Ron Paul’s GOP Battle Reveals Some Truths About Political Parties - LewRockwell.com

[cajuncocoa]

I suppose this article will be dismissed by those who seriously think Ron Paul supporters can takeover the GOP. I really believe your hearts are in the right place, but you really need to read this article and understand that every word in it is true!

Why do you think party unity always trumps what's best for the country in BOTH major political parties?

Some of you have managed to win seats, and your efforts (and successes) are admirable. BUT -- our candidates won't always win, and in the transition from "establishment GOP" to "liberty GOP" you're going to be expected to back some candidates that are not to your liking; some of them will be establishment candidates that you abhor but are still part of your Republican Party. That's just the way it is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Ryan McMaken

(rmcmaken@hotmail.com)
When things didn’t go the way the pro-Romney leadership wanted them to go, they simply created a new GOP to replace the old one. That’s what happened in Nevada when Ron Paul supporters managed to gain control of the state’s Republican Party apparatus at the state convention. In response, the pro-Romney and establishment Republican forces broke off and formed Team Nevada which is essentially a shadow Republican party. In addition, by pledging support to Romney, Team Nevada is receiving funding from the Republican National Committee. If all goes as planned on the Romney side, Team Nevada will provide Nevada’s delegates to the Republican National Convention. The duly-elected Ron Paul delegates, who were elected through state and local conventions in Nevada, will be barred from the convention floor.

The many ways in which the old guard of the Republican party has repeatedly sought to disenfranchise Ron Paul voters and delegates are too numerous to count. Some cases have been noted by Doug Wead and by others with anti-Paul strategies ranging from smearing Paul supporters with carefully edited videos to having Paul supporters arrested for no reason.

People unfamiliar with how parties have functioned historically, may be shocked by such things, but these actions are really just more of the same from the GOP and from American political parties in general.

This year’s efforts to simply destroy anyone the party leadership dislikes are hardly the first instances of occasions on which an American political party has taken steps to nullify or ignore primary and caucus results that it did not like. For example, in 2010, Dan Maes, a businessman who ran for governor in Colorado against former Congressman Scott McInnis, was abandoned by the GOP after receiving the nomination. McInnis was heavily favored as the moderate, establishment candidate while Maes was regarded as an upstart from the populist and conservative wing of the party. Near the end of the primary campaign, however, McInnis was accused of taking money from an employer for written work he allegedly stole from someone else.

McInnis’s support collapsed and Maes was able to win the nomination as the Republican candidate for governor. The GOP leadership didn’t care for Maes for a variety of reasons (some of them very good) and instructed him to pull out of the race so a candidate more to the party leadership’s liking could be appointed outside the established nomination process. When Maes refused, the party leadership threw its support behind former-congressman Tom Tancredo who ran on a third-party ticket. Maes was denied all financial support from the Colorado GOP and the RNC.

The analogy here is less than perfect, of course. Maes was a political novice with a shady background, while Ron Paul is a twelve-term Congressman with a well-funded and highly-organized national organization. Paul’s base of support is broad and deep while Maes’s base was narrow and temporary. Maes’s campaign ran on issues quite different from those that drive Paul’s campaign, although both did draw support from the populist and anti-establishment wings of the Republican Party against moderate center-left candidates supported by the GOP establishment.

This example coupled with this year’s all-out effort on the part of the GOP to prevent even the most mild dissent should make it abundantly clear to all by now that the GOP does not exist to grant a fair process to grassroots-supported candidates, or to adhere to any type of ideological consistency, or to even follow its own rules.

In spite of the substantial differences between the candidates in these two cases, the Nevada and Colorado experiences help illustrate a few truths about how political parties function to enhance and maintain the power of the established leadership.

It should be stated that most everything we say here can be also applied to the Democratic Party, as the two major parties behave in fundamentally similar ways. But it has been in the Republican Party where populist uprisings have been most common in recent years and led to some of the most strident efforts on the part of party leaders to crush anti-establishment dissent.

1. Political Parties exist to elect candidates.

The major parties in the United States do not adhere to any specific ideological program. The written party platforms are all but completely irrelevant in the day-to-day actions of the party and its members. We can also note the lack of ideological inconsistency by looking at the parties over time. Prior to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party was usually the party of small, constitutional government, and it did a much better job of filling that role than the Republican Party ever has. By the 1930’s, the party completely changed its orientation, however. The GOP, on the other hand, has always been the party of major corporate conglomerates like railroads and major banking interests. At its founding, it was the party of easy money and federal meddling in the economic system. It wasn’t until the New Deal that the Republican Party, by virtue of being the opposition party during the long reign of FDR, found itself solidified as the party associated with free markets, and its record on that issue has been spotty at best.

If we look deeper into these ideological evolutions over time, we find that it is political expediency that drives the ideological claims of political parties, and certainly not loyalty to any sort of intellectual or ideological tradition.

This is not shocking since fundamentally, political parties exist to run candidates. Any decent American Politics 101 class will define political parties as candidate-running machines. Ideology means little, and we have seen this repeatedly in practice. This fact was summed up nicely in Nevada by a GOP partisan complaining about Ron Paul supporters:

"’Our method is we elect Republicans. That's what the party's for,’ said Dave Buell, chairman of the Washoe County GOP in the state's northwest corner, the second largest county in the state. ‘Down south, the Ron Paul people down there are pushing ideology rather than electing Republicans.’"

2. Political parties are really just coalitions of interest groups

Far from being organizations devoted to any particular ideological vision, parties are far more correctly described as coalitions of interest groups that have come together to serve their specific interests. Sometimes, these interest groups are fundamentally opposed to each other, as in the case of the environmentalists and organized labor together in the Democratic Party. In the GOP, the presence of small-business and free-market groups together with military contractors and other pro-war groups has led to the incoherent yet enduring myth that small government and free markets are compatible with a huge national-security state. We see here yet again the special-interest tail wagging the ideological dog. The parties don’t want to cut off their own bread and butter, so they function as an organization that forces compromises on the least-wealthy interest groups in the name of party unity or defeating the other party. We see this again and again as the forces of small government in the GOP are repeatedly told to get in line behind the more well-heeled interests driving an aggressive foreign policy or protecting endless taxpayer largesse for old people. The result is that votes are delivered for candidates promising to shovel more cash to the most powerful interests. The factions within the parties who bring neither money nor power to the party, such as free-market and pro-peace groups, slavishly vote again and again for the party, naively convincing themselves that the party will do something for them if they can just win one more election.

Those who benefit most from this management of factions and interest groups are the parties themselves, since electoral victories bring with them jobs, power, and many financial rewards. The rich, well-connected interests within the party are regularly rewarded while the other groups within the coalition are told they should just be happy that the other party didn’t win.

The members of the party leadership justifies this all in their minds by convincing themselves that they’re pragmatists in the service of freedom and justice and all things good. To them, it’s just a happy coincidence that all this service to truth and justice happens to bring with it lucrative jobs and positions of power.

3. The party leadership would rather have a safe, establishment candidate from the other party than a "dangerous" upstart from its own.

Having become used to the jobs and the junkets and the privilege and the financial rewards gleaned from protecting the entrenched interests behind each political party, the leadership in each party has no interest whatsoever in overturning their well-stocked apple carts. Insurgent candidates who challenged the entrenched party leadership are repeatedly mocked, opposed and generally blocked from party leadership roles and from receiving nominations. This will be justified with all kinds of excuses ranging from ideological rifts to appeals to be good team players, but the fact is that it’s about catering to the interests who control and fund the party. Indeed, most candidates who promise to not upset the party’s core interests will encounter little in the way of truly stiff opposition. This is why Goldwater could get the nomination but not Paul. Goldwater promised not to stand in the way of endless taxpayer cash for war.

At the pinnacle of the major parties the interests of those in charge vary little. Devotion to big business, to the warfare state, to easy monetary policy, and to buying off seniors with more and more cash and government favor spans the two parties, and ultimately, were a candidate who threatened these major interests to actually receive a presidential nomination, he would be abandoned by his own party.

Indeed, the Colorado case serves to illustrate what would likely happen if Ron Paul were to somehow manage to actually obtain the party’s nomination at the convention. The party leadership would immediately begin searching for a third party candidate it could support. It would deny all RNC money and other traditionally GOP-controlled funds to Paul, and it would begin poisoning the GOP base against its own nominated candidate.

