven't proven, but you often assume what's already been refuted.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Indeed, though that's irrelevant to this discussion."
It's hardly irrelevant to how you assess political candidates or the GOP. You reject our whole system of gov't.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"My point is that no one is forcing you to vote for any particular candidate, so the lesser evil/greater evil, either/or paradigm is false."
Both voting and not voting have consequences. Not voting doesn't sidestep having to choose between the greater and/or lesser of two evils. It merely relocates the same alternatives.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"to repeat myself, at that mindset which assumes that the main goal in a presidential election is to get either the GOP or the Democratic candidate elected, no matter who that candidate happens to be, and no matter how bad that candidate's policy positions are...I've been trying to present the case for why I consider Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum to rank very similarly on the evil scale (that is, they all would continue to pursue--to roughly the same degree--the highly destructive path the US government is on)...To put it succinctly: What frustrates me is the mentality that assumes that (for example) we ought to vote for Romney (or whomever), because at least he's not quite as bad as Obama. If one considers a candidate to be bad/evil, why vote for him or her?...Imagine that 'our political system and process left us with these two choices': Hitler, and Stalin. Which is the lesser evil? Is it our solemn duty to vote for Stalin, because at least he's not quite as bad as Hitler (or vice versa)? Hey, we're just 'trying to make the most of the cards we're dealt,' right? At what point do you wake up and realize the system is broken, and finally refuse to play the wretched cards you've been dealt?"
1. Hm, I should note at the outset this doesn't actually interact with the majority of the questions I've asked above. Of course, it's your prerogative if you don't want to interact in a substantial or significant way. But the point is I (and others) can't do all the work while you don't interact but pretend like you've interacted if we want to discuss issues. You have to pull your weight as well. A discussion is a two-way street. Anyway interested readers can simply go back and read or re-read your comments and ours to see this is true. No need to take my word for it. The record is clear enough.
2. Your Hitler-Stalin hypothetical doesn't necessarily correspond to our current election. At least you don't explain why you think it does. For example, Hitler and Stalin did not emerge in a vacuum but emerged given certain preconditions. But you assume (among other things) 21st century America's Zeitgeist would somehow allow a Hitler or a Stalin to show up on the national ballot. You assume it's theoretically possible. Sure, anything is possible in theory, but what about in reality? So I don't grant your assumption.
3. Back to reality. Steve made an important point which I'll quote: Both voting and not voting have consequences. Not voting doesn't sidestep having to choose between the greater and/or lesser of two evils. It merely relocates the same alternatives.
4. On a lesser note, why assume voters want either a GOP or Dem "no matter who...no matter how bad that candidates's policy positions"? Maybe many or most voters genuinely like their candidate and agree with their policies. Maybe they don't see them as the lesser of two evils in the first place. Maybe they see their candidate and his policies as largely a genuine good. It's not necessarily a choice between the lesser of two evils for many people.
5. In any case, as a self-avowed anarchist, you're an extremist. You don't support our system of gov't. So it's not just about Ron Paul. Rather Ron Paul is a means to an end for you. People should evaluate and weigh what you've been saying in light of the fact that you're an anarchist.
ReplyDelete6. In this sense it's also futile for most Americans to dialogue with you. We're moving in contrary directions. Ultimately you want to tear down the American gov't rather than build it up. Your end game is revolt, not reform. You speak of peace but you mean war.
7. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, you've said you're a liberal Christian. As such I wouldn't be surprised if you find Romans 13 disagreeable. Not even the authority of God in Scripture controls you. Who knows, maybe Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You has more purchase with you.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"Wow, I've been banned? That's pretty harsh. Was it something I said? I mean, if I had been in the middle of a bunch of ad hominem invective, that would be one thing. But this looks suspiciously like censorship of a dissenting voice. And you purposefully went out of your way to erase any record of the last two comments I left on this thread before I was banned? So if you can't answer an argument, you just delete it? Hey it's your blog, I guess..."
1. Hm, "this looks suspiciously like censorship...if you can't answer an argument, you just delete it"?
Actually, people have answered your "arguments" (such as they are).
As far as I'm concerned, it sounds to me like another one of your unfounded conspiracy theories.
2. But I think the explanation is relatively straightfoward: since you've demonstrated you don't debate in good faith, it makes sense you were banned.