Why freedom politics has little chance to win America.

[Perry]

Please take this poll. The point I'm trying to prove is that everyone agrees that Ron Paul is the leader of the freedom movement but beyond Ron Paul we are all split.
I won't go into the reasons why this is and you may disagree but I believe this poll will speak for itself. After 2012 there is no "Ron Paul" to unite us.

The poll question is, if you could vote for "Ron Paul" or "anyone else"(meaning your other favorite candidate), for whom would you vote?


The point I'm trying to make is that Ron Paul is our last chance. If we cannot elect Ron Paul in 2012 freedom is finished in our nation.

[Theocrat]

This is one of the problems I see with many Ron Paul supporters. We're looking to one man as the "messianic" figure for changing our nation back on the right course. But how does that make us any different from Obama's supporters who look solely to him as the "messianic" figure for change in America? There isn't any difference, if you're honest.

We have a Congress of 535 members. We also have various state legislatures full of members. Our fight for the republic is not exclusively a federal issue, although that seems to be the most powerful now. As far as I can tell, we are a grassroots network, which means we believe in solutions and support of candidates from the local level on up. To look to one man for hope in changing our republic to what it used to be is almost idolatrous and simplistic.

Another problem with "freedom politics" is that few of us are on the same page as to what "freedom" truly is. It is no surprise that, at least on this forum, we have a barrage of members who see constitutional/republican form of government as intrinsically evil. Of course, that will present problems when those of us who believe in limited government come up with solutions that contradict those of the "stateless society" persuasion. The point I'm driving at is that we no longer have a solid foundation ("roots") that we can form our strategies upon at the behest of others whose political philosophies tell us we're "wrong" or "evil" for restoring a limited government.

So, the only way that "freedom politics" is going to win in America is by us going back to the basics, not just on a civil level, but on a personal, spiritual, and philosophical/intellectual level, too. Holding up signs and making YouTube videos will not change a thing if men do not know who they are in relation to God, themselves, and the world. The way I see it, "freedom politics" is an internal as well as an external reality, and it starts with the man in the mirror.

[RM918]

You put a poll, on Ron Paul Forums, full of Paul followers, with Ron Paul in it. I think we all know the result.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone else if they held a lot of the same values and I had enough faith in them. I'd look for:

1. Does the candidate support what I think the role of government should be?

And

2. Do I think they have the ability to actually win, and do a good job when they get there?


So far, while I'm seeing a bunch of 1s, I'm not seeing any 2s. It took a long time to get Paul's recognition as high as it is, and if we're going to put a horse in the 2012 race at all it has to be him.

[Perry]

This is one of the problems I see with many Ron Paul supporters. We're looking to one man as the "messianic" figure for changing our nation back on the right course. But how does that make us any different from Obama's supporters who look solely to him as the "messianic" figure for change in America? There isn't any difference, if you're honest.

We have a Congress of 535 members. We also have various state legislatures full of members. Our fight for the republic is not exclusively a federal issue, although that seems to be the most powerful now. As far as I can tell, we are a grassroots network, which means we believe in solutions and support of candidates from the local level on up. To look to one man for hope in changing our republic to what it used to be is almost idolatrous and simplistic.
Another problem with "freedom politics" is that few of us are on the same page as to what "freedom" truly is. It is no surprise that, at least on this forum, we have a barrage of members who see constitutional/republican form of government as intrinsically evil. Of course, that will present problems when those of us who believe in limited government come up with solutions that contradict those of the "stateless society" persuasion. The point I'm driving at is that we no longer have a solid foundation ("roots") that we can form our strategies upon at the behest of others whose political philosophies tell us we're "wrong" or "evil" for restoring a limited government.

So, the only way that "freedom politics" is going to win in America is by us going back to the basics, not just on a civil level, but on a personal, spiritual, and philosophical/intellectual level, too. Holding up signs and making YouTube videos will not change a thing if men do not know who they are in relation to God, themselves, and the world. The way I see it, "freedom politics" is an internal as well as an external reality, and it starts with the man in the mirror.


You're wrong. We don't idolize the man but the way in which he carries the message. I guarantee you if Ron Paul was busted for stealing candy from a store 25% of his people would drop him. It's not just about the man, it's not just about the message. It's about the message, the man and how the man himself carries the message.

The Clinton style days are over. If you lead the public then you live a public life. It's time to live as you lead.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm the leader. duh

[Theocrat]

You're wrong. We don't idolize the man but the way in which he carries the message. I guarantee you if Ron Paul was busted for stealing candy from a store 25% of his people would drop him. It's not just about the man, it's not just about the message. It's about the message, the man and how the man himself carries the message.

In a sense, it is all about the man. Your first post gives that much away when you state:


...The point I'm trying to prove is that everyone agrees that Ron Paul is the leader of the freedom movement but beyond Ron Paul we are all split...