The GOP leadership knows that such a path would guarantee the re-election of Obama, but the GOP establishment would clearly prefer a Democrat victory to a Ron Paul victory. The threat to the GOP’s core interests groups would be just too great were Paul actually elected, and it would better, in the eyes of the established party leaderships, to be seen as supporting their special interests rather than side with any victorious anti-establishment grassroots groups from within the party.

This year, the GOP leadership supports just the latest Ivy-League-educated supporter of more debt, more spending and endless war. This new one even helped invent Obamacare.

This is the choice the GOP has decided the party will provide, and anyone who disputes this vision is a radical or a kook who must be disenfranchised. The fruit of this is now being seen as the Romney camp desperately tries to rewrite its own rules and disenfranchise Paul supporters in Oklahoma, Nevada, Massachusetts and elsewhere.

They’ll probably succeed, but the benefit of all of this will be that many Americans have now seen our political parties for what they really are.



http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken142.html

[stuntman stoll]

If Ron Paul were to miraculously have a majority of the delegates going into Tampa, he wouldn't win anyway. It would be like Louisiana times ten. All the marbles are at stake, not just the egos of one state's establishment.

[cajuncocoa]

If Ron Paul were to miraculously have a majority of the delegates going into Tampa, he wouldn't win anyway. It would be like Louisiana times ten. All the marbles are at stake, not just the egos of one state's establishment.I think you're right... The majority of registered GOP voters are not ready to accept Ron Paul and/or the concept of liberty (as we define it). They're too invested and entrenched in neoconservatism to vote for someone who goes against those principles.

[Revolution9]

Who cares what they think if you really are your own person. I could give a damn what any group of clownage wants to make of me. I will do what I do. This is how this movement works too regardless of you folks trying to pigeonhole shit would like to portray to back up the "realities" in YOUR mind..

Rev9

[odamn]

Who cares what they think if you really are your own person. I could give a damn what any group of clownage wants to make of me. I will do what I do. This is how this movement works too regardless of you folks trying to pigeonhole shit would like to portray to back up the "realities" in YOUR mind..

Rev9
This, and FUOP ...

[cajuncocoa]

Who cares what they think if you really are your own person. I could give a damn what any group of clownage wants to make of me. I will do what I do. This is how this movement works too regardless of you folks trying to pigeonhole shit would like to portray to back up the "realities" in YOUR mind..

Rev9

I don't care what they think... and like you, I am my own person who will "do what I do".

I am not a party hack, which is why I have no interest in getting involved on the inside of ANY political party.

[Carlybee]

Sad but true. Im not sure you can take over them without becoming them...at any rate compromising principle.

[robertwerden]

Every person who has worked to become a national delegate knows what obstacles they are up against. To give up because the odds are against them is contrary to everything we have worked for for 5 years.

[jbauer]

Is what it is. You either fight with the GOP or against it. In my mind we don't have time to start a new party or lift one of the other 3rd parties out of the cellar so dealing with the GOP seems to be the only logical answer.

[jmag]

Good read. Looks like a typo in the fifth to last paragraph where Colorado means Nevada.

[The Goat]

Thats why it should be our mission to destroy the GOP and any opportunity. the whole thing is a game anyway. Their's no way I'm believing the results of a national election come down to a swing of 1-2% every time. Its kind of like Pro-wrestling its "real" but that doesn't mean they don't follow a script so the outcome is always "right".

[Zarn Solen]

Movements take a lot of hard work and often a lot of time. No one said this was going to be easy. Tampa is just one event. There are many to follow, whether we lose or actually pull off the convention. The point is to keep pushing, regardless of odds or results. That's real patriotism.

[Forty Twice]

I say we should get involved in the Republican Party (if that's one of the two majors we are most compatible with) and use our strength in numbers. We should each relentlessly expose our neo-con elected officials when they pull some stupid neo-con move like voting for NDAA. We should run for offices at the lowest local levels for which we are qualified. We should resist corrupting offers always. We should make it difficult for the neo-cons to maintain control over Goldwater's party.

[cajuncocoa]

Good read. Looks like a typo in the fifth to last paragraph where Colorado means Nevada.You're right, I thought so too...but I copied it here as it was written. ;)

[kuckfeynes]

Yep, as usual Rockwell and company hit the nail on the head. Some people are extremely adverse to any doses of realism such as this, but really, defining the true enormity of the task is necessary to keep the push going... otherwise, if you lack that perspective, eventually it will wear down even the most impassioned fighter.

[FSP-Rebel]

We all know that reclaiming the GOP to its roots won't be a cakewalk yet we've come so far from where we were 5 years ago so there's no need to have a defeatist attitude. While I like Rockwell and co, understand that they are anarchists in the purest form and they abhor politics in all of its variations. They are the intellectual arm of the liberty movement and it's fine if that's all your comfortable doing. My pursuit to reclaiming the GOP is for strictly self defense purposes. It will get worse w/o us flanking the establishment and all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, or next to it. We've seen what the insiders have done in many a circumstance, we just have to keep showing up and adapting, innovating and overcoming. Again, it's not like we're pledging our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor to play this game nor are we even approaching the determination that the Founders and their ilk went through as they were strung out and under-clothed at Valley Forge freezing their balls off while not knowing how their family was doing. This is small potatoes compared to the founding generation and they would be laughing at us for crying a river over a setback here and there. Full steam ahead, Patriots!

[IDefendThePlatform]

"’Our method is we elect Republicans. That's what the party's for,’ said Dave Buell, chairman of the Washoe County GOP in the state's northwest corner, the second largest county in the state. ‘Down south, the Ron Paul people down there are pushing ideology rather than electing Republicans.’"

Unreal.

Just wow.

[cajuncocoa]

We all know that reclaiming the GOP to its roots won't be a cakewalk yet we've come so far from where we were 5 years ago so there's no need to have a defeatist attitude. While I like Rockwell and co, understand that they are anarchists in the purest form and they abhor politics in all of its variations. They are the intellectual arm of the liberty movement and it's fine if that's all your comfortable doing. My pursuit to reclaiming the GOP is for strictly self defense purposes. It will get worse w/o us flanking the establishment and all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, or next to it. We've seen what the insiders have done in many a circumstance, we just have to keep showing up and adapting, innovating and overcoming. Again, it's not like we're pledging our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor to play this game nor are we even approaching the determination that the Founders and their ilk went through as they were strung out and under-clothed at Valley Forge freezing their balls off while not knowing how their family was doing. This is small potatoes compared to the founding generation and they would be laughing at us for crying a river over a setback here and there. Full steam ahead, Patriots!

I get your point, but here are some serious questions:

What good does all that do if we're pissing off potential voters that we should be educating instead?

Eventually we will need the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses for Romney, Santorum, et al...they are part of the Republican Party. Look at what happened when Santorum and Gingrich dropped out...their voters turned to Romney. At some point, we will need them to turn to US. They won't do it now because they're not LISTENING to us. They won't LISTEN to us if we piss them off.

A political party is just like any other collective. It's a group of like-minded people coming together for a common cause. What do we have in common with the people who are there now? And if we drive them away to start their own party (or whatever), aren't we just setting up future Democrat victories from now until the foreseeable future?

Edited to add: if we're going to save our country, we need to EDUCATE more people and bring them in...not PISS THEM OFF and turn them away. Look at what happened in Louisiana this weekend...of course we think the establishment was wrong, but do you think they see it that way? Do you think they are going to be willing to vote for Ron Paul in November? Just as we were willing to write in Ron Paul, what's stopping them from writing in Romney?

[Zarn Solen]

No, many Republicans are highly rank-in-file. Whoever the nominee is gets their support and with a fervor. These people were bashing Romney and supporters for months.

[LibertyEagle]

Sad but true. Im not sure you can take over them without becoming them...at any rate compromising principle.

Sure you can. You just do it.

[LibertyEagle]

I get your point, but here are some serious questions:

What good does all that do if we're pissing off potential voters that we should be educating instead?

Eventually we will need the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses for Romney, Santorum, et al...they are part of the Republican Party. Look at what happened when Santorum and Gingrich dropped out...their voters turned to Romney. At some point, we will need them to turn to US. They won't do it now because they're not LISTENING to us. They won't LISTEN to us if we piss them off.

