So why did Ron Paul go after Santorum more than Romney yesterday? Is it an alliance because Romney is a secret paleolibertarian, or is it a secret bargain so that Romney would make Ron or Rand Paul the VP nominee? Please. Ron Paul trained most of his fire yesterday on Santorum. When Perry was really hot, Paul trained more of his fire on Perry than on Romney. When Gingrich was really hot, Paul trained more of his fire on Gingrich than on Romney. That’s because of who Romney is and who Ron Paul wants to be. Romney is the establishment safe choice and he is actually running to be president. Ron Paul knows he isn’t “safe”, knows he isn’t getting the establishment nod, and he isn’t going to be president. What he is trying to be is the conservative alternative in the race and to redefine ”conservative” to include his combination of spending policies, monetary policies, drug policies, foreign policies, etc. But if he is going to get the real, authentic, liberty-loving, slot (or as much of it as can be gotten), he has to prevent any of the anti-Romneys from establishing themselves as real conservatives. That means he has to go at Perry, and Gingrich and Santorum depending on who is doing best. If any of them become the chief alternative to Romney, then Paul is left out in the cold. If the enduring “real conservative” in the race is the guy who has been spending the last six years warning about the threat of a Venezuela-Iran Axis, then Ron Paul’s mission to ideologically refashion the GOP hasn’t gone according to plan. So Paul needs to protect his space as the real conservative and to explain why the other so-called real conservatives are big spending, freedom grabbing, statist frauds. He doesn’t need to attack Romney much. No one believes Romney is the authentic conservative in the race. Paul doesn’t need to take Romney down. A two-man race against Romney (even though it would be a “losing” race) is the best that Paul can hope for, and he is doing his bit to make it happen.
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 8:23 PM
February 23rd, 2012 | 8:45 pm
[...] Ron Paul Is Behaving Rationally – First Things (blog) Posted in Ron Paul | Tags: behaving, first-things, romney, ron paul, santorum, secret-bargain, Things, trained-most /* [...]
February 23rd, 2012 | 8:47 pm
I can hardly wait for Virginia, where Romney and Paul are the ONLY TWO CANDIDATES on the Republican ballot.
That will tell us a lot.
February 23rd, 2012 | 8:49 pm
Thank you for a common sense explanation of Dr. Paul’s strategy. Why can’t the MSM get it right?
February 23rd, 2012 | 9:09 pm
Same mainstream media narrative “blah,blah,blah, Paul is unelectable, blah,blah,blah vote for a status quo candidate.”
It will likely come down to a two man race Paul vs Romney. In that case Paul has the libertarians, the disaffected democrats, the “anyone-but-romney” crowd and those who want the best chance of beating Obama. Ultimately the presidency will be decided by the swing states, where Paul outperforms Romney.
February 23rd, 2012 | 11:05 pm
Pete, as per usual, offers an astute observation of the strategy and tactics of the political actors we observe and analyze in pomocon aloofness. I speak only for myself in that description of pomoconservatism, and even then I speak ironically.
In this case, however, I think he actually offers a good defense of Ron Paul’s position from the point of view of what conservatism means in terms of the Republican party.
When Paul criticizes Gingrich or Santorum, he has bigger fish to fry with regard to what conservatism means in the Republican party, and–at least in terms of reliable numbers ranging from 12% to 20%–he is is making a case that becomes stronger and stronger as the campaign rolls on.
Whether this is good or bad for conservatism or the Republican Party, I do not know.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the Paulistas will bombard this site with invective in defense of the man and the cause they love–like the blah, blah, blah of Mr. AJ above.
A Ron Paul post may not be as much money for hits on this website as it may have been back in December, but it will still generate controversy.
This is a good thing.
If only the hits would consider what Pete is actually saying about Paul and his cause–because Pete’s right about Paul, I think. And this ain’t necessarily a bad thing either.