The point I'm trying to make is that Ron Paul is our last chance. If we cannot elect Ron Paul in 2012 freedom is finished in our nation.

My point is there are other factors besides looking to Congressman Paul (as great of a person and statesman he is) as the hope for restoring freedom in our country. There are individuals running on the same message Dr. Paul is promoting in Congress as well as state legislatures on a more local level. Why should we only concern ourselves with "Ron Paul 2012," especially when we have no indication that he's going to run for President again?

We have candidates in third parties right now who could use the support and talents of many "freedom-loving" citizens, and their platforms are just as good as Congressman Paul's. But, like the Republicans and Democrats, we want to focus only on the prospective Presidential candidate for 2012. That's two years away! We need to focus on other candidates, as well.

Also, we need to come to an agreement about what it is we're standing for. If we believe limited government is good and necessary, then we need to dispense with those who see it as evil. In my view, they're either getting in the way of the so-called "freedom movement" or seeking to hijack it. The principles they criticize are what Congressman Paul's position stands for, as well as those candidates who seek the same goals as he. I realize some of them want to help in getting us back to limited government, but I fear that if we ever get to that state (by God's grace), then they will want to take it too far.

So, we should not be so hopeful about Dr. Paul running again because he has not told us he's set on doing that. Instead, let's do our research and seek out other candidates (be it mainstream or not) who will be serious about restoring the principles of our constitutional republic.

[BuddyRey]

In the ranks of politicians in the already-existing Washington power structure, it's Ron Paul staunchly in first place, a few people in distant second, and then a HUGE drop-off.

If I was to really explore my own private idealistic fantasy-land and pick a non-established politician who I think would make a great president, that would probably be Mary Ruwart. But even she would more or less tie with RP in my order of preference.

Ron Paul is a complete and total anomaly in politics; a rare specimen of leadership who genuinely, sincerely does not want to control the lives of others. I'm open to the idea of finding another "golden ticket" like him, but not holding my breath either.

[Mini-Me]

Frankly, I think the poll itself is flawed, and your hypothesis is too pessimistic:
Ron Paul would be my top 2012 pick of course, but I'd still vote for anyone else with strong enough pro-liberty credentials. However, I wouldn't vote for just "anybody else," nor would I be likely to vote for someone else OVER Ron Paul at this time. This isn't because I'm irrationally clinging to Paul right now or anything; it's just that nobody else has proven himself (or herself) yet to the degree that Paul has, so I see no legitimate reason to prefer someone else over him.

You're right that we haven't united behind any other Presidential torchbearers yet, but did you really expect for that to happen overnight, or even in one Presidential election cycle? That's something that's going to take time, and by time, I mean years.

Think about it: Ron Paul is currently the ONLY politician in all three branches of the federal government that's good enough to support for President. There are a few other people who have been involved in state politics, like Gary Johnson, who might also be good picks in his stead, but the problem is that the pickings are still extremely slim. When it comes to the Presidency, we need to support someone who is both pro-liberty AND has experience in office, and that's an extremely short list.

If you want people to rally behind someone else for President, the only way to accomplish that is by getting more pro-liberty people some experience in lower offices first, so they can someday become credible candidates for the Presidency. Obviously, that's going to take some time, since we're basically starting from scratch. Our next Presidential lightning rod is going to emerge from the candidates we field for local office, state office, and Congress/the Senate, over the coming years.

You say, "The point I'm trying to make is that Ron Paul is our last chance. If we cannot elect Ron Paul in 2012 freedom is finished in our nation." That's totally untrue, though. Someone could have easily said that twenty years ago as well, long before Ron Paul emerged as a torchbearer in 2007...but obviously, a champion did in fact later emerge.

In any case, I think it's foolish to pin all of your hopes on electoral politics. The VERY WORST thing to do is give up all hope in the mere absence of a Presidential torchbearer. We may or may not turn this country around through politics, but there are a lot of other tools that pro-liberty people can use to gradually change the political landscape:
Civil disobedience
Agorism
Education, which feeds the above tools (as well as politics)
etc.

Our current course is unsustainable, and because of that, it will not last forever. The federal government will eventually collapse, and there are several ways for this to occur:
The feds lose the will to govern, like the USSR did (and they had no shortage of evil in their government, for sure), and the states individually reemerge as sovereign entities. This would be an opportunity for a fresh start.
The feds fold willingly and attempt to cede sovereignty to an international body. Either the American people will grudgingly accept this, or we will not...and if we can beat back that kind of globalist power grab, we'll have an opportunity for a fresh start. Even if we can't, and we have to live under the tyranny of a one world government, it will not last forever.
The feds desperately cling to power, preserving their rule through an iron fist. Obviously, moves of desperation like this can only last so long as well, since they're signs of weakness. In the end, either the above peaceful tactics will make it release its grip, or it will close off those avenues and make violent revolution the only option. Either way, it will end and open the way to one of the above two scenarios.
It is never hopeless.