A political party is just like any other collective. It's a group of like-minded people coming together for a common cause. What do we have in common with the people who are there now? And if we drive them away to start their own party (or whatever), aren't we just setting up future Democrat victories from now until the foreseeable future?

Edited to add: if we're going to save our country, we need to EDUCATE more people and bring them in...not PISS THEM OFF and turn them away. Look at what happened in Louisiana this weekend...of course we think the establishment was wrong, but do you think they see it that way? Do you think they are going to be willing to vote for Ron Paul in November? Just as we were willing to write in Ron Paul, what's stopping them from writing in Romney?

There are a lot of people who misunderstand the message on some points. I think Rand and others will help get through to them and they will be on-board. In the meantime, we need to continue to get in leadership positions.

[FSP-Rebel]

I get your point, but here are some serious questions:

What good does all that do if we're pissing off potential voters that we should be educating instead?

Eventually we will need the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses for Romney, Santorum, et al...they are part of the Republican Party. Look at what happened when Santorum and Gingrich dropped out...their voters turned to Romney. At some point, we will need them to turn to US. They won't do it now because they're not LISTENING to us. They won't LISTEN to us if we piss them off.

A political party is just like any other collective. It's a group of like-minded people coming together for a common cause. What do we have in common with the people who are there now? And if we drive them away to start their own party (or whatever), aren't we just setting up future Democrat victories from now until the foreseeable future?

Edited to add: if we're going to save our country, we need to EDUCATE more people and bring them in...not PISS THEM OFF and turn them away. Look at what happened in Louisiana this weekend...of course we think the establishment was wrong, but do you think they see it that way? Do you think they are going to be willing to vote for Ron Paul in November? Just as we were willing to write in Ron Paul, what's stopping them from writing in Romney?
They are just fighting us because of their impression of what we're up to, which is not aligning behind their nominee, that being their stated goal as of now. And, most of the regulars just follow the leadership as they think they are doing what's just and right. Most of the regulars at these conventions are putz's that don't really know what's going on yet just follow along with those in charge since that's all they know. They've also been given the pep talk to look out for us rabble rousers and mischief makers and to thwart us at any cost. Essentially, they are merely drones and can be micromanaged given the right circumstances. Since the Ron Paul name carries so much baggage because of the relentless attacks of the media and the party leadership, these regulars have been used as pawns as I'm sure you know. Currently, we just have to do what we must to maximize our national delegation and then depending on how things go, we have to move on and stay the course. If Romney is the nominee, the election will take its way however it does but the Ron Paul name will be gone. Then, in the future, we're all just independent republicans at our local and state conventions and we can actually educate each others on the issues and not be pitted against each other via national campaigns. More so, as we stay involved and keep raising our profile in the GOP and reclaim it, we start calling the shots and determine what candidates run under what platforms. Finally, as time goes by we keep sending our veterans into higher levels of the RNC and level out the playing field up top for fairer future primaries/caucuses.

[Carlybee]

They are fighting us because the only thing we have in common are some aspects of fiscal conservatism and for some the pro life stance. Otherwise we are in opposition on most ideology that defines liberty.

[LibertyEagle]

They are fighting us because the only thing we have in common are some aspects of fiscal conservatism and for some the pro life stance. Otherwise we are in opposition on most ideology that defines liberty.

Not true.

[Zarn Solen]

Gun rights, healthcare, economics, states rights...

[Butchie]

"They’ll probably succeed, but the benefit of all of this will be that many Americans have now seen our political parties for what they really are."

My how I wish that was true, however the only one's who see it are those who already knew, those who didn't still don't, I have some in my family who have fallen for this "Paul is the bad guy" scheme hook, line, and sinker, they even voted for Paul in the straw vote here, but now have been convinced he's "ruining the chance to beat Obama".

[FSP-Rebel]

"ruining the chance to beat Obama".
This mentality sinks in around this time every four years. If people pay any attention to politics they are relentlessly bombarded with this kind of outlook based upon which party they identify with. I wouldn't worry too much about it, they'll eventually get over it as most people have very short memory spans when it comes to this stuff. It's people like us see through the propaganda and are in the know that have to do our duty and look out for those out there that are helplessly enslaved to the machine, through no decisive fault of their own. A revolution has to be led in tough times by those with courage and commitment, the rest will get on board if and when they're comfortable doing so. I take great pride helping to be the innovators of this movement as I know I'm part of the team that is doing a great deed that others will realize down the line. It's fun purging the jerkoffs that have been nipping at our heels for so long.

[TrishW]

Actually... NO. I don't understand any of it.

As the article stated, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, service special interest... not the people. They are never going to care about us. So why is it that we should play nice and go along with them?

Why not go for broke and create a new party? Losing is losing, at least we can do it our way.

[cajuncocoa]

"They’ll probably succeed, but the benefit of all of this will be that many Americans have now seen our political parties for what they really are."

My how I wish that was true, however the only one's who see it are those who already knew, those who didn't still don't, I have some in my family who have fallen for this "Paul is the bad guy" scheme hook, line, and sinker, they even voted for Paul in the straw vote here, but now have been convinced he's "ruining the chance to beat Obama".

That's what I meant about being expected to "fall in line" once the primary/caucuses are over...no matter which candidate emerges as the nominee. As we are all registered Republicans (albeit temporarily, for some of us) they expect us to vote for the eventual GOP nominee. If not, you can bet Ron Paul will be blamed.

[cajuncocoa]

They are fighting us because the only thing we have in common are some aspects of fiscal conservatism and for some the pro life stance. Otherwise we are in opposition on most ideology that defines liberty.


Not true.


Gun rights, healthcare, economics, states rights...

Can we ever see eye-to-eye on foreign policy? That's a pretty important issue, and we aren't even close to agreement. I don't see the two sides coming together anytime soon.

[TrishW]

NO ONE BUT PAUL!

[NoOneButPaul]

The history of American Political Parties is one of successive "party systems." Each "party system" lasts several decades, with each particular party carrying a certain character; in many cases, the name of the party can remain the same but its essential character can drastically change in so called "critical elections."- Ron Paul: The Case for Gold

The only thing that will stop us from taking back the party is a defeatist attitude towards taking back the party.

Party systems have been changed over and over and over again and all the things that existed to stop the surge existed the same way then as they do now. Technologies and settings change but when an idea whose time has come arrives it cannot be stopped by any amount of special interest or game fixing.

If the people want Liberty, and are willing to fight for it well beyond this decade and the next, then liberty is what we will have.

If you keep reenforcing the idea we can't win or we have to go 3rd party we will only fracture the foundations we've already laid and end up exactly where the elite GOP people want us.

Keep fighting through the party from the ground up and one day it won't matter what opposition still dares to stand in our way.

[cajuncocoa]

To those who think it's possible, I wish you luck. I can't promise to become a delegate, or run for a party chair, or political office...that's not me. But I do support you and will continue to do so as long as you put liberty before party. And I hope that you will one day be able to tell me I was wrong. I really do.

[Victor Grey]

To those who think it's possible, I wish you luck. I can't promise to become a delegate, or run for a party chair, or political office...that's not me. But I do support you and will continue to do so as long as you put liberty before party. And I hope that you will one day be able to tell me I was wrong. I really do.

Well please keep the political Eeeyore stuff to a minimum while you're at it, too. It counterproductive and just I don't care to accompany the crowd of it. I've never heard of anybody moping that succeeded.

Thank you for the luck though. :)

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/eeyore61_5881.jpg

[Smitty]

The dominant political parties are private clubs which are maintained by the government for the benefit of the status quo.

[cajuncocoa]

Well please keep the political Eeeyore stuff to a minimum while you're at it, too. It counterproductive and just I don't care to accompany the crowd of it. I've never heard of anybody moping that succeeded.

Thank you for the luck though. :)

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/eeyore61_5881.jpg

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1069/notlistening.jpg

Couldn't resist. :p

[Butchie]

Can we ever see eye-to-eye on foreign policy? That's a pretty important issue, and we aren't even close to agreement. I don't see the two sides coming together anytime soon.

This is a great misconception, I live in a very heavy conservative Christian area and trust me, most people agree it is a waste of time, money, lives in the Middle East. Everyone thinks all conservatives just are hateful and want war and this isn't true, Ron's problem is he just doesn't communicate himself effectively, he constantly uses liberal phrases and words that just make conservatives skin crawl and make him seem weak, I've always said this, it isn't what Ron says that is the problem, it's how he says it.

[Southerner]

"Some of you have managed to win seats, and your efforts (and successes) are admirable. BUT -- our candidates won't always win, and in the transition from "establishment GOP" to "liberty GOP" you're going to be expected to back some candidates that are not to your liking; some of them will be establishment candidates that you abhor but are still part of your Republican Party. That's just the way it is."

+ Rep.

[LibertyEagle]

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[LibertyEagle]

This is a great misconception, I live in a very heavy conservative Christian area and trust me, most people agree it is a waste of time, money, lives in the Middle East. Everyone thinks all conservatives just are hateful and want war and this isn't true, Ron's problem is he just doesn't communicate himself effectively, he constantly uses liberal phrases and words that just make conservatives skin crawl and make him seem weak, I've always said this, it isn't what Ron says that is the problem, it's how he says it.

Yup, I totally agree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Gun rights, healthcare, economics, states rights...

The GOP and libertarians don't see eye-to-eye on any of those issues. Obamacare is mostly a Republican plan from the 90s, the GOP passed the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society under Bush, Republicans constantly trample states "rights" issues, they're for bailouts... on and on and on.

[Carlybee]

Not true.

One has to embrace the constitution and what it means. Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity who are gurus to many neocons and tea partiers sling the word out there all the time but they are false deities and misuse it...until those people who worship them gain a real understanding of freedom we will never see eye to eye.

[Liberty74]

Ugh, people, I have been saying this all year. Stop with wanting to try to be buddies with the Republicans. It is a lost cause. The power they hold is too great for them. They only care about their power, not you.

A better use of our energy and money is to take over the Indy Party. Squat our Liberty platform there. Make the two party criminal system squirm. They will have to adapt to us. The Indy Party has about 40% of the voters. It has no real platform and no real leader. We could be THAT option to provide to the 65% of Americans who are fed up with both parties and who are leaving them in droves.

Think big. Think outside the box.

Something to ponder - Ron Paul has been a Republican congressman for 20 plus years and he is still an outsider from the the Party that literally pisses all over him and us. Why in the world do many of you think we can take that Party over much less change it in real terms? The GOP is a lost cause...

Let's start a real revolution, not cling to one of the criminal political Parties.

INDY INDY INDY

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.animationplayhouse.com/babycry.gif

[LibertyEagle]

The GOP and libertarians don't see eye-to-eye on any of those issues. Obamacare is mostly a Republican plan from the 90s, the GOP passed the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society under Bush, Republicans constantly trample states "rights" issues, they're for bailouts... on and on and on.

No, rank and file Republicans are most certainly not for bailouts. These are one of the things that initiated the tea parties.

[LibertyEagle]

If some of you guys want to give up, go ahead. Just don't hang around here trying to talk everyone else into giving up too. Sheesh.

[cajuncocoa]

If some of you guys want to give up, go ahead. Just don't hang around here trying to talk everyone else into giving up too. Sheesh.Not trying to talk anyone into or out of anything. Just trying to help some to see reality.

[LibertyEagle]

Not trying to talk anyone into or out of anything. Just trying to help some to see reality.

Go see it somewhere else, if all you can do is try to discourage people from political activism.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[cajuncocoa]

One has to embrace the constitution and what it means.

^^^^^^^THIS.^^^^^^^^

We do.

They don't.

[LibertyEagle]

^^^^^^^THIS.^^^^^^^^

We do.

They don't.

Then DO something about it. Quitting won't do a damn thing.

[cajuncocoa]

Go see it somewhere else, if all you can do is try to discourage people from political activism.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Are you so weak that I can discourage you if you're committed to something? Good grief!

[cajuncocoa]

Then DO something about it. Quitting won't do a damn thing.

I AM doing something about it. WTF do you think I'm doing here? Who said anything about QUITTING?

There are other options besides going over to the dark side (GOP) and quitting.

[cajuncocoa]

Go see it somewhere else, if all you can do is try to discourage people from political activism.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

One more thing...you'd better convince Lew Rockwell to stop publishing articles such as the one I copied here...I'm sure his site reaches more Ron Paul supporters than I do.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No, rank and file Republicans are most certainly not for bailouts. These are one of the things that initiated the tea parties.

They've backed pro-bailout Republicans all primary season. Actions speak louder than words.

[Carlybee]

http://www.animationplayhouse.com/babycry.gif

I kind of liked you at first. Now I think you are not only rude but don't seem to have much respect for freedom of thought.

[Mini-Me]

Everything we do should (even must) carry an element of education, but relying on education alone will never allow us to exercise our freedom: Even if everyone in the US was a full-blown voluntaryist, we would still be taxed, regulated, and beaten and kidnapped by police until we actually stood up and did something about it, and this tax money would still contribute to wars and what-not, at least until the soldier pool dried up completely. Even a fully educated populace must be inspired to ACTION before anything will actually change.

Back in 2009 it was popular for an-caps say, "Just ignore the state," but the whole point of the state is that it's a gun in your face, coercing you to submit. You can take deliberate painstaking steps to hide from it, but outright ignoring its existence will simply get you thrown in prison by the court you refuse to recognize, which either enforces unjust laws or flagrantly perverts even the laws that should technically be on your side. The same principle applies at the small scale: You can ignore bullies who taunt you to feel tough, but you cannot ignore bullies who mug you for your lunch money and stab you in the face if you don't comply. You can take the long way home and avoid them sometimes, but you cannot simply pretend they don't exist.

Some who eschew political activism promote agorism as well as education, which is a good step forward from doing nothing: Agorism is action. It means trading on the black market as much as possible to deliberately, painstakingly avoid taxes (from sales, to income, to inflation). However, an economy simply cannot run on agorism alone, because real production relies on large-scale, non-portable capital goods to create consumer goods and other capital goods...and so they must operate in "daylight," in full view of the state and its goon squads. Similarly, real capital investment necessitates formal ownership and organized/transparent means of dispute resolution. Because of that, agorism alone cannot bring down the state or allow people to exercise their liberty without fear of being violated by the leviathan.

Sooner or later, more action is required beyond education and even agorism: An openly defiant nationwide tax strike could do the trick if it caught on (combined with trading in free market money in the first place to avoid inflation), but that's more than ignoring the state: That's massive-scale civil disobedience, and it would work if enough people were fully educated, but that's the catch: By the time enough people are actually willing to take that kind of risk, everyone will have been voting for liberty candidates in primaries and third party candidates in general elections for years already. In other words, by the time we have the critical mass for open civil disobedience to work, we will be well past the point where we could have already taken control of the state directly through the political process to rein it in from the inside.

In the past, I was skeptical that we'd ever make inroads with party politics: The LRC article is correct that political parties are structured in such a way that principled libertarian takeover is extremely difficult, and I assumed a few years back that it was not just hard but impossible...however, our relative success this year has proven me utterly wrong. It's certainly an uphill battle every step of the way for all the reasons the article mentions, but it CAN be done, and it IS being done. The more battles we win, the more desperate and underhanded the establishment's tactics become, but this brings us closer to a critical mass due to an energized base, "social proof," and the public's growing awareness of the establishment's corruption.

We have not yet educated enough people to win our freedom and publicly exercise it, but that doesn't mean political action is hopeless. It simply means that we need to educate more people before political action will work...and it just so happens that it energizes people enough and focuses their attention enough on real issues that it's conducive to education as well. Education and political action can form a positive feedback loop, if you let them. We could never win our liberty by using only political action or only education to the exclusion of the other (political action without education is corrupt and purposeless, and education without political action is mental masturbation), but if we use them together, it's simply a matter of time.

[NoOneButPaul]

Ugh, people, I have been saying this all year. Stop with wanting to try to be buddies with the Republicans. It is a lost cause. The power they hold is too great for them. They only care about their power, not you.

A better use of our energy and money is to take over the Indy Party. Squat our Liberty platform there. Make the two party criminal system squirm. They will have to adapt to us. The Indy Party has about 40% of the voters. It has no real platform and no real leader. We could be THAT option to provide to the 65% of Americans who are fed up with both parties and who are leaving them in droves.

Think big. Think outside the box.

