Article: Ron Paul from a Liberal Perspective

[djdellisanti4]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-from-a-Liberal-Pe-by-Paul-Evans-100829-32.html

An interesting stat from the article:


9 out of 10 Independents cite the economy as the main reason they now are against Democrats as prospective voters, and the economy is not cooperating, probably headed for the second dip of a double dip Great Recession (or Depression, according to some), just in time for this fall's elections.

If 9 out of 10 indy's disagree with Dems on the economy and if a similar amount of indy's disagree with Republicans on foreign policy, Ron Paul could have a good shot.



Many liberals frankly just don't have enough information to properly assess Dr. Paul. We know that he is anti-corporatist, which we like a lot, and that he pretty much advocates a return to a gold standard, and that he is very much against corruption in the Federal Reserve, and works with committed liberals like Alan Grayson in such matters. Describing Obama himself as something of a corporatist, which progressives find sadly all too true, Paul debunked the right wing myth of the President as a socialist back at the end of April. Dr. Paul is an retired obstetrician/gynecologist, and thus an educated man who has some subtlety to his vision of the world, unlike Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee.

Here is a bit of a problem. How do we show to the liberals that Dr. Paul is more anti-war and anti-corporatist than Obama? How do we show to the conservatives that Dr. Paul is more pro-small government than the rest of the GOP? I'm sure many of the more educated voters on both sides know (and have already made their minds up) but there are plenty of people in between.

[Toureg89]

only if they registered as Rs during the primaries, or if Paul won the primaries, would these voters come in to play.

winning the primaries without them is still the hardest task ahead.

[djdellisanti4]

only if they registered as Rs during the primaries, or if Paul won the primaries, would these voters come in to play.

winning the primaries without them is still the hardest task ahead.

Very true!

Another good paragraph from the last page:



As a Democrat, I know that a Palin nomination would make a second term for Barack Obama very likely, but I don't want to see a false, ignorant, self-serving charlatan like Palin that near to the Presidency. Far better that someone like Dr. Ron Paul, who would at least get us out of Afghanistan and is against the Wall Street establishment, attain the GOP nomination than Sarah Palin, who really scares me. Romney is a slick business community right wing insider I would hate to see get the nomination as well, especially since a Romney nomination would play better with Reagan Democrats and Independents than would a Palin candidacy. I have to admit to a certain personal liking for Ron Paul, although I can't support many of his ideas about a return to a Gold Standard and reducing government. He's a likable, and educated man, and I have to think that he, at least, would work towards cleaning some of the corruption out of the political process. They say that at 75 (77 in 2012), Ron Paul is too old to run for President, but his mind is certainly sharp, and time will tell. We could do worse. A lot.

[LibertyEagle]

only if they registered as rs during the primaries, or if paul won the primaries, would these voters come in to play.

Winning the primaries without them is still the hardest task ahead.

Agreed.

It's important that we do not put the cart before the horse. He would have to win the Republican primary FIRST. Catering to leftists is only going to make him lose stock with Republicans. (And yes, I realize there are a lot of leftists also in the Republican party. But, they don't think of themselves that way).

[RokiLothbard]

Does anybody know what that guys problem is with the Gold Standard? Honestly that has got to be the most infuriating issue to debate. In 99% percent of cases, it's pure brainless "everybody knows that can't work" BS, and there isn't even an argument to rebutt.

[Vessol]

Does anybody know what that guys problem is with the Gold Standard? Honestly that has got to be the most infuriating issue to debate. In 99% percent of cases, it's pure brainless "everybody knows that can't work" BS, and there isn't even an argument to rebutt.

Even then, Ron Paul has never advocated returning to the gold standard. That's one of the biggest and most annoying things that people tack onto him. Certainly it may be better then our fractional reserve system, but it's still a government monopoly on economic freedoms. Ron Paul is for competing currencies, a free market for currency absent of government regulation.

[tangent4ronpaul]

There are 3 issues that kill our support from the left:

1) The completely debunked, but taken as fact and often repeated lie that RP is a RACIST!

2) That RP in trying to pick up support from the religious right, often went on at length about his personal convictions against abortion, only to add as an after thought that he didn't think the federal government should be involved in the issue. The lefties turned off their brains before he got to the afterthought so they basically all think he wants to ban abortion at the federal level.