February 24th, 2012 | 8:02 am
This article is wrong. I like your enthusiasm & journalism-style writing, but you would have to be a pretty ignorant shrill to read this article and give it any credence. You can see from start to finish that this writer has not spent ANY time following any of the campaigns, attending any primary speeches, or physically watching any of the candidates interact on the campaign trail. Ron Paul is not aligned with Obamney. He has attacked Romney many times in debate this cycle and A LOT in the past. Today’s media is a helpless, brainwashed group that no longer serves its purpose to the American People, is controlled to the point where it is Fascist, & has no bearing on anything happening in the World. No longer do they have a positive impact on Humanity. We are Democrats from Pennsylvania. I am a father of two, an atheist, a veteran of two wars, & we voted for Obama. We changed our party 3 weeks ago so that we can vote for Dr. Paul in our April primary. He is your last chance, America. Wake up
February 24th, 2012 | 8:05 am
p.s. Paul has never bent, swayed or sold-out any piece of his position for any reason for 24 years. 31 total including breaks. Why would he start now? (PLEASE.)
February 24th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Pete, that’s exactly right! Despite Ron Paul’s (partially deserved) reputation for being eccentric, in this case it’s Santorum and his “movement conservative” friends who are peddling the conspiracy theories.
February 24th, 2012 | 10:54 am
Pete is exactly right once more.
February 24th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
“Paul has never bent, swayed or sold-out any piece of his position for any reason for 24 years. 31 total including breaks. Why would he start now?”
Well, other than publishing racist newsletters, defending their content and then later saying he was not aware of the content.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/22/ron-pauls-story-changes-on-racial-comments/
February 24th, 2012 | 8:19 pm
No John Presnell, it is part of the consistant narrative of marginalisation of any non status quo candidate. At first it was “Ron Paul is a joke” and the media as a whole tried to dismiss him outright. Then when he would go away, it switched to “yes Ron Paul exists, but he’ll never be president”. Its like a compulsory caveat journalists have to add to EVERY piece.
And why is it that anyone who expresses support for Ron Paul is labelled with an insulting epithet such as “Paulista”. Should I label you a “Spiliakosista” because you’re supporting the article writer? Perhaps you can call me an Amashista while you’re at it, because I support anyone who stands up for individual liberty and I will always call out those who manipulate others, distort the truth or regurgitate any of standard party lines of “the powers that be”.
I am not a “Ron Paul supporter”. I support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It just happens the only person aiming for the white house at this time who supports those values is Ron Paul.
February 24th, 2012 | 8:42 pm
Pete Spiliakos: Thanks, you just showed your true colors to the wrold whilst I was typing that last reply. Here’s the truth which you can find out for yourself if you look hard enough.
1. Ron Paul helped start a liberty action group, then moved on with other projects
2. After he’d left this group they started publishing a newsletter which they called “the ron paul report”
3. This newsletter (like this blog) allowed contributions from oped writers
4. Being a libertarian newsletter supporting the first amendment RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH they were not censored.
5. All the articles referred to by the mainstream media were written anonymously at the time and later revealed by the editor to be the work of a single contributor by the name of James B. Powell.
6. Ron Paul freely admitted that he was made aware of them several years after they were published and has repeatedly disavowed them.
Do some research of your own instead of (as my other post predicted) regurgitating what you are told. Just because you were told it a hundred times doesn’t make it true. As I said, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I did not know who he was until the major media outlets started making all these outrageous statements about him. I did a lot of research and found out every one of these things were either outright lies or willful distortions of the truth. This raised the obvious question, Why are they trying so hard to discredit the guy? The answer is also obvious: He is a threat to a multibillion dollar gravy train that a few very rich, very powerful men have a vested interest in. Do some research on who owns the media outlets. You’ll be surprised how few men own the vast majority.
February 24th, 2012 | 9:23 pm
“Ron Paul helped start a liberty action group, then moved on with other projects….After he’d left this group they started publishing a newsletter which they called “the ron paul report”
Ron Paul was an officer in the company that published the newsletters. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57345702-503544/ron-paul-disavows-racist-newsletters-under-his-name/
We have all read the defense that Ron Paul was too busy constantly delivering babies to even read the monthly newsletters that were being published in his name over a period of years or that he only read the ones without explicitly racist content. I imagine that people who really, really want to believe that will manage to convince themselves for a while.
“All the articles referred to by the mainstream media were written anonymously at the time and later revealed by the editor to be the work of a single contributor by the name of James B. Powell.”