Something to ponder - Ron Paul has been a Republican congressman for 20 plus years and he is still an outsider from the the Party that literally pisses all over him and us. Why in the world do many of you think we can take that Party over much less change it in real terms? The GOP is a lost cause...

Let's start a real revolution, not cling to one of the criminal political Parties.

INDY INDY INDY

The 3rd party stuff has been debunked and debunked over and over again... Ron tried it already, failed, and realized the best course of action is the one we are taking.

Even if we could accomplish what you claim (The Libertarian Party is calling from the depths of nothing btw) all we would do is split the conservative base in this country and allow the Democrats to control the government for at least the next 25 years. What we need to do is get the 3rd party people to wake up and jump back over here to help us.

Eventually the old guard will die and we will be what is left. If we leave now we play right into their hand...

[Smitty]

all we would do is split the conservative base .

The GOP base is already split.

In a very real sense, the Liberty movement *is* a third party,...an ideology that's separate from that which has been dominant in the Republican party since at least the first Bush administration.

It is good that Ron Paul used the GOP as a venue for his message. But the movement doesn't need the GOP any longer. The neocon element has made it a damaged brand and it's a hindrance.

It's time to recognize that the liberty movement is a generational struggle. Those that are now coming of age need a fresh political party that doesn't represent the corruption of the Democrats and the GOP.

[NoOneButPaul]

The GOP base is already split.

In a very real sense, the Liberty movement *is* a third party,...an ideology that's separate from that which has been dominant in the Republican party since at least the first Bush administration.

It is good that Ron Paul used the GOP as a venue for his message. But the movement doesn't need the GOP any longer. The neocon element has made it a damaged brand and it's a hindrance.

It's time to recognize that the liberty movement is a generational struggle. Those that are now coming of age need a fresh political party that doesn't represent the corruption of the Democrats and the GOP.

That's going to be the new GOP when these people die off, which they eventually will...

Starting from scratch somewhere else isn't going to help us.

[showpan]

Democratic-Republican Party

One of the first two American political parties. Founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Those two and James Monroe were the only Democratic-Republican presidents. Party disbanded in the 1820s, splintering into two factions, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. Members of the Democratic-Republican Party believed that a strong federal government would weaken and not respect the rights of the states and the people.

[NoOneButPaul]

90% of what we say Democrats loathe... all we'd be doing is creating another Libertarian Party and I imagine it would be just as useless as the LP is now.

The power structure is already in place with the GOP, all we have to do is keep fighting and be patient. Eventually we will take the party back and all the power that comes with it.

Once we have the Congress and the POTUS we can do anything, including amending the constitution to ban all political parties.

That's how you take down the party system...

[LibertyEagle]

That's going to be the new GOP when these people die off, which they eventually will...

Starting from scratch somewhere else isn't going to help us.

You know, you look like a fool when you say that. Correct me if I am wrong, and I am not, but those two gentlemen in Louisiana (our guys) who were accosted by Security and had ribs bruised, fingers broken, etc. were not kiddies. They were gray-haired men. Which, I might add, Ron Paul has too.

So, just stop it with the ageist bullshit. It's gotten more than old.

[LibertyEagle]

The GOP base is already split.

In a very real sense, the Liberty movement *is* a third party,...an ideology that's separate from that which has been dominant in the Republican party since at least the first Bush administration.

It is good that Ron Paul used the GOP as a venue for his message. But the movement doesn't need the GOP any longer. The neocon element has made it a damaged brand and it's a hindrance.

It's time to recognize that the liberty movement is a generational struggle. Those that are now coming of age need a fresh political party that doesn't represent the corruption of the Democrats and the GOP.

As a reminder...

Only the two major political parties get in the debates and get any media whatsoever. So, if we want to do anything politically, it is absolutely critical that we use one or both of these political parties as tools to get liberty candidates elected. Since we have already made so very many inroads into the Republican Party, to me at least, it only makes sense to keep on with that party until we have liberty people all over the leadership. Then, the shenanigans will come to a halt.

It would be dumber than dirt to give up all our gains at this point.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Shouldn't the 1st one be changed?


1. Political Parties exist to elect candidates. Political Parties exist to elect & re-elect THEIR inside Ringer.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you so weak that I can discourage you if you're committed to something? Good grief!

No, you can't do one thing to me, but you damn sure might discourage onlookers.

[LibertyEagle]

I kind of liked you at first. Now I think you are not only rude but don't seem to have much respect for freedom of thought.

Apparently, you decide who is to have freedom of thought? Interesting.

[Carlybee]

Good luck fighting these kind of people.

http://www.wnddotcom/2012/06/is-there-a-ron-paul-putsch-under-way/

replace the broken link. Op/ed from WND

[cajuncocoa]

No, you can't do one thing to me, but you damn sure might discourage onlookers.


...you'd better convince Lew Rockwell to stop publishing articles such as the one I copied here...I'm sure his site reaches more Ron Paul supporters than I do.

..

[Kelly.]

Who cares what they think if you really are your own person.
Rev9


this!

[cajuncocoa]

Good luck fighting these kind of people.
hxxp://www.wnd.com/2012/06/is-there-a-ron-paul-putsch-under-way/


replace the broken link. Op/ed from WND

Y'all should definitely read this.

[Mini-Me]

90% of what we say Democrats loathe... all we'd be doing is creating another Libertarian Party and I imagine it would be just as useless as the LP is now.

The power structure is already in place with the GOP, all we have to do is keep fighting and be patient. Eventually we will take the party back and all the power that comes with it.

Once we have the Congress and the POTUS we can do anything, including amending the constitution to ban all political parties.

That's how you take down the party system...

Banning political parties bans free association. Not only is it tyrannical, but it's so subjective that it could be enforced arbitrarily.

The two-party system has everything to do with winner-take-all plurality voting, which inevitably devolves into a one-party or two-party system (and research has shown this as well). The voting system itself is inherently broken, and it was doomed to its current state from the start: The moment we get the chance, we need to change the entire voting system to something more like range voting and proportional representation. This kind of system would instantly destroy the incentive to vote for the "lesser of two evils" at the expense of your true preference, because voting for your true preference will no longer risk someone you hate beating someone you're okay with.

Changing the voting system wouldn't eliminate political parties, but it would eliminate their real danger, and it would break them up from mashups of disparate interest groups into more ideologically driven organizations.

[cajuncocoa]

Once we have the Congress and the POTUS we can do anything, including amending the constitution to ban all political parties.


There is so much wrong with the above statement, it's hard to know where to begin. This sounds like something I would expect to hear from a hardcore Progressive or Neocon.

No, we can't do "anything"...we still have to follow the Constitution as it is written. As long as I've been following Ron Paul, that's what I've been hearing from his supporters, and from Dr. Paul himself. We can't make sweeping changes to it just because we would be in charge!!

If I'm misunderstanding something, I certainly would love for you to clear it up for me. It sure doesn't sound like something a libertarian or traditional conservative would say.

[cajuncocoa]

Here's something else that keeps bothering me...and it's something I've heard Ron Paul himself say, but I really don't get it.

Everyone talks about "taking the Republican Party back"...back from what?

Except for one brief moment when Barry Goldwater was the nominee (and lost in a landslide), when has a Ron Paul conservative ever been the voice of the GOP? Ronald Reagan talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk (I think the Bushies got to him after the assassination attempt, but I never understood why he took Bush to be his VP in the first place).

The GOP has only given lip-service to people who want traditional conservatism ... they've NEVER delivered. So what exactly does everyone, including Dr. Paul, mean when they say "return the GOP to its roots"?

Serious question...I would appreciate a serious answer.

[slamhead]

We are the second party now.


Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two
parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to
draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence
in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe,
although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In
every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they
are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare
themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

[Mini-Me]

Y'all should definitely read this.

What's going on here is this: Batshit crazy fascists (it's ironic how the author loves that word, since her ideology matches the description so closely) take up their soapbox to indoctrinate the masses. It makes their opinions appear to be popular and widespread, which cows most people - who are deeply susceptible to conformity and groupthink - into following their lead.

Her entire article was a vulgar attack on this movement, meant to harass and intimidate people who would otherwise take us seriously and listen to what we're saying. Ordinary Republicans are skeptical of us and some of our planks, but it's these people - the priests of power - who truly HATE that we're coming out in force, because they know how people work. They're afraid that the more visible we become, the more socially acceptable it will be to entertain what we're saying or even join us. They're ramping up their desperate efforts to make us pariahs and ostracize anyone who dares to sympathize with us, because they know they're quickly losing the opportunity to do so as our voices drown theirs out (social proof).

