How good is Bob Cesca’s post on Ron Paul? So good that I’m actually linking to HuffPo.
The word “cult” is often employed in political contests, but seldom in recent history has it been more appropriate than when describing the so-called Ron Paul Revolution. Specifically, Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination (and he doesn’t really want to); if a miracle happens and he actually does win the nomination and, subsequently, the presidency, he has no chance to successfully govern; and his libertarianism is pure hocus-pocus science fiction, evidenced by the fact that it’s never been successfully implemented. Ever. But Ron Paul’s supporters don’t know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects.
[…]
The election of Ron Paul is a minor conundrum compared with implementing his libertarian ideas. If we presuppose that he wins and then achieves any of his proposed changes to the system in the face of a divided electorate, few working coalitions and no party support in Congress, those policies would absolutely crush the economy and, ultimately, the very “liberty” which Ron Paul cultists repeat like hiccups in response to any challenges to their leader.
[…]
Among other monikers, Ron Paul fancies himself a “constitutionalist,” but that strict adherence to the Constitution ends with the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, according to its explicit powers enumerated in Article III, decided that the 14th Amendment includes a right to privacy and, thus, the right for a woman to have an abortion. I fail to understand how constitutionalists and those who cling so dearly to the ideals of limited government and “liberty” can so casually and oppressively order strict government regulations dictating what occurs within the bodies of every woman of child-bearing age.
Furthermore, with the rolling back of the Civil Rights Act, entire sectors of the free market would be free to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender. At the state and local level, we would see an inevitable return of Jim Crow laws that allowed, among other things, poll taxes andneo-slavery, and so the growing American minority population would find itself trapped in a new American apartheid without any recourse for justice.
But, you know, “liberty!”
[…]
See, Ron Paul isn’t a candidate. He’s a meme. Much like a popular YouTube video, Twitter hashtag or literary blog metaphor, if you’re aware of it, you’re savvy — you’re one of them. Ron Paul is a shibboleth for nihilistic hipsters. If you can work “Ron Paul” and “liberty!” into a tweet, you’re one of them. You’re anti-establishment. People who are devoted to Ron Paul appear to be more interested in the fantastical, fictitious idea of President Ron Paul than the realistic manifestation of President Ron Paul.
Read the whole thing level: off the charts.
The beauty of the article is that it completely and accurately diagnoses the Ron Paul fandom. It isn’t rational — no matter how “rational” the Ronulans style themselves. It’s not really a cult of personality, as Ron Paul has no personality other than vaguely menacing crank handing out zines on the corner. It’s a fandom. It’s based on the idea that Paul is Liberty Incarnate, and that if he just wins, then we’ll all be free. It’s why articles that state facts about Paul are met with incredulous posts by Paulbots demanding that the authors go Google Ron Paul, because if they just read about the man’s genius, they’d see that these concerns about civil rights and women’s rights and economics and isolationism are wrong, because Ron Paul is the Constitution, man.
It’s not rational. It’s just something to mutter in a corner while seeking purity. Ronulans don’t support Ron Paul, the man. They support Ron Paul, the idea. And fortunately for all of us, he’ll never get elected president, so none of us will have to live in the world that Ron Paul, the man, would lead us to.
But…but…but…Ron Paul is truth, man!
But what system has “prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects?”* We’ve done some fairly bad things to achieve this system and continue to do them in order to maintain it. Furthermore, we’ve had some horrendous side-effects with this system. There’s nothing wrong with questioning fundamentally how this system works.
Abortion Issue:
from a progressive point of view, is he really more of a crank than any of the other Republicans ? Don’t most Republicans advocate leaving abortion up to the states?
Civil Rights:
I think this is the authors strongest point. Paul defiantly isn’t in the mainstream here. However, I do question the author’s assumption that without federal laws banning discrimination states would just start discriminating again. I suspect we would see more open discrimination but I doubt we would see them at same level as the pre-civil rights era society.
Economic Issues:
I can understand why progressives don’t like Paul on minority economic issues, but I don’t understand the hostility on the banking issues. What makes Paul so wrong about how our banking system works and the best way to correct it?
*BTW, how are we to compare different systems throughout time anyway?
I am a little fed up with people of any political stripe who think that Roe invented a right to privacy. It didn’t. That right was invented, or upheld, depending on your political leanings, much earlier in Eisenstadt and Griswold. Roe merely applied those lessons to abortion.
And no, Paul’s Constitutionalism doesn’t stop with the 14th Amendment. It stops much earlier. With the 4th, if you believe that (say) it’s not all right for your state government to kick in your bedroom door and arrest your wife for sodomy because she gave you a blowjob. With the 7th, if you think that people are indeed entitled to a right to trial by jury. And then there’s his belief that we should gut the authority of the courts so they have no chance on ruling on any social issues in ways Ron Paul doesn’t like.
Ron Paul raises millions of dollars every 4 years to almost run for President.
Don’t tell me 2012 could finally be the year someone figures out this formula.
His grift however looks quite convoluted compared to Sarah Palin’s, which is to raise even more while not running for President.
@Wade-
Yes, but most don’t want to do so by 1. Declaring fetuses people, 2. Overturning Roe, and 3. Making that law non-reviewable by the courts. Which is Paul’s plan. That this would set a tremendously dangerous precedent that could have horrific consequences for civil liberties? Icing on the cake.
Texas is currently trying to get around Voting Rights Act rules related to the way they drew their districts, a redistricting map that a federal judge held was designed to reduce the voting power of Latinos and African Americans. No, clearly no state would try to discriminate against anyone without federal intervention.
Because his answer — eliminate regulations, all of them, immediately — is like handing an arsonist a can of gasoline and a match.
You’re welcome.
This is entirely in line with the take I’ve had on him from the beginning. He’s not running for President with the expectation of actually winning. And I’ll agree that there’s no way he could govern. Not only are some of his ideas truly disconnected from reality, but I personally see no advantage in swapping one President trying (and failing) to govern on the basis of extreme principles for another. But what he IS trying to do is get his ideas in front of a much larger audience than the usual cohort of Paul-bots with the expectation that some of them, and some of the principles behind them, will gain some traction among the electorate and force the eventual GOP nominee to pick up some of them. We’ll see how successful that effort is in November.
Jeff Fecke:
It should be mentioned that Paul would like to put an end to fractional reserve banking. Some would consider that to be the most stringent of banking regulations. To me this is the most extreme of Paul’s views on banking regulations and the one that is least talked about.
I wasn’t stating that states would never discriminate again. I was questioning the degree to which states would discriminate. Put differently, to what degree have we changed since the 60s? If federal laws disappeared would we see a return to segregation and suppression of voting? If the answer to that is yes, then people have not changed much since the 60s.