PDA

View Full Version : Esquire profile on Ron Paul




sailingaway
04-21-2011, 06:46 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288604-Esquire-profile-on-Ron-Paul-will-be-in-May-issue-preview-here&p=3219286#post3219286

I posted it in Ron Paul's subsection, but it will be posted here too, so, here it is.

It is painting him, and through him, conservatism, as radical. However it coins this great word to describe other Republicans: revirginization.


Other Republicans have demonstrated an astonishing talent for revirginization — yes, they voted for destructive and unnecessary foreign entanglements, heedless expansion of the federal budget deficit, and vastly increased federal powers, but once Obama became president the hymen of their small-government ideals spontaneously regenerated.



and we have ABSOLUTELY got to use this quote:


The Republican leaders who are putting on this show have been as startled as the rest of the country at the sudden potency of once marginal ideas. But to the kids, it's obvious. This is Ron Paul's moment. He's been warning for forty years that easy money would lead to economic collapse, then easy money led to economic collapse. He warned that the Iraq war would be an expensive and bloody mistake, and the Iraq war was an expensive and bloody mistake. He spent forty years asking Congress to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and investigate the Federal Reserve, and now there's a powerful freshman class of Republicans pushing a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an investigation of the Federal Reserve. In 2009, he slipped an amendment into the Wall Street — reform legislation that forced the Federal Reserve to release the details of thousands of secret loans it made during the 2008 financial crisis — the Korea Development Bank? Caterpillar? — and suddenly polls started showing that Americans disliked the Fed even more than the IRS. Every Republican in the House signed on to his bill to audit the Fed. In Virginia, Republicans have introduced a bill to study the possibilities of a state currency "in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System." He's been called the "Tea Party's brain," and his son Rand is called the "senator from the Tea Party," and all day long the speakers seemed to have been participating in a Ron Paul soundalike competition. Senator Pat Toomey told a story about a little red hen who went on strike when a government agent told her that productive workers had to divide their profit with everyone else. Congressman Raul Labrador said that the best thing the government can do for a poor man is get the hell out of the way. Senator Ron Johnson ridiculed Democrats for passing regulations on fugitive dust and spilled milk, and Grover Norquist said that Obama takes money from people who have earned it and gives it to his friends. To a movement that fetishizes the Founders' act of rebellion over a tea tax, Ron Paul is the founding father.



and there's this chart: http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/wx/esq-conservative-map-0511-lg.jpg

But you really should read the whole thing.

Lucille
04-21-2011, 07:56 AM
At CPAC, they even told it through a startling animated movie that portrayed bankers as monsters with octopus arms and bloodsucking ticks for heads. A cartoon Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty regularly needed to be watered with the blood of patriots, and the room broke into wild cheers when Aaron Burr shot Hamilton dead — and cheered again for the death of Hank Paulson, the former treasury secretary.

LOL! How is this the first time I'm hearing about this?!


the revisionist claim that liberals made the Depression worse

Revisionist? Oh dear...

Great piece!

acptulsa
04-21-2011, 08:09 AM
Revisionist? Oh dear...

That's what it is. Sometimes history doesn't need the revision, so this term has baggage on it. But, you know, sometimes historical conclusions are just wrong, and revision is sorely needed.

sailingaway
04-21-2011, 08:16 AM
That's what it is. Sometimes history doesn't need the revision, so this term has baggage on it. But, you know, sometimes historical conclusions are just wrong, and revision is sorely needed.


restorationist, maybe?

Lucille
04-21-2011, 08:23 AM
That's what it is. Sometimes history doesn't need the revision, so this term has baggage on it. But, you know, sometimes historical conclusions are just wrong, and revision is sorely needed.

True, but that's not what Richardson means by it.

Commandments 2 and 10 contradict what he says here:


To the people who say this is wildly impractical, that the whole point of democracy is to make compromises, that you can measure his irrelevance in his long record of lonely votes, the congressman has an irrefutable answer. "It depends on how you measure effectiveness. If you want to pass a law just to say you can pass a law and say, 'I passed ten bills last year,' that's one way to measure effectiveness. The other way is to establish a record and send the message and get people to join you and maybe change people's thinking in the long term. I would say I'm more long term. The next election has never been of much interest to me — it was the next generation that I cared about."