There's a key component to education that a lot of people miss: Most people halt and violently squash their trains of thought when they start to violate goodthink, because they're afraid of going to hell, or being seen as crazy, etc. There's a huge human tendency to conform to the thoughts of others and make thought subservient to fear, and while everyone including us is susceptible to it, I think many of us underestimate how deeply most people are enslaved to it. Most people don't actually hate us: They convince themselves they hate us, because they're supposed to hate us, because the people around them project the same hate (when most are probably following the same thought process). We're up against a huge emotional block in people's minds, because most people fear what it would mean to join us: Rejection by society and their social circles. Many of these people - and their family and friends - insecurely parrot the rants of people like this author to each other, simply so they can prove they fit in...but the more we show that "freedom is popular," the more people will be willing to take a risk, and the more popular freedom will become. We don't need to be a majority to succeed here. We just need to be a large enough minority that more people feel unafraid to take us seriously and name themselves a part of it...and we're slowly reaching that point.

Think about what people say about Ron Paul: In 2008, he was a total nutcase. This cycle, people more often said things like, "You know, I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but his foreign policy scares me." A lot of this comes from people who want to convince fence-riders that a foreign policy of peace is "crazy," but it raises the question, where did they get the idea to say this to appeal to the fence-riders? It's because the fence-riders themselves say it to float a thought balloon and gauge the reaction from people around them. Some of the people who say this really believe it, and others are trying to test the waters to see what they can get away with saying and believing. People like us say what we mean, no matter what anyone thinks...but most people are much more socially conscious. More and more people are slowly coming out of their shells, and I think it's thanks to our continued visibility.

[Mini-Me]

Here's something else that keeps bothering me...and it's something I've heard Ron Paul himself say, but I really don't get it.

Everyone talks about "taking the Republican Party back"...back from what?

Except for one brief moment when Barry Goldwater was the nominee (and lost in a landslide), when has a Ron Paul conservative ever been the voice of the GOP? Ronald Reagan talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk (I think the Bushies got to him after the assassination attempt, but I never understood why he took Bush to be his VP in the first place).

The GOP has only given lip-service to people who want traditional conservatism ... they've NEVER delivered. So what exactly does everyone, including Dr. Paul, mean when they say "return the GOP to its roots"?

Serious question...I would appreciate a serious answer.

You can look at this in one of two ways: If you consider the GOP to be the GOP's leadership, then you're correct...the party leadership and candidate pool was never a bastion of old guard conservatism. If you consider the GOP to be the GOP's base however, the situation may look a lot different. I tend to think Barry Goldwater won against Rockefeller because the base was more in tune with Goldwater's views than the cosmopolitan, super-statist Rockefeller wing of the party, and had been for a long time. I wasn't around at the time, but older boots on the ground might be able to speak more on the subject. Anyway, the neocon takeover of the Republican Party was not an isolated incident: The party has always been under sustained attack by some elite element, whether Fabian socialists and Straussian fascists, but I don't think the base was always as thoroughly indoctrinated as it is today. In the past, it might be more accurate to say that the Fabian wing only grudgingly won the support of the poorly organized public base each year in the face of what they viewed as a greater threat (the Democrats - lesser of two evils thinking). Nowadays, the base simply swallows whatever the neocon power structure spews forth, and "retaking" the party could mean not only reversing that process but finally wresting control of the party from the fascists as well.

The takeover attempts will never stop of course, and it's folly to expect "eternal vigilance" from our descendants, which is why we must make institutional changes in the voting system and checks and balances ASAP to keep this two-party stranglehold - and unlimited government itself - from ever happening again, once we bring the state to heel. Eventually, I'd like to think we could dissolve the whole damn thing, but we're realistically a long way away from most people recognizing that it's not necessary...in the meantime, we need to do the best we can to limit government as much as we can and keep it limited long enough for people to grow comfortable with the concept of minarchist federalism at least (make it the new normal), and maybe even anti-Federalist or voluntaryist ideas over time.

[cajuncocoa]

Thank you for the response!


but I don't think the base was always as thoroughly indoctrinated as it is today.

Yeah, this is probably the result of 20+ years of Limbaugh, followed by FOXNews, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, Beck, et al.

If there is to be any real success in growing our movement, we have to find a way to counter them with some success. As long as the GOP base listens to Limbaugh telling them that we're all a bunch of kooks who are no better than Occupy Wall Street, we're not going to win those people over. And to takeover the GOP with any success, we need to educate that base as to what we're really about.

[Carlybee]

You may think that oped is just a crazy blogger but I've seen the same comments toward Paul supporters on various neocon and tea party forums, chatrooms etc...so someone is buying it. Obviously given the turnout for Romney in these primaries many buy it.

[cajuncocoa]

You may think that oped is just a crazy blogger but I've seen the same comments toward Paul supporters on various neocon and tea party forums, chatrooms etc...so someone is buying it. Obviously given the turnout for Romney in these primaries many buy it.The only time I've ever witnessed a neocon or (hijacked) tea party activist agree with us is when we're disagreeing with Obama/Dems/progressives about something.

We have less in common with these people than some here think.

[cajuncocoa]

The point is, growing the GOP with our people is possible...but it would be more sustainable through education than through "takeover".

I have no doubt that there are people inside the GOP who are ripe to hear our message, but it would be better to NOT piss off those people by giving them reason to think that we are who Pamela Geller says we are in that article Carlybee posted.

In other words, they need to come to us voluntarily. Anything else is just us imposing our will on them. I thought we would have been against such a thing.

[Revolution9]

Everyone talks about "taking the Republican Party back"...back from what?

This particular questions belies the ignorance incorprated into the losers stance that started this thread.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

The point is, growing the GOP with our people is possible...but it would be more sustainable through education than through "takeover".

Tough luck for the clowns that didn't follow cultural timelines into the future and remained ensconced in a time bubble of their undoing. I have no sympathy for the folks you are attempting to defend. They punch and kick and cheat, produce fraudulent documents, slates and results, slander, gossip and malign and sick off duty jackboot cops on elder folks all to keep their little fiefdoms in order. The only education they will understand is a boot to the caucus floor where they have to become a part of the process instead of cheating the process to maintain their feudal lordships. Yer stance is morally bereft and reeks of dualistically corrupted momentum. You are shilling the status quo and wish to assimilate us borg style. That is all you are up to regardless of what you may have convinced yourself of otherwise.

Rev9

[cajuncocoa]

Tough luck for the clowns that didn't follow cultural timelines into the future and remained ensconced in a time bubble of their undoing. I have no sympathy for the folks you are attempting to defend. They punch and kick and cheat, produce fraudulent documents, slates and results, slander, gossip and malign and sick off duty jackboot cops on elder folks all to keep their little fiefdoms in order. The only education they will understand is a boot to the caucus floor where they have to become a part of the process instead of cheating the process to maintain their feudal lordships. Yer stance is morally bereft and reeks of dualistically corrupted momentum. You are shilling the status quo and wish to assimilate us borg style. That is all you are up to regardless of what you may have convinced yourself of otherwise.

Rev9

WTF?? I am "defending" no one! What are you talking about?

[Mini-Me]

You may think that oped is just a crazy blogger but I've seen the same comments toward Paul supporters on various neocon and tea party forums, chatrooms etc...so someone is buying it. Obviously given the turnout for Romney in these primaries many buy it.

People buy it, sure. That's the point...give people someone to hate, and intimidate them into joining the Two Minutes Hate if they want to remain socially acceptable. They feel the hate, and they come to believe it, but much of it comes first and foremost from fear of rejection, making it a self-perpetuating cycle. "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

Ask yourself: What kind of social circle do people on these forums run in? If their friends and family were Paul supporters - or openly cordial - do you think they would really behave this way? The same thing happens with Republicans and Democrats...entire families of partisans push each other further toward partisan extremes, because everyone wants to prove they fit in or even hate the "enemy" more than the next guy.