[ctiger2]

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin and that's who I voted for. I will either vote for Ron Paul in 2012 or I will probably vote for whoever he endorses.

[Working Poor]

I would vote for someone Ron Paul approved!

[Perry]

The results of this poll are daunting. I wanted to make an interesting point but the poll results are proving that people are fanatical about Ron Paul.

God bless Ron Paul.

[Mini-Me]

The results of this poll are daunting. I wanted to make an interesting point but the poll results are proving that people are fanatical about Ron Paul.

God bless Ron Paul.

As I said before, the poll is flawed. It has too few options, and the meanings of the two options are not made clear...to the point where it seems to carry an absurd bias. Hell, you could even read the second option as, "I'd vote for ANYBODY else, as long as it's not Ron Paul." ;) Therefore, it should be no surprise that NOBODY here has picked that option. If you really want to get a feel for how many people would be willing to vote for someone else in the absence of Ron Paul, you need to make a better poll.

I'd vote for someone like Gary Johnson or Mary Ruwart at this point, or anyone else who has proven themselves to my satisfaction, but I wouldn't vote for them over Ron Paul (first because I like Paul the best, and second because doing so would pointlessly divide the base on that particular election). However, I wouldn't vote for just "anybody" else. So, how should I vote in your poll? It's not so clear, is it? ;)

The problem is that very few people have yet proven themselves enough to become credible Presidential candidates, but this will change over the coming years.

[Travlyr]

In the elections of 1914, not one of the congressman who voted against the federal reserve won re-election. All the opponents were well funded.

This is the reason that freedom politics has little chance to win in America.
International bankers do not want any one to help Ron Paul.

[Vessol]

This is one of the problems I see with many Ron Paul supporters. We're looking to one man as the "messianic" figure for changing our nation back on the right course. But how does that make us any different from Obama's supporters who look solely to him as the "messianic" figure for change in America? There isn't any difference, if you're honest.

We have a Congress of 535 members. We also have various state legislatures full of members. Our fight for the republic is not exclusively a federal issue, although that seems to be the most powerful now. As far as I can tell, we are a grassroots network, which means we believe in solutions and support of candidates from the local level on up. To look to one man for hope in changing our republic to what it used to be is almost idolatrous and simplistic.

Another problem with "freedom politics" is that few of us are on the same page as to what "freedom" truly is. It is no surprise that, at least on this forum, we have a barrage of members who see constitutional/republican form of government as intrinsically evil. Of course, that will present problems when those of us who believe in limited government come up with solutions that contradict those of the "stateless society" persuasion. The point I'm driving at is that we no longer have a solid foundation ("roots") that we can form our strategies upon at the behest of others whose political philosophies tell us we're "wrong" or "evil" for restoring a limited government.

So, the only way that "freedom politics" is going to win in America is by us going back to the basics, not just on a civil level, but on a personal, spiritual, and philosophical/intellectual level, too. Holding up signs and making YouTube videos will not change a thing if men do not know who they are in relation to God, themselves, and the world. The way I see it, "freedom politics" is an internal as well as an external reality, and it starts with the man in the mirror.

OMG. I can't believe I'm agreeing with what Theocrat says 100%. That's a rarity :P.

Yes. Support Ron Paul, but also support Liberty candidates. Regain our local levels, state levels, and Congress and the Senate.

[Akus]

In the elections of 1914, not one of the congressman who voted against the federal reserve won re-election. All the opponents were well funded.

This is the reason that freedom politics has little chance to win in America.
International bankers do not want any one to help Ron Paul.What we don't have in funds we have in people. That is assuming that each and every single Ron paul/Rand Paul/Peter Schiff supporter went ahead and voted for their respective candidate.

Our sell will not be that we got the most money. Our sell will be honesty, integrity, decensy and strict compliance with the supreme law of America, United States of.

[Baptist]

People point to Ron Paul as an example of voting working, or working within the system working. I point to Ron Paul as an example of voting NOT working, and working within the system NOT working. Why? Because in the past 230 years only ONE Ron Paul has come along. I like many politicians throughout our history, especially many of the Founders. However, all of them have baggage and non of them compares to Ron Paul.

In 230 years this country has produced one politician that I whole heartily support. Some of you may consider this "working," but I do not. This means if we are lucky we will get another Ron Paul in the next two hundred years. Great system.

[pcosmar]

The results of this poll are daunting. I wanted to make an interesting point but the poll results are proving that people are fanatical about Ron Paul.

God bless Ron Paul.

Show me one other person with over 30 years of consistent record of fighting for my rights.

Convince me, and get my vote.

:cool: