Uh, remember when I talked about thinking before writing. Turns out that this applies beyond the Internet.
If the New Republic story "Angry White Man" is true, Ron Paul's campaign will face a very different reception henceforth. Would be nice if they'd apply the same effort to Democrats, but hey, this is the media and you can read the Pew surveys as well as I can.
This will get media play, and the interesting thing I'll be watching will be how his supporters react. Some of the arguments he makes, and which TNR quotes, are defensible. A focus on the rights of the AIDS-infected, without consideration for the rights of those they could infect sans disclosure, killed quite a few people. Other arguments are less defensible, and the overall tone is definitely something to give one pause. Along with the question of why the continuation of that conspiracist tone and outlook has found such a receptive social and media audience these days. Now that the story is out, and the topic is on the table, the question of what happens next gets even more interesting... and, in some ways, more revealing.
Ron Paul's utterly unmerited popularity - such as it is - confirms my belief that if you don't know political history your political opinions are worth exactly nothing.
Ron Paul was a national figure long before the newsletters that TNR cites; he was elected to congress in 1976 (the noxious Lew Rockwell was on his staff). He was a regular on talking head shows in the 80s.
Anyone who listened to Dr. Ron Raul for ten minutes should have recognized him for what he was - a flake. People who seriously propose the abolition of the IRS and the FBI are FLAKES, period. Such people can contribute to and enrich public debate, but as national leaders they are not an option. If you're a flake, it doesn't matter if you have other ideas that are good.
I never read his newsletter and I wasn't aware of the things that TNR (and others) have cited. He didn't say things like that on Firing Line. But even being completely innocent of that, he was already disqualified as a serious person.
These defects should have been obvious from the start of present Ron Paul "revolution". It is disgusting that so many libertarians bought into this guy, cheek and jowl with the anti-Semitic left and right-wingers. Especially those clowns at Reason, whose historical memory apparently goes back to Police Academy 6. But then, having some years of experience with the libertarian movement, I can attest that it is in no danger of being taken over by rocket scientists.
The best part of libertarianism is its positive and optimistic spirit. Conspiracy sick-think - which is all about futility and paranoia, not freedom and free minds - is utterly anathema to that spirit. Especially racist sick-think. THIS OUGHT TO BE OBVIOUS.
They have not been tricked or betrayed by Ron Paul. They just can't tell the difference between him and what they themselves have become.
Look, the republican primaries have to have a comfortable percentage of sideshow to them. Since Alan Keyes is sitting this one out and Pat Buchanon jumped ship last cycle, some new blood was needed to keep the kooks distracted.
The way I see it this works out for everybody. The real candidates dont have to play house keeping with the nitwit & psycho contingent (since they are syphoned off), the flakes feel like they are making progress and being heard (even if its an illusion), and I am endlessly entertained. Win-win-win.
Words to live by. I haven’t followed much of the sideshow that is the Ron Paul 2008 campaign but I did read some of the comments on TNR and Reason’s sites about the newsletter and something struck me about how some of his defender’s rationalized the association. One commenter said (paraphrase) “well these people were completely rational about stuff like foreign policy and cutting government spending” and so they apparently thought it was okay to “overlook” some of the race stuff.
The problem is that other people WON’T overlook some of the nastier things by the people that you’ve welcomed into your coalition (nor should you) but it will instead be used to tar you all by association. As Joe pointed out, some of things that TNR pounced on are defensible but others are not. There’s probably also a lot of other things in those newsletters that wasn’t picked for the TNR piece because it wasn’t sufficiently “juicy” that is now going to be tainted by association because it was in a newsletter that made racist comments about blacks and promoted all sorts of wild conspiracy theories.
If the libertarian Republicans (of which I’m one) wanted to make an impact, they should have begged Steve Forbes to run again as a limited government, free-market candidate. That at least had an effect of getting other candidates to talk about free-market reforms to education, Social Security, health care, and the like. Ron Paul’s candidacy will have zero effect on the Republican establishment because no one will want to be associated with him because of the sorts of people that he has associated himself with.
#1:
Thank you, Glen. That's the most succinct statement of the nut of the problem that I've seen, and it's spot on.
My fear is that by the time the Ronulans are done, us lib-Rs are going to have to stop the 'with a small l' disclaimers and dump the word entirely, forever tarnished with the conspiracy flavor. Anyone got a catchy new phrase so we can become as 'famed' as the neocons ;)
[ tag fixed -- M.F. ]
Sorry Libertarians. You are now tagged as "Ronulans" with all the negatives that go with it, and won't escape it either, just as "neocons" like me won't escape the Iraq War and how it was not like Kosovo or the Gulf War.
Libertarian now to most people means: racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy nutcase, anti-American, "blame America first" hard-left-right loon. This may not be fair, but as Mr. Dooley said, politics ain't bean-bag.
The only way out of that would be for Libertarians to go after and attack Ron Paul AND his followers as being a betrayal of all Libertarians stand for. Since the decentralized and cash-poor nature of Libertarians makes that impossible, Libertarians are stuck with being Ronulans in the minds of the public and press and pretty much everyone else.
In an age of media and info overload, that's how it is.
As far as Ron Paul goes, his reflexive anti-Americanism probably DOES tap into a great deal of Libertarianism. His anti-American, "Gulf of Tonkin" comments (when the US Navy captains did nothing in the face of Iranian provocation) and reflexive taking the part of Iran got big applause from his supporters. Who seem motivated as much as near-hatred of America and American power as they do anything else. [In that they resemble yuppie-scale Democrats of the Nutroots.]
Fox News's Frank Luntz mentioned that in his focus group, Ron Paul's comments got the lowest (ever recorded) ratings when he ranted about people wanting a "war on Iran" and how the speed boats were no threat to the US ships (remember the Cole Ronulan #1?)
Huckabee found the easiest thing to do to prop himself up was attack the lunatic Ron Paul's distaste for Israel and suggestion we stop supporting Israel. Romney got a shot in on how he ought to stop reading Ahmadnutjob's press releases.
This is also the Libertarian image -- anti-American, siding with Iran, and hating the US Military. I doubt anyone in the Republican Party will have anything to do with them now. Attacking Libertarian ideas and people will also IMHO prove to be very popular among Republicans. If the debate was any indication.
by the time the Ronulans are done.
I really like this one thanks a lot. It is perfect and it gave me a great little chuckle. There is nothing like well placed humor to put things in perspective.
It would appear that TNR has pierced the Ronulan cloaking device....
Ronulans? He'll always be Obi-Ron to me:
CraigsList
#8 from PD Shaw at 5:24 pm on Jan 12, 2008
returning to the gold standard is the answer.
Gold is now over 900 an ounce. I think maybe we have already returned to the Gold Standard.