Identity politics are about belonging, and fear of rejection. This pressure affects people no matter their beliefs, but it's harder on people who might sympathize with us, because we're a true minority and a target for EVERYONE else: Easy to hate, and easy to be ostracized for respecting. If a liberal in a conservative family speaks up, they may risk tension with people they care about, but they have a huge enough throng of allies to avoid feeling alone. In the past, people who sympathized with us didn't really have that solace...they were terrorists and traitors to their country, or so said everyone they had ever listened to. We're growing to a point where that's changing though, and we're becoming a more socially acceptable alternative for more people, one at a time.

[LibertyEagle]

The point is, growing the GOP with our people is possible...but it would be more sustainable through education than through "takeover".

I have no doubt that there are people inside the GOP who are ripe to hear our message, but it would be better to NOT piss off those people by giving them reason to think that we are who Pamela Geller says we are in that article Carlybee posted.

In other words, they need to come to us voluntarily. Anything else is just us imposing our will on them. I thought we would have been against such a thing.

We are educating as we become the GOP leadership and after we attain that, we will be able to be even more successful in educating. Not to mention the fact that we can also use those positions to give liberty-candidates a fair shot at getting elected.

[Carlybee]

WTF?? I am "defending" no one! What are you talking about?

I wouldn't give much credence to someone who says "yer". He may be a pirate. Yaaaar. :p

[Carlybee]

Tough luck for the clowns that didn't follow cultural timelines into the future and remained ensconced in a time bubble of their undoing. I have no sympathy for the folks you are attempting to defend. They punch and kick and cheat, produce fraudulent documents, slates and results, slander, gossip and malign and sick off duty jackboot cops on elder folks all to keep their little fiefdoms in order. The only education they will understand is a boot to the caucus floor where they have to become a part of the process instead of cheating the process to maintain their feudal lordships. Yer stance is morally bereft and reeks of dualistically corrupted momentum. You are shilling the status quo and wish to assimilate us borg style. That is all you are up to regardless of what you may have convinced yourself of otherwise.

Rev9
Bullcrap from the thought police. I personally know CajunCocoa and she has been a dedicated Ron Paul supporter for years. If anything she is an anti-shill.....learn to comprehend.

[cajuncocoa]

Bullcrap from the thought police. I personally know CajunCocoa and she has been a dedicated Ron Paul supporter for years. If anything she is an anti-shill.....learn to comprehend.Thanks, Carlybee. I want the same thing everyone else wants: I want our liberty movement to grow in a sustainable way. I want us to win elections. And I want to make sure everyone has thought out the consequences down the road of taking this in a certain way. I know I'm not alone with these concerns and that's what keeps me fighting....at this point, I'm really *this* close to just shutting up, but I can't make myself do it.

[Mini-Me]

The point is, growing the GOP with our people is possible...but it would be more sustainable through education than through "takeover".

I have no doubt that there are people inside the GOP who are ripe to hear our message, but it would be better to NOT piss off those people by giving them reason to think that we are who Pamela Geller says we are in that article Carlybee posted.

In other words, they need to come to us voluntarily. Anything else is just us imposing our will on them. I thought we would have been against such a thing.

First, I want to quickly address the ethical issue: A hostile takeover of a political party is not coercion. It's EVIL if you're doing so to enable coercion (as the Fabians and Straussians were), but in our case, we're not. In our case, it's self-defense. We owe no one any apology for what we're doing.

On the subject of practicality though, I'm not sure if you're fully thinking through the strategy you suggest: You're suggesting to educate the GOP base without taking over GOP party positions, am I correct? Even if we succeed in this, we will only be educating people, and in the meantime, the establishment will have only strengthened its grip on institutional power. As I argued yesterday, education is not enough to win our liberty: Real action is necessary, and agorism is insufficient.

More importantly, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying about social proof: You cannot successfully educate someone if they fear rejection too much to challenge orthodoxy in the privacy of their minds, let alone publicly. Most people are not mentally incapable of understanding our perspective: They're just emotionally incapable of entertaining it while it appears "fringe." That is why the establishment constantly attempts to paint us as fringe. Because of this, there is a self-perpetuating limit on how many people we educate until we actually show the strength and numbers to take over positions of institutional power...which we can only show by actually doing it. A lot of people have an emotional need to be on the "winning team." The longer the truly sinister establishment remains unchallenged in the party apparatus, the more they will use their soapbox to intimidate people who might otherwise be sympathetic, and the more our meekness will make us appear to be a fringe minority...hardly the "winning team." We are pariahs not only because we openly challenge the status quo, but because this movement did so too quietly in the past for people to see that "freedom is popular" and socially acceptable.

The gains we have made these past few years have been entirely due to us being LOUD. Speaking in an echo room can and will go ignored by a majority of people, and so will passing out libertarian literature among people unaware that an ideological war is being waged in the first place...but taking the fight to the establishment will not and does not go unnoticed. We have gained real positions, and our boldness has shaken many people loose from their mental/emotional shackles. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cordial and respectful by default, but neither should we continue to let hostile insiders retain their positions of power without contest. Our current strategy is already working, so turning back now would be simply throwing away the gains we have made and resigning ourselves to the illustrious status the liberty movement enjoyed in say, 2006.

Ron Paul has been fighting this fight for forty years, and he's done so on multiple fronts. He stands on the shoulders of other giants in the liberty movement who planted the seeds, but he has succeeded in popularizing the message where they could not: He finally found a way to get people to pay attention (from a starting point of a two-party stranglehold), in a way the Libertarian Party could not, and in a way that mouth-to-mouth education and blogs alone could not. I suggest we listen to the wisdom he has earned by his experience and continue with the strategy that he suggests...the only one that ever actually worked for him. Don't just educate, but educate from a position of influence, and inspire others to do the same.

[Carlybee]

Ron Paul has been fighting this fight for forty years, and he's done so on multiple fronts. He stands on the shoulders of other giants in the liberty movement who planted the seeds, but he has succeeded in popularizing the message where they could not: He finally found a way to get people to pay attention (from a starting point of a two-party stranglehold), in a way the Libertarian Party could not, and in a way that mouth-to-mouth education and blogs alone could not. I suggest we listen to the wisdom he has earned by his experience and continue with the strategy that he suggests...the only one that ever actually worked for him.

I agree but he succeeded in popularizing the movement mainly through alternative news media (msm has never given him the time of day except in the last few years only on fiscal matters and economics...they have called him a kook and continue to on foreign policy...as well as perpetuating the label.)
As to your last sentence...how do you feel that the strategy has really worked (other than yes, we have more liberty candidates)? How do you feel about the results given that the GOP has lied, cheated and resorted to violence in these elections in order to advance Romney and their own agenda? How is the strategy a success given that we may be out of time for baby steps?

[Mini-Me]

I agree but he succeeded in popularizing the movement mainly through alternative news media (msm has never given him the time of day except in the last few years only on fiscal matters and economics...they have called him a kook and continue to on foreign policy...as well as perpetuating the label.)
As to your last sentence...how do you feel that the strategy has really worked (other than yes, we have more liberty candidates)? How do you feel about the results given that the GOP has lied, cheated and resorted to violence in these elections in order to advance Romney and their own agenda? How is the strategy a success given that we may be out of time for baby steps?

You're correct that Ron Paul has relied on the alternative media to spread the message, but they have relied on Ron Paul to spread the message as well: Ron Paul has become a lightning rod for the energy of this movement, where in the past it was chaotic and directionless for decades. Taking over the party is a lightning rod of its own kind: It generates real news stories that the MSM will not report, which gives the alternative media a purpose aside from editorializing in an echo room, which sparks more interest in following what they're saying. In terms of the MSM, even they are reporting on the battle for the GOP. They're reporting from a different point of view, but people at least know it's going on. The more we win - no matter how horribly the MSM spins it - the more people who want to be on the "winning team" will see that we're viable, and the faster the tides will turn.

Of course the GOP priesthood has lied, cheated, and resorted to violence. They HAVE to, because otherwise we'd win. The thing is, this forces their hand and makes them show their true colors to the base, which they'd rather not have to do. We're winning positions one at a time and shining a spotlight on their corruption, which used to hide in the shadows where no one but us could see it. Is it an uphill battle? Sure it is. They're going to fight us harder every step of the way, but that just means we have to keep up the pressure.

Your last question is interesting. What if we are out of time for baby steps? In that case, is there any strategy you could suggest with a track record of working faster than this one?

