History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Paul may get one or two million votes in the primaries. If one in 1000 go on become serious libertarians that would be a good outcome. But serious libertarians read beyond one corner of the movement and often end up far from where they started. They read Rand, Rothbard, Reason, Cato, Heinlein, etc.
So I wouldn't worry about too many being tied to any one corner.
The simple fact is that Paul won't be elected, regardless of what happens. If it's our last chance, it's already gone by. Voting for Paul isn't about making him president, it's about putting libertarian ideas before the public; and he's doing it badly, tying them in too many ways to a really bad kind of conservatism.
Paul's recognition figures were pretty low last I looked, but the positive/negatives still looked very bad.
I would never vote for Kucinich. Why do you think that most anti-war voters will support Paul? From the point of view of many voters, Paul's laudable support for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq are combined with unplatable views. While many of those who have given up on the war may now be willing to generealize that to a Paul-like strict noninterventionism, I suspect many do not. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem. Paul's "further right than the rest" view about the role of government is unlikely to be popular with most anti-war (or pro-war) voters.
That he has 20% positives and can get nearly 10% to vote for him in open Republican primaries is great!
It is a tremendous accomplishment.
The issue where his position is most popular among Republican primary voters (and the general public) is immigration. But I don't think he can effectively compete for those votes in the Republican primary. Most of the candidates take an anti-immigrant stance. So it won't help him "win."
And I don't see it as useful for building the libertarian movement either. Bring in people whose focus is an issue where realistically, some libertarians compromise to accomodate their position? Or, less realisticly, they are partisans of one side in an area of theoretical controversy?
My view of politics is that the proper goal is to get as many votes as possible subject to the constraint that you are running on a libertarian message. That does point to victory, but if that isn't possible, the more votes, the more attention that will be received by the message in the future.
As long as Paul is perceived as being the small-government, constitutionalist, anti-war, Republican, the more votes he gets, the better.
I don't see any value to Paul getting votes as "the anti-immigrant" candidate. I don't think his actual position on immigration is that bad, but emphasizing it doesn't do much good.
As I said in another thread, "protecting jobs" in the context of attacking the W.T.O. or Nafta, is intolerable to me. Well, so is "protecting jobs" in the context of stopping illiegal immigration, but I haven't seen that yet. Both are anti-libertarian propaganda. (In fact, it is about restricting competition to increase or maintain the share of income received by some Americans while leaving the rest of Americans are smaller share of a smaller total income. And, of course, focusing only on what is "seen" and ignoring what is "unseen.")
The newsletter controversy is a tragedy. But remember, the leading libertarian spokesman of the day is saying that libertarians cannot be racists and that MLK is his hero.
I think it is clear that racists can be libertarians. I believe that Paul's version of individualist values are inconsistent with racism, and it is those values that motivate his libertarianism. And while I strongly prefer candidates to say only things that are true, I am not unhappy that we can turn Paul's statement around to mean, "if you are a racist, you are not a libertarian." I have seen any number of libertarians make the same (false) statement recently. While false, I think the political consquences are good.
Similarly, I have too much trouble overlooking MLK's support for an expanded welfare state to call him a hero. I appreciate his opposition to the Vietnam War. His key role in overturning Jim Crow and securing voting rights for black Southerners was great! Frankly, protecting the right of today's segregationists to participate in the market as they choose is low on my list of priorities. So, MLK's legacy on that account isn't a major concern of mine. And I like the political consequences of Paul celebrating MLK as hero.
One element of the "paleo" turn involved reaching out to racists. Many of us believe that the newsletters are an artifact of that effort. Paul's response to the controversy is working against that strategy. Good!
Let us not forget that the unreconstructed Rothbardians have been supporting Paul for decades now. Paul was convinced to run and he has done great things. They deserve credit for supporting someone who has now made a very significant contribution.
I do not believe it is a question of people rejecting Ron Paul it is a question of people not knowing him or what is a stake but everyday more and more people are learning. I do not believe the media and I do not believe the polls. If seventy percent of the population opposes the war wanting us out immediately and Paul is the only candidate advocating that then he has a chance. No one, including me. says it will be easy but that fact does not remove our obligation to try. Think about this all those people donating money and going to meet ups most of them first learned about Dr. Paul last summer when he was receiving almost no attention. Now, he is much more prominent and the opportunity to learn is much greater and it is growing.
I still plan to vote for Ron Paul on Saturday, but it is hard for me to do so based on any argument about what will happen if we don't elect him.
It think support close to 10% in the Republican primaries is _wonderful_. While I hoped for a 3rd in NH and over 10%, I didn't think 8% was bad.
But it is no where close to getting the nomination, much less the general election.
Do you look at the polls? A majority of Republicans say they will never vote for him. In head-to-heads against the leading Democrats, he loses worse than Goldwater. His unfavorables are about twice his favorables.
It is really bad if you are looking for victory. But he is getting like 20% favorables. I think that is great! Really.
I still think that nearly all of these favorables must be based upon the anti-war libertarian Republican message. (It is only in the early primary states where he has actually spent money that people see the anti-immigrant stuff.)
Now, I would think it wonderful if he won the nomination and did as well as Goldwater in the general. Sure, a landslide defeat, but 38% of the vote is a lot better than 1%, the usual libertarian talley.
I have no interest in finding some Republican who can beat the Democrats. Polls showing McCain might beat Clinton are just scary. Only the possiblity of a victory by Guiliani could be worse.
I have heard talk of Paul winning a brokered convention. That is so incredible. Which of the other Republicans are going to throw their support to Paul?
Paul can only win the nomination by bringing in enough delegates to win on the first ballot. Any brokering that goes on would at best be a "stop Paul" effort that would succeed.
The only value of a Paul campaign is promoting a libertarian message.