You should tell Rep. Paul, because he claims not to know who wrote the relevant articles.
“Ron Paul freely admitted that he was made aware of them several years after they were published and has repeatedly disavowed them.”
We’ve already seen him a) try to defend the statements as taken out of context and then b) disavow the statements.
“Being a libertarian newsletter supporting the first amendment RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH they were not censored.” So Ron Paul and Associates published racist articles under the Ron Paul Banner in order to demonstrate his commitment to free speech rather than to market himself to bigots Gotcha.
February 25th, 2012 | 7:27 pm
AJ, your doing a parody of Ron Paul supporters, right?
February 25th, 2012 | 8:49 pm
I agree with Pete’s original article. But I think AJ has the stronger argument on the Ron Paul articles. You exagerate agency authority when it comes to a newsletter. Do we really need disclaimers?
In any case given that the primary line of attack on Paul has been those articles, I think the american people are “climbing the wall of worry” so to speak. This is fancy Wall Street jibberish for the notion that if the market comes out with news you have already priced in, you can rally off it. Ron Paul has been a congressman since 1997, he has run three presidential campaigns, and gone thru 20 debates this season. When the focus is on a ghost written newsletter from the 1980′s, it is a wonder the Ron Paul supporters aren’t praising your name and telling you to sing louder. Ron Paul supporters should want this to be the Case in Chief. It shows that you are afraid to use ample youtube material from Ron Paul’s own mouth. Ron Paul and Romney tend to make use of fresher, hearsay complient statements. Ninja’ing Santorum with his own words. The Crusades, no birth control for rape victims, et al. But if any candidate could plausibly be attacked for use of surrogates, it would have to be Romney, you can start with top flight ones like Chris Christie, to the lesser known ones that show up to heckle Santorum. So if you filmed a Santorum event and caught on film a Romney surrogate being rude, I would consider it on par with the newsletter scandal.
News Flash: Ron Paul surrogates display poor judgement in the 1980′s, and compare unfavorably to the proffesionalism of Christie.
Ok, look I think AJ’s argument is stronger, but if that is the Case in Chief, I am conceeding it and immediately moving for summary judgement. No use in contesting a material fact that is immaterial.
February 25th, 2012 | 11:03 pm
John, good to see you here. Ron Paul isn’t close enough to the nomination for a “case in chief” (in the way that Santorum wasn’t close enough around Christmas), and until he wins a couple of primaries he probably won’t be – even though he has gotten and will continue to get delegates. This whole portion of the discussion started with “Paul has never bent, swayed or sold-out any piece of his position…” and I pointed out that Paul published racist articles in his newsletters and then defended the content and then claimed to have been unaware of it and condemned it. So we have publishing racist material then defending it, then disavowing it and claiming not to know who wrote it (even though the material went along with a strategy of recruiting racists for libertarianism strategy articulated by a close and continuing Ron Paul associate.” That fall a bit short of never having “bent.” That is all. I would be surprised if Santorum turned out to have published purposely racist inflammatory newsletters over a period of years (as opposed to statements made by someone on his staff speaking for themselves or off the cuff)in the years since his first election to Congress. I would certainly find such a discovery to be news and big news at that.
February 25th, 2012 | 11:22 pm
In reply to Pete:
“We’ve already seen him a) try to defend the statements as taken out of context and then b) disavow the statements.”
I will take your word for it, but again I am bothered by your singular focus on this red herring of historical debris.
You have a candidate in Paul who via the teachings of Von Mises and all of Austrian Economics presents a consistent and semi-coherent account of free markets, the monetary system, the cause of wars, the inner workings of the federal reserve post-1971, with an accompaning and much lacking moral critique of deficit spending, and you want to focus on an aspect of the past, that has absolutely no capacity to be binding upon the day to day lives of any american, ever.
In addition if we are focusing upon something that could be tangential to the lives of americans, we could point out that there is nothing per se wrong about doing this:
“We’ve already seen him a) try to defend the statements as taken out of context and then b) disavow the statements.”
Do you mean to suggest to the american people that lawyers can, should and do have a duty when argueing on behalf of a client to argue in the alternative, but that congressmen who write the laws cannot do so?