The statist press always measures the success of any pol or admin. on how many laws are passed on an alleged free people. I'm sick of it!

CONgress needs to form a repeal caucus!

1000-points-of-fright
04-21-2011, 08:55 AM
I thought it was a really good profile with only a few minor snarky opinions and mistakes... again with the Rand is named after Ayn Rand. I've never heard Ron or Rand say that.

While we do come off as a bit boisterous and over-enthusiastic, it did make us sound consistently principled, thoughtful and educated, and the rest of the "conservative" movement looks like idiots. It was almost an admission that Paul has been right about everything all along while at the same time saying it might be too dangerous or difficult to implement his ideas... let's just keep doing what we have been doing.

sailingaway
04-21-2011, 12:15 PM
I thought it was a really good profile with only a few minor snarky opinions and mistakes... again with the Rand is named after Ayn Rand. I've never heard Ron or Rand say that.

While we do come off as a bit boisterous and over-enthusiastic, it did make us sound consistently principled, thoughtful and educated, and the rest of the "conservative" movement looks like idiots. It was almost an admission that Paul has been right about everything all along while at the same time saying it might be too dangerous or difficult to implement his ideas... let's just keep doing what we have been doing.

Rand was NOT named after Ayn. They have addressed this repeatedly. But on the left it is 'common knowledge' that he was.

and this is from the left, it isn't an 'admission' that the right are idiots....

Suzu
04-21-2011, 02:43 PM
Did I miss something? I don't find a link to the Esquire article in the OP or elsewhere in this thread.... Is it only in the print issue?

Lucille
04-21-2011, 02:46 PM
Did I miss something? I don't find a link to the Esquire article in the OP or elsewhere in this thread.... Is it only in the print issue?

You had to click over to the grassroots thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288604-Esquire-profile-on-Ron-Paul-will-be-in-May-issue-preview-here&p=3219286#post3219286) to get the links.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-quotes-5593289?src=rss

http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511

Kylie
04-21-2011, 03:45 PM
That was a fantastic article.

And the pic that has all the politicians in it is a hoot!

Burn in hell, Hamilton!!

:)

1000-points-of-fright
04-21-2011, 04:30 PM
Rand was NOT named after Ayn. They have addressed this repeatedly. But on the left it is 'common knowledge' that he was.

Yes I know. That's what I said. Not sure if you are correcting me or reaffirming my statement.

Suzu
04-21-2011, 04:40 PM
That was a fantastic article.

Part of it is rife with misconceptions and slanting:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-on-the-fed-5593602

Lothario
04-22-2011, 07:53 AM
good article until:


He doesn't care that it was a powerful American government, based in Washington and willing to invest in its people, that ultimately made the United States into the world-historic power that it is today, with a huge economy and a vast middle class. Nor does he care that it was that strong central government that ensured the survival of the young country, which was on the brink of failure without it. Nor does he care that the U. S. Constitution actually came into existence to take power away from the states, leaving them but the scraps in the vestigial Tenth Amendment. And he doesn't care that it was actually the sainted Jefferson who executed the Louisiana Purchase (unconstitutional in Paul's view), which doubled the size of the country. If we had stuck to what Congressman Paul views as our founding principles, we would have undoubtedly been a smaller and poorer and less consequential country, but also purer and freer and more peaceful. It's a trade he is willing to make.