3) They know he wants to shrink the size of the government, and the left hates that idea.

-t

[Sola_Fide]

The Left's love for personal liberty does not outshine their love for government intervention.

[surf]

re: the gold standard - don't worry that someone may have a problem with the gold standard. this takes some time for most to wrap their arms around.

imo, we need this election about war (and the economic benefits of peace), civil liberties, war, the role of the federal gov't in individual lives, and war.

look at the US military deaths by year in Afghanistan:
2001 12
2002 49
2003 48
2004 52
2005 99
2006 98
2007 117
2008 155
2009 317
2010 320

total 1267 with more than half occuring during O's first 20 months or so in office.

people, particularly democrats, are smart enough to realize that war and our economic clusterfuck are directly correlated. many are smart enough to realize that war creates enemies as well.

[YumYum]

The Left's love for personal liberty does not outshine their love for government intervention.

Ron Paul works for the government, and he wants to "intervene" to make changes. What, you say there should be no government? If so, why do you bother with politics?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul works for the government, and he wants to "intervene" to make changes. What, you say there should be no government? If so, why do you bother with politics?

It's not government intervention when you want to abolish 99% of government for instance. A weird logical position to take. If that was surely the case then there would be no such thing as non-intervention as even the act of abolishing constitutes intervention in your mind.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul works for the government, and he wants to "intervene" to make changes. What, you say there should be no government? If so, why do you bother with politics?


How in the world do you get "government intervention" from Ron Paul?

[heavenlyboy34]

Even then, Ron Paul has never advocated returning to the gold standard. That's one of the biggest and most annoying things that people tack onto him. Certainly it may be better then our fractional reserve system, but it's still a government monopoly on economic freedoms. Ron Paul is for competing currencies, a free market for currency absent of government regulation.

His work on "The Case For Gold" probably gives people the impression that Ron is a "Gold Bug". When people bring that prejudice to the argument, it's hard to reason with them. :(

[YumYum]

How in the world do you get "government intervention" from Ron Paul?

When Congress tries to pass a bill, how do you, the average citizen, "intervene" to stop the passage of the bill? You can't. Your representative that you voted into office does it for you. "Intervention" doesn't always have to be a "yes" vote. Ron Paul tried to "intervene" to get an audit of the Fed, remember? He introduced HR1207. Had it passed the Senate, his bill would have forced the government to "intervene" and have an audit of the Fed.

You know, some people on this forum asked a legitimate question as to how Ron Paul can win the left over to his camp, and when you hurl insults at people who are on the left, you will make sure that they will want no part of him or his movement.

[Sola_Fide]

Even then, Ron Paul has never advocated returning to the gold standard. That's one of the biggest and most annoying things that people tack onto him. Certainly it may be better then our fractional reserve system, but it's still a government monopoly on economic freedoms. Ron Paul is for competing currencies, a free market for currency absent of government regulation.


Good point!

[Sola_Fide]

When Congress tries to pass a bill, how do you, the average citizen, "intervene" to stop the passage of the bill? You can't. Your representative that you voted into office does it for you. "Intervention" doesn't always have to be a "yes" vote. Ron Paul tried to "intervene" to get an audit of the Fed, remember? He introduced HR1207. Had it passed the Senate, his bill would have forced the government to "intervene" and have an audit of the Fed.

You know, some people on this forum asked a legitimate question as to how Ron Paul can win the left over to his camp, and when you hurl insults at people who are on the left, you will make sure that they will want no part of him or his movement.



This is not what we mean when we say "government intervention".


By government intervention, we mean the State coercing the market by legislation.


And the Audit the FED bill was a regulation on government, not the market. Which is the direction that we want to go toward.

[specsaregood]

Even then, Ron Paul has never advocated returning to the gold standard. That's one of the biggest and most annoying things that people tack onto him.

I wouldn't go around betting your life on that absolutist claim. I'm sure he has, even as recently has 2007. Usually he says it as just a dumbed down way of saying non-fiat money.



Ron Paul is for competing currencies, a free market for currency absent of government regulation.
That is his real complete position, but it is much more difficult to explain; hence why he has just said "gold standard" before.

In fact on the jason lewis interview in 2007 he claimed that milton friedman once told him that he was one of the only people that could make a strong case for the gold standard.

