G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Some people seem to have misunderstood exactly what the Ron Paul campaign is all about. I don’t fault them for misunderstanding Paul or his campaign as he is very clearly making a run for the Presidency and doing all of the campaigning and fundraising that goes with that.
Larry Auster has made several posts about Paul’s shifting alliances and his cozying up to whichever group provides the most political expediency. Auster compares Paul to Murray Rothbard, the famed anarcho-libertarian who has heavily influenced Paul. Rothbard is famous for sidling up to various left-wing student factions in the 1960s and for shifting his stance on immigration during the early 1990s to come more in line with the Pat Buchanan paleoconservative portion of the right wing. From Auster’s site:
“At the time of the ‘racist’ newsletters,” the reader writes, “Paul was building bridges to the David Duke crowd. Now he is appealing to a left-wing, OWS, anti-Iraq War crowd, so he is pro-immigrant, anti-anti-Muslim, anti-DADT, etc.”
If we look at Paul as strictly a viable option for the Presidency, this would pose a problem. But if we look at Paul as a messenger – which is how I view him – then we should not be surprised or taken aback by his strategies to leverage various alliances to spread his core message of fiscal stability, liberty over equality, limiting bureaucracy, ending wars, and, most importantly, auditing/ending the Federal Reserve. Whether we accept the entire package that Paul offers – and I don’t (characterizing the justice system as racist is a political ploy and ignores statistics) – we have to recognize that he is injecting arguments into the debate that nobody would be discussing. I think Paul telegraphs his long-term view (read: non-viable politicism) here:
“There’s a different understanding now. There’s a lot of people talking about free-market economics rather than Keynesian welfarism and interventionism,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.” “There is an intellectual revolution going on with the young people. There are people who have sat on the sidelines for years.”
“It has not been translated into an absolute political change,” he said. “But believe me, the intellectual revolution is going on, and that has to come first before you see the political changes. That’s where I’m very optimistic.”
I’ve mentioned being post-political. By that I simply mean that I – and many Ron Paul supporters – are less interested in the man and more interested in the message. This creates a situation where I support Ron Paul but don’t support Ron Paul. I have a Ron Paul bracelet and a couple of t-shirts, but I don’t actually want him to win anything. Why? First, I think of the core ideas he has been pushing would suffer much like a cake brought out of the oven too quickly. Such ideas have to bake in to the electorate; they can’t be forced by fiat. Ron Paul is part of the baking process, and in order for his ideas to seep in to the main, he has to at least play at wanting to stay in that big giant oven known as the electoral process.
And Paul signals his true intentions with meta statements rather than political ones. He’s optimistic about political changes and ideas – not about what specifically he will do for the country once he is in office. Of any candidates, he has a truly long-term – post-political, post-electoral – view.