Shane Harris
04-22-2011, 08:22 AM
yeah that part is total crap. id like the author to explain HOW having a strong central government made us a great economy or a vast middle class. was eli whitney a government employee? were alexander carnegie or henry ford gov employees? oh really the constitution takes powers from the states and they only get the vestigial 10th amendment. yeahhhh the amendment that says everything else is yours, and thats pretty open ended. i cant get over the ignorance of assuming if we had less central government we would be poorer haha. its just laughable. also the chart they made is total total total trash

Lucille
04-22-2011, 04:15 PM
Reason's Doherty blogged about it today:

Esquire Gives Ron Paul Some Guarded Love, But Still Love (http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/22/esquire-gives-ron-paul-some-gu)


In a very well done long feature story on Ron Paul by John Richardson, Esquire close-focuses in its May issue on the recent CPAC gathering, where Paul won the straw poll of young conservative-ish activists for the second year in a row, to paint a full and compelling picture of the controversial libertarian Republican congressmen, and likely 2012 presidential candidate.

Though Esquire has loved Ron Paul for a long time, in the end the story concludes, rather sadly, that despite his bright and spiritual political idealism, that a Ron Paul world would alas be one with lots of folk starving in the streets. (That's what libertarianism is all about: the philosophy of street starvation, good and hard. This is a widely believed bit of American lore, despite "keeping the poor from starving" being about the least of actual government's concerns.)

Despite how much you might think a mainstream men's mag would have to hate on someone who they believe that of, they manage to be elegaically kind throughout the piece...

Lots more at the link

Lucille
04-24-2011, 09:07 AM
Ilana Mercer blogged about it yesterday:

Ron Paul Vs. The ‘Revirginizing’ Republicans (http://barelyablog.com/?p=37243)


John H. Richardson of Esquire Magazine has a great line about the Republicans’ hollow commitment to constitutional principles: “Once Obama became president, the hymen of their small-government ideals spontaneously regenerated.” Richardson follows with a fabulous piece about Ron Paul:
[...]
The feature about Ron Paul is well-worth reading. (While you’re at it, here’s a defense of Representative Paul (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=50), one of many, written during the heyday of the attacks against him launched by Beltway libertarians.)

HOLLYWOOD
05-14-2011, 09:56 PM
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/RonPaul_Esquire.png

John E
05-28-2011, 05:25 PM
I caught the article by chance ... I was only able to read a little more than half but all in all it was extremely good.

Invi
05-28-2011, 05:47 PM
LOL! How is this the first time I'm hearing about this?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OQzH07u0U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The American Dream

Anyone have a better res version of that chart? All I have is my phone, and if I zoom in to read it, it gets too fuzzy. :c

sailingaway
05-28-2011, 07:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OQzH07u0U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The American Dream

Anyone have a better res version of that chart? All I have is my phone, and if I zoom in to read it, it gets too fuzzy. :c

It is crap. You really don't want to see it. The article is ok, though.

sorianofan
05-28-2011, 08:44 PM
The article has a key misconception: that governments create prosperity.

This is of course impossible.

Labor creates capital, and capital creates prosperity.

If one's a pragmatist and finds it morally imperative to have a maximum amount of prosperity, then the point of governance would be to encourage the growth of capital.

And, in order to increase capital, labor ultimately has to be encouraged.

Because people cannot be forced to work efficiently (slave economies are not advanced), the best a government can do is to not discourage people from working.

-Welfare discourages labor, because it puts a financial incentive on not working.
-Warfare discourages constructive labor, as war is inherently destructive.
-Taxation discourages labor, because by large people respond to incentives and taxation decreases incentives for work.
-Regulation discourages labor, because it makes everything more of a pain in the ass to do.
-Crime (theft of capital or danger of bodily harm) discourages labor, because the only incentive to amass capital is to be able to retain it. The threat of losing it to theft or losing the ability to enjoy it due to death, reasonably is an impediment to accruing capital.


What Ron Paul really emphasizes is a Lockean ideal of government limited to the protection of property. This is a much more narrow (and moral) in scope than a government that actually encourages the accrual of capital, and thereby the creation of prosperity.

What should be clear is that a government can therefore not aid in job creation, because the government is not a job factory. It is not a prosperity machine. It does not create capital. Labor creates capital...and only by actively getting out of the way of peoples lives by eliminating welfare/warfare/taxation/regulation/crime does the government permit the conditions where the people create their own prosperity.