Behind a veil of ignorance even, in legistlating/articulating a principle for employment law in keeping with loyalty to your surrogates, why shouldn’t your first reaction be to defend and charitably interpret the work product of the author, while also maintaining the american distinction of individualism?
In fact you pick upon AJ uncharitably. When AJ says: “Being a libertarian newsletter supporting the first amendment RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH they were not censored.” He essentially is speaking to the american distinction of individualism. Certainly there are difficulties inherent in the idea of surrogacy and agency when it comes to speaking in such a way as to bind an institution or another individual. Does Santorum bind Catholicism/Conservatism? Does he bind God?
The answer on a Libertarian basis, and the answer recognized in most jurisdictions of american labor law, is that freedom of speech in some respects means that the author does not bind the organization or anyone larger than himself. When there is high risk that an employee will or can bind the institution, his freedom of speech is curtailed. The Author of the paulinista newsletter might have been speaking for Paul via indicia of a letterhead or association in the minds of certain readers. So maybe the author was speaking under color of Paul…But Libertarians by virtue of being Libertarian reject full alienation of work product. In fact contractually all true libertarians demand that they retain copyright. AJ is simply recognizing the Libertarian standard. Each writter binds himself, and in the end speaks for himself only/primarily.
Loyalty demands a plausible defense of your surrogates if a charitable interpretation is available and is a duty. But there is also a duty to repudiate, and dissent if the speech is against reason or the weight of evidence, as you see it, and a firm respect for individualism and freedom of speech means that you not only think for yourself but speak for yourself.
So under the facts as they arose Paul may even have had duties to act as he did.
It is even possible that he reacted unethically, I am not certain of or up to date on the facts surrounding the non-issue.
But the remote possibility of unethical conduct on the part of Ron Paul, if a key issue would certainly have me “climbing the wall the of worry”.
February 26th, 2012 | 6:17 am
Thanks for the courteous reply. I double posted before reading yours, but it seems I partially anticipated your thrust.
I don’t really know the full past, but it is undeniable common knowledge that Republicans of various stripe, persued a racist strategy in order to win the south.
If it really mattered to me, I would never vote republican again.
Certainly libertarianish property arguements were used to oppose elements of the Civil Rights Act, but Libertarian property arguments have always cut against the enforceability of racial covenants in land use. So there was a blending that occured. I can’t tell you how many ways there are to remix ideas, I can tell you Ron Paul is against most of them. You have these cultural ideologies that get blended together and persist over time and mean strange things and unexpected complications for my more analogical view. Historical accident is huge, but I was born in 1980 and can’t possibly understand it all.
I agree enough with Justice Thomas to consider the constitutional and principle libertarian position be be one that is color blind on race, plus or minus case/fact specific persuasion via a brief by a solid ACLU attorney here or there.
If some libertarians tried a racist strategy in the south, then in my opinion it was almost “God’s work.” First of all because Libertarians like Paul will never actually win the presidency. It is always more about shaping opinion and principle. I can’t imagine it is or was a high paying job. It requires a high level of true believerness. If Libertarians tried to win over racists, I almost consider it evangelism for an ideology where race really doesn’t matter. I am not sure it is possible, but folks of faith will always hold out hope. Some portion, and maybe a very important part of evangelism is convincing yourself (true for me anyways).
The way I understand it Libertarians don’t do so hot in the south. I would look at Maine where Ron Paul almost won, to get a better feel for the demographic. In fact if you are going to ask why Romney and Paul are friendly it is possible there is some cultural overlap. The small sample size of med school students I know are evenly split between Obama, Romney and Paul. Paul does a lot worse in the law school, where Obama is ahead of Romney. Among Law students who retread some derivative of institutional racism in re: the civil rights act and the republican southern strategy 100% of them support Obama tepidly, and Kucinich more warmly. Interestingly enough there is some Paul support from the Kucinich side. “Liberaltarians” are not exactly a myth, but you could just sat ACLU. It is highly plausible that Paul’s “racism” damns him strongly with the Kucinich side. But then ironically this would make him more “authentically” conservative? Your argument as I read it, would have this general effect via this mechanism.
It could work quite effectively to cut off a Ron Paul third party run. On the other hand minus this, I think Paul could pick up as many democrats and independents who might break Obama as he could republicans who might break Romney.
