Regarding Ron Paul’s candidacy at this juncture:
i) In 3 primaries he had a strong 3rd place showing in the first primary, a distant 2nd place showing in the second primary, and a 4th place showing in the third primary. So he seems to be weakening rather than strengthening as time goes on. Of course, we’re still early in the process.
ii) His supporters tout RP’s popularity among the military. Well, SC was a test-case. SC may well have the strongest military representation among any state electorate. Yet RP limped to a 4th place finish.
iii) Not only did he fare poorly among military voters, but he faired poorly among evangelical voters and Tea Party voters.
iv) Given that SC has a Johnny Reb streak, you’d think it’s fallow ground for a libertarian candidate. But the election results tell another story.
v) This suggests many or most RP supporters aren’t part of the traditional GOP coalition. This also suggests that, like the tide, they’d recede as quickly in the general election as they swept in during the primaries.
vi) RP is walking a tightrope. On the one hand he’s done a lot thus far to mainstream libertarianism within the GOP. To make that a significant voting block within the GOP. To have a seat at the table.
On the other hand, if he simply tags along throughout the primary process without winning anything, demands onerous concessions at the convention, bolts the party when he doesn’t get his way, taking his loyal followers with him, and thereby reelecting Obama, libertarians will be pariahs in the GOP for a generation to come.
And it’s not as if they have any feasible alternatives. Democrats don’t share their domestic policies, and there are not enough libertarians to form a viable third party. That’s why we have political coalitions in the first place.
How different, or better, was George W. than Barak? Seems they both were, and are, the Status Quo, when it comes to helping the nation come back to "One Nation Under God", with liberty and justice for all.
ReplyDeletePaul would be different. Newt, Romney, Santorum would all be "the same old same old". Perhaps a little different here and there, but no big change.
I long for radical change myself.
You could begin by comparing their SCOTUS nominees. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito while Obama gave us a lesbian and a racist Latina.
ReplyDeletedonsands,
ReplyDeleteWe've addressed the significance of the differences between the candidates in previous threads. You participated in some of those discussions. You should interact with the arguments that were made in those previous threads.
Like I've said before, Ron Paul supporters can't have it both ways. They can't suggest that it's significant when Paul proposes a reduction in spending of a trillion dollars or when he opposes some spending bill for a lesser amount, for example, but then dismiss trillions of dollars in spending differences among the other candidates as insignificant. Obama has supported trillions of dollars more spending than Bush did, Republicans opposed Obama's initial stimulus package that cost nearly a trillion dollars, the healthcare legislation that the Republicans opposed is similarly expensive, etc. Then there are the differences on non-fiscal issues, like the example Steve cited. Or guns. Or abortion. Or homosexuality. Etc. On some of these issues, Paul is in agreement with his fellow Republicans. Would you say that there's no significant difference between Paul and the Democrats on these issues? Here's a post I wrote in 2008 about the differences between McCain and Obama. Why is it that individuals and groups who are highly concerned about issues like abortion and taxes will put so much effort into getting one candidate elected rather than another? Why do groups that rate the candidates often give such radically different ratings to Republicans and Democrats? For reasons I've explained in other threads, it would be ridiculous to suggest that all of these apparent differences between the parties don't exist or aren't significant.
I don't know why you'd describe Obama as "status quo". Is it the status quo to increase spending by a triple-digit percentage, to implement Obama's healthcare legislation, to change from Bush's abortion policies to Obama's, etc.?
And there's a difference between Ron Paul's ideals, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what he's likely to get done. If a Republican other than Ron Paul thinks we can only reduce spending by half as much as he'd like to in our present cultural context, so he only proposes half as much as he'd like, then what's the significance of saying that Paul supports twice as much of a spending reduction? If Paul's opponents are more realistic, that's an advantage they have over Paul, not a disadvantage. I'm not saying that the alternatives to Paul always try to do as much as they can. They don't. But their efforts are largely more realistic than Paul's.
You said that you want "radical change". There's more than one way to get there. Let's say we're in a car and we're headed over a cliff. There isn't enough time to stop the car with the brakes. We can stop it by running it into a ditch, though. Going into the ditch isn't ideal. And it will take a lot of effort to get the car out of the ditch, then drive it to where we want to be. But going into the ditch is a first step in getting us where we want to be over the long run. It's better than the alternative. Insisting on using the brakes, because going into the ditch isn't ideal, will send you over the cliff.
It doesn't work that way. Some states like him better than others, and Southern neoconservative/socially conservative blend states are his weakest area. If SC had come first, it would have been the same result. 57 delegates are out now from over 2000. Ron Paul won't really try for Florida, and by then 107 delegates, total, will be out. Ron Paul has set up his organization in the states that favor him, and needs delegates, not 'early states'. Do the math.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's a good thing that the alternatives are a Mormon and a multiple-adulterer, because it really lays bare just how much certain people hate Ron Paul and real change, that they'd pick either of those over a pro-life Christian doctor-by-trade with a consistent Constitutional-Libertarian voting record throughout his public service in Congress. Yes, discard the man of conviction in favor of continuing the populist neo-con (or socialist) two-party debt charade.
ReplyDeleteWindwardtack tells us to "do the math", and Jacob ignores electability. Here's some math Ron Paul's supporters should consider. What are the states where Paul is leading in the polls?
ReplyDeleteAnd he hasn't even received the scrutiny a frontrunner would receive yet. What do you think voters would make of the newsletters that went out under his name, his comments about September 11, etc. if such things were discussed as prominently as they would be for a frontrunner? How many critical television ads, critical radio ads, Democratic organizations working against him, etc. has he experienced so far? What would happen to Paul's candidacy if he had to experience such things? It's not promising.