[lester1/2jr]

from the comments

"No Ron Paul for me

Didn't read your article but I was quite surprised at how easily people jumpled onto his bandwagon the last time around. Well, I had enough hunters in Cheney. I personally would prefer not to vote for someone who enjoys killing animals.
"

???

as for the article it has been my experience that most liberals are not nearly as open minded re: ron paul as this dude so good on him

[surf]

No Ron Paul for me

Didn't read your article but I was quite surprised at how easily people jumpled onto his bandwagon the last time around. Well, I had enough hunters in Cheney. I personally would prefer not to vote for someone who enjoys killing animals.


this author is probably more anti-war than anti-hunting. we need to establish our guy as the lone anti-war guy vs the pro-war Obama and his republican war-clones.

if we can get people to look into the lone legitimate anti-war candidate they may realize that the actions and assumptions they have associated with Dr. Paul because of the R next to his name are not always correct (see above and associating Dr. Paul with Cheyney!). i've gotten a lot of folks interested the last year or so by selling Dr. Paul as the only anti-drug war, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, get the "federal" government off our back, anti-tarp, etc.

there is always something to mention to just about anyone that you know - everyone, but particularly younger folks that will make them consider looking into the good dr.

[specsaregood]

No Ron Paul for me

Didn't read your article but I was quite surprised at how easily people jumpled onto his bandwagon the last time around. Well, I had enough hunters in Cheney. I personally would prefer not to vote for someone who enjoys killing animals.


IIRC, Dr. Paul said he owns no guns.

[silentshout]

The Left's love for personal liberty does not outshine their love for government intervention.

Trust me, that is a complete generalization, speaking from personal experience.

[tangent4ronpaul]

this author is probably more anti-war than anti-hunting. we need to establish our guy as the lone anti-war guy vs the pro-war Obama and his republican war-clones.

if we can get people to look into the lone legitimate anti-war candidate they may realize that the actions and assumptions they have associated with Dr. Paul because of the R next to his name are not always correct (see above and associating Dr. Paul with Cheyney!). i've gotten a lot of folks interested the last year or so by selling Dr. Paul as the only anti-drug war, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, get the "federal" government off our back, anti-tarp, etc.

there is always something to mention to just about anyone that you know - everyone, but particularly younger folks that will make them consider looking into the good dr.

What makes you think Kucinich and Gravel are not running again?

-t

[Sola_Fide]

Trust me, that is a complete generalization, speaking from personal experience.

Really?

I would love to be wrong about that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

IIRC, Dr. Paul said he owns no guns.

He owns guns. I believe there is a pic of him being presented with one in a thread called "Ron Paul's Guns" in the Bearing Arms sub-forum.

-t

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul works for the government, and he wants to "intervene" to make changes. What, you say there should be no government? If so, why do you bother with politics?

Actually yeah.

I think the closer we move to a volutary society, the better. Voluntaryism is the future.

[specsaregood]

He owns guns. I believe there is a pic of him being presented with one in a thread called "Ron Paul's Guns" in the Bearing Arms sub-forum.

-t

Hrm, maybe it is Rand i was thinking of.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually yeah.

I think the closer we move to a volutary society, the better. Voluntaryism is the future.

+infinity. Coercion and statism are epic failures.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Hrm, maybe it is Rand i was thinking of.

I kind of doubt that...

YouTube - Rand Paul Knob Creek Kentucky 2009(HQ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uACcUvwK1A0)

YouTube - Rand Paul goes Full Auto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDs7Z32Q4hs&feature=player_embedded)

-t

[Sola_Fide]

Not too many Senators will fire assault rifles for cameras.

War Rand!

[angelatc]

IIRC, Dr. Paul said he owns no guns.

Didn't he raise his hand in a debate when the candidates were asked who owned guns?

[specsaregood]

I kind of doubt that...
t

Shooting them doesn't mean you own any. I could swear I heard one of them say in an interview that they didnt own any. But I'm not gonna go digging it find it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Shooting them doesn't mean you own any. I could swear I heard one of them say in an interview that they didnt own any. But I'm not gonna go digging it find it.

True. If it were one or the other, I would guess Rand for the simple reason that he has young kids underfoot. If he doesn't, I'd guess he will get some when they get older.

-t