[Carlybee]

Thanks, Carlybee. I want the same thing everyone else wants: I want our liberty movement to grow in a sustainable way. I want us to win elections. And I want to make sure everyone has thought out the consequences down the road of taking this in a certain way. I know I'm not alone with these concerns and that's what keeps me fighting....at this point, I'm really *this* close to just shutting up, but I can't make myself do it.

No you are not alone. And with all due respect to what has been accomplished, I have stated that after the general election I will no longer vote as a Republican or be a part of the Republican Party. I will do everything within my power to explore other avenues including interest in a new party. Emphasis on new...not R,P or L. I won't be a party to compromising my beliefs and that is what is going to have to happen in order to get liberty candidates elected as Republicans. I don't see the GOP going gentle into that good night. And I offer no apologies for feeling that way. I was never a Republican to begin with other than in name only to vote for Ron Paul. That doesn't mean I think others shouldn't do what they feel is right for them.

[cajuncocoa]

No you are not alone. And with all due respect to what has been accomplished, I have stated that after the general election I will no longer vote as a Republican or be a part of the Republican Party. I will do everything within my power to explore other avenues including interest in a new party. Emphasis on new...not R,P or L. I won't be a party to compromising my beliefs and that is what is going to have to happen in order to get liberty candidates elected as Republicans. I don't see the GOP going gentle into that good night. And I offer no apologies for feeling that way. I was never a Republican to begin with other than in name only to vote for Ron Paul. That doesn't mean I think others shouldn't do what they feel is right for them.I can't +1 rep you again, but just know that I would if I could. Well stated.

[Carlybee]

Of course the GOP priesthood has lied, cheated, and resorted to violence. They HAVE to, because otherwise we'd win. The thing is, this forces their hand and makes them show their true colors to the base, which they'd rather not have to do. We're winning positions one at a time and shining a spotlight on their corruption, which used to hide in the shadows where no one but us could see it. Is it an uphill battle? Sure it is. They're going to fight us harder every step of the way, but that just means we have to keep up the pressure.

Your last question is interesting. What if we are out of time for baby steps? In that case, is there any strategy you could suggest with a track record of working faster than this one?

I disagree...you have no way of knowing that we would win...the primary numbers say something else assuming that ALL the primary numbers have not been skewed. Are we much better than 2008...yes...of course no one can dispute that. As for the last question...I am still thinking about it. There is a lot to consider. The economic news coming out of Europe is getting ready to snowball on top of our heads and it grows closer daily. That is what I was referring to as to running out of time. Not to mention that you can bet the GOP will change their rules to eliminate what has happened with the caucus votes next time.

[cajuncocoa]

I disagree...you have no way of knowing that we would win...the primary numbers say something else assuming that ALL the primary numbers have not been skewed. Are we much better than 2008...yes...of course no one can dispute that. As for the last question...I am still thinking about it. There is a lot to consider. The economic news coming out of Europe is getting ready to snowball on top of our heads and it grows closer daily. That is what I was referring to as to running out of time. Not to mention that you can bet the GOP will change their rules to eliminate what has happened with the caucus votes next time.
Of course they will. They will do what they need to do to protect the status quo.

[cajuncocoa]

On the subject of practicality though, I'm not sure if you're fully thinking through the strategy you suggest: You're suggesting to educate the GOP base without taking over GOP party positions, am I correct? Even if we succeed in this, we will only be educating people....


YES! Of course! What else would we be educating? Doorknobs? For the love of all that is holy... Political parties don't vote; PEOPLE vote. Political parties are made up of PEOPLE. You educate the people and the rest falls into place. You don't have to educate all of them (it's not possible anyway). You only have to educate enough to win without having to play "cloak and dagger" at every GOP function!!


More importantly, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying about social proof: You cannot successfully educate someone if they fear rejection too much to challenge orthodoxy in the privacy of their minds, let alone publicly. Most people are not mentally incapable of understanding our perspective: They're just emotionally incapable of entertaining it while it appears "fringe."

Fair enough. I've had my share of Psych 101 classes too...and I've learned that you have to win the hearts and minds of people if you intend to "sell" them something. And let's face it: that's exactly what we're trying to do.

The establishment GOP may know that we've been following the rules they put in place (even if they won't admit it and try to subvert it), but GOP voters who don't attend these conventions are hearing "Paulbots are stealing our delegates!!" because that's what Geller, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al are telling them. And there are more who believe that than those of us who know the truth. Until we can change that, we won't sustain these gains we've made.

I would love to be wrong, but I just don't think I am.

[Mini-Me]

I disagree...you have no way of knowing that we would win...the primary numbers say something else assuming that ALL the primary numbers have not been skewed. Are we much better than 2008...yes...of course no one can dispute that. As for the last question...I am still thinking about it. There is a lot to consider. The economic news coming out of Europe is getting ready to snowball on top of our heads and it grows closer daily. That is what I was referring to as to running out of time. Not to mention that you can bet the GOP will change their rules to eliminate what has happened with the caucus votes next time.

When I say "win," I don't necessarily mean the Presidential nomination. I mean things like local chairmanship, voting to keep rules the same or improve them, etc. We already have won in some areas. Do they change the rules? Yes, in some places...and in others, we stop them. Do they create shadow parties? Yes, in some places...but that doesn't mean their strategy will work. We cannot expect to win every battle, but we've already won some, which should embolden us to fight harder rather than fold when the opposition fights dirty. If the party establishment adopted the mentality you're suggesting (the "we cannot beat this opponent" mentality) whenever they lost a battle, many might have already given up, handed us control of the GOP, and started a new Fascist Party. :p

I do know what you mean about running out of time, but how is starting a new party a faster alternative? More importantly, what "starting a new party" really amounts to is going your own separate way, but that's exactly what we had been doing in the past, and it's why we were never united enough for any show of strength. A few decades ago, libertarians and other allies were so disconnected from each other that even they/we didn't even know a movement existed...so you can only imagine how oblivious the general public must have been.

Things are different today because libertarians of all stripes and paleoconservatives are all united behind Ron Paul, but unless we want to scatter in the wind after he retires, we have to unite behind a single strategy. Ron Paul has taken great pains to outline a single strategy to channel our efforts into, so there's a chance that we can unite behind it if people put aside their reservations...but there is NO chance of us uniting behind any other strategy. If we scatter, we will scatter in a hundred directions: Some will try taking over the GOP, some will go back to the Libertarian Party, some will go back to the Constitution Party, some will try using the Indy Party (Liberty74's pet strategy), some will give up on electoral politics altogether and pass out pamphlets, a few will get picked off by the state for solitary civil disobedience like agorism and tax evasion, and some will simply give up, because apathy in the face of the leviathan makes slavery feel less objectionable. Taking over the GOP may not be your favorite strategy, and it may feel dirty to associate yourself with a label that has been used by so many evil people, but know this: If we do not primarily unite behind the strategy Ron Paul outlined, this movement will return to the impotence and invisibility it had in 2006, and there's no telling how long it will take for another torchbearer to rekindle a sense of direction.

In other words - Ben Franklin's words - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die. Obviously, this doesn't mean, "Sacrifice your principles for unity" or sacrificing the rights of the individual for the strength of the collective...that's the fascist creed. What I'm talking about is different. I'm saying what Jefferson said: "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." We cannot afford to scatter.

[georgiaboy]

^standing ovation.^

[Butchie]

Thanks, Carlybee. I want the same thing everyone else wants: I want our liberty movement to grow in a sustainable way. I want us to win elections. And I want to make sure everyone has thought out the consequences down the road of taking this in a certain way. I know I'm not alone with these concerns and that's what keeps me fighting....at this point, I'm really *this* close to just shutting up, but I can't make myself do it.

Don't shut up, I'm not saying I agree with you, but keep speaking your mind, you're not saying anything bad. I just think where you're wrong on the strategy is this: I don't see it as a lack of education, well, actually I do, but the point is that's never going to change, you're never going to make the world grow 30 IQ points, people use the term "sheep", I actually think it's more along the lines of a wolfpack, you have the alpha male and everyone follows along, even when a new alpha male occassionaly takes charge independence doesn't break out, they all just fall in line behind the new lead male.

Sorry to say, most Americans are just followers, most people in all the world are just followers and they always will be, so to me the key is not to try and hope for a massive new wave of independent thought in your average GOP'er but rather to become the new Alpha Male, which we seem to be doing.