I wasn't addressing electability, I was addressing the character of the candidates. I think that was quite clear.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, some good news:
Republican National Committee: One State Solution – Israel
I get what you say about the nominees and about the other differences Jason.
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying this nation has been thoroughly disabled by George W. He was a spender of huge money.
And I know he was pro-life, but not like Reagan.
And Obama is really downright bad and has caused even greater harm to our nation.
I guess I'm just looking for that someone who has honesty and integrity.
Newt? Romney? Not for me.
Now, if Newt runs against Obama, will I vote for Newt? I guess, very disheartened though.
Thanks for letting me dump on you all.
I'm glad I came back here to share. It helps after my Ravens just had a bitter, bitter loss to Brady and his Patriots.
Have great week in our Sovereign Lord's grace and love.
He does love us more than we can ever know in this life. And to His grace and Gospel be all the glory. Amen.
Jacob wrote:
ReplyDelete"I wasn't addressing electability, I was addressing the character of the candidates. I think that was quite clear."
That's the problem. You weren't addressing other factors that should be taken into account.
If you're going to ignore factors like electability and what a candidate would likely be able to accomplish if elected, then why should we think Paul is the best choice? Surely we could imagine a candidate who would be even better and vote for him as a third party or write-in candidate. Paul's supporters need to keep in mind that his campaign also depends on notions like electability to some extent. That's why Paul is a Republican, for example, even though the Republican party is flawed from his perspective.
"You weren't addressing other factors that should be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to ignore factors like electability and what a candidate would likely be able to accomplish if elected, then why should we think Paul is the best choice? "
I guess it all depends on if you vote based on values or based on pragmatism. Most Christians tend to vote based on values, not pragmatism, as befits those who fear God and seek to honor his commandments, trusting that God can work with the end result regardless. The reasoning being, at least they voted their conscience and moral duty and therefore have not compromised, rather than give in to the pragmatic spirit of the age where a man's character and beliefs don't matter, just his electability. One aspect of voting based on values is you aren't willing to sell out your core values for the sake of so-called electability.
Perhaps you guys are a more pragmatic bunch here, and that is why many of your recent political posts seem strangely out of character with the rest of the posts on this site which are more soundly reasoned from Biblical authority and exposition.
The old right is already making libertarianism a pariah so what would be to lose if he runs third party?
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't where constitutional republicans will go but how long before the old right heaves it's death rattle.
The demographics point to it's sure demise. The GOP's current power base is grey haired old white people whose children and grandchildren are libertarians. Not to mention that minorities are making up a larger and larger percentage of the population.
So it's not a question of where constitutionalists fit between fascists on the left and fascists on the right because the fascists on the right are a dying breed.
Since social conservatism is as incompatible with constitutional limited gov't as progressivism it is becoming clearer and clearer to people that libertarianism is the only alternative to either form of fascism.
If we can finally break free from the false choice of which fascism... we may actually be able to win converts to a constitutional limited gov't based on natural rights.
What you call the "old right" is really not so old. It's the neo-con populist wing that came out of the Democratic party not so many decades ago. They took the Republican party away from its small fed government roots and into the tax and spend boondoggle platform the left was famous for, only using the same policy for different ends. They're the reason the two parties look so very similar and often have similar budgetary outcomes regardless of which is elected.
ReplyDeleteJacob wrote:
ReplyDelete"I guess it all depends on if you vote based on values or based on pragmatism. Most Christians tend to vote based on values, not pragmatism, as befits those who fear God and seek to honor his commandments, trusting that God can work with the end result regardless. The reasoning being, at least they voted their conscience and moral duty and therefore have not compromised, rather than give in to the pragmatic spirit of the age where a man's character and beliefs don't matter, just his electability. One aspect of voting based on values is you aren't willing to sell out your core values for the sake of so-called electability."
You've ignored what I said about how Ron Paul and his supporters have demonstrated their concern for factors like electability. Do you oppose Paul and his supporters, since they've "compromised"? Have you only supported and voted for candidates who are perfect? If not, were you "compromising", "giving in to the pragmatic spirit of the age", etc.?
Apparently, you're misdefining what a vote is. It's not equivalent to an endorsement of a candidate on everything he stands for or even most things. Five people could vote for the same candidate for five different reasons. If electing a moderate senator will give a conservative party control of the Senate, then you can vote for that moderate in order to give a conservative party control of that part of the legislature. Somebody else might vote for the moderate because he agrees with his moderate positions. Another person might vote for him because he's a relative. And so on. To use an example I mentioned earlier, you might try to get only half as much of a spending reduction as you'd like to have, since you think half is all you can get. We vote in a context, along with other people. If other people limit our options, then we make the most of the options we have. Ignoring that context and voting for an ideal every time isn't making the most of your opportunities. It's unwise.
And your characterization of those you disagree with is ridiculous. Who says that "a man's character and beliefs don't matter, just his electability"?
gsnieder wrote:
ReplyDelete"The GOP's current power base is grey haired old white people whose children and grandchildren are libertarians."
Why are we supposed to believe that? If it's true, why has Ron Paul done so poorly in 2008 and in more recent voting and polling?
JACOB SAID:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps you guys are a more pragmatic bunch here, and that is why many of your recent political posts seem strangely out of character with the rest of the posts on this site which are more soundly reasoned from Biblical authority and exposition."
You reflect an inability to think about ethical issues ethically. A political process is inherently pragmatic. A means to an end, not an end in itself. Process isn't principle.
Jacob and Jason-
ReplyDeleteHave you guys been to any Republican get together lately? It's all grey hair and geritol.
I was to one last week where, when RP supporters discussed their ideas, the grey hairs quivered and walked out of the meeting.