I don’t really deny your point about confirmation bias. “I imagine that people who really, really want to believe that will manage to convince themselves for a while.”
The thing is I think for a while can be a really long time. We all believe what we want to believe, it is just more dangerous for certain occupations than for others. The more dangerous it is for your occupation, the more likely you are to be independent, I believe. Being republican or democrat can involve buying into some dangerously convoluted B.S. At least some portion of this is negotiation leverage. But confirmation bias is always a dangerous road, unless you are in the business of selling it, then it is still dangerous, because you actually think you can juggle and “surgically” manipulate it. At best if all goes as plans you make millions as a “historian” like Newt. At worst you split your soul into pieces and end up like Lord Voldemort (but this is obviously just silly kid fiction:).
You also forgot to mention that from the Romney side, there is very little reason to fear Paul. Romney can even give Paul supporters the bennefit of the doubt in the caucuses. I suspect some good will was generated in this way. Paul supporters do stay late. No one I know, knows the true delegate count. Few folks understand it is a process, subject to politics. Romney and Paul are more sophisticated on this front.
Romney does not fear Paul delegates, he can easily win even if he doesn’t have enough on the first balloting (I think Romney will win by a lot, unless he loses Michigan). Paul delegates might never vote for Romney, but they also won’t vote for Santorum, or Newt. The Santorum and Newt delegates will break for Romney first, if for no other reason than national defense, and party unity. Romney fears Santorum more. If Santorum were a close second in delegates with victories in Michigan and Ohio, the convention would be an absolute mess, or incredibly educational (if you look at it as I do).
Regardless Paul is going to have a mandate of sorts for his views, and won’t really be subject to dilution. Those votes are going to a pure libertarian position, or as damn near one as is legistlatively possible. But Paul might not want Santorum voters per se, or the message dilution of the Anyone But Romney crowd you suggest. Some endorsements are worse, than the votes they might yield.
Paul is contesting the political equivalent of trademark in “conservatism” with his exchange with Santorum, but he is actually saying something radically different in substance. There should be “no likelyhood of consumer confusion” as they say.
So Paul I think is explaining why the other so-called real conservatives are big spending, freedom grabbing, statist frauds. But if this is the grounds of the argument Paul wins.
“freedom grabbing” and “statist frauds” seem a bit reactionary as libertarian rhetoric is inclined to get…but Paul already owns authentic libertarianism.
Your argument is like framing a burger joint as an establishment with billions served represented by the colors red and yellow and I’m lovin’ it. McDonald’s wins everytime, but it isn’t the only burger joint in town, and Ron Paul certainly isn’t when it comes to conservatism.
If it is a competition for a certain evangelical and catholic world view of folks who go to church or mass weekly and exit polls reveal self identify as conservatives who reject Mitt Romney and demand to “have it your way”, then suddenly Ron Paul’s arches while sharing colors is stuck between two buns with red lettering proclaiming burger king.
Consider the ramifications on the question of policeing the brand vs. Freedom of speech.
Presenting the facts as you do, it looks pretty bad for Ron Paul. But the premise that a politician must control the message of all of his loosely affiliated surrogates, ends up being “freedom grabbing”. We end up thinking of Ron Paul supporters as trained political opperatives bound by a contract. A similar mistake was made and was observable in depictions of the tea party generally. All of its members spoke in a cacaphony, and you could selectively hunt for the racists/the tin foil hats/or the crazies. In doing so we succumbed to the ever present danger of confirmation bias. An easy and perhaps efficient sorting process? We cherry picked to get the right “party admissions” and then moved on. We did the same thing to the occupy movement by the way, and that is the great danger of any unorganized movement/response. Namely staying on message. You need someone/policy to control the message, but someone/policy who controls the message is “freedom grabbing”. The non “freedom grabbing” standard is every individual speaks only for himself and you discount indicia of authority. As you put more weight upon broader authority, and melt this into a finding/consumer confusion of implied agency (as some idiots do when they attribute to Obama/progressivism EVERYTHING, anyone with a favorable bumper sticker ever said…), you take part in “freedom grabbing” and support policies which directly end up restricting the freedom of speech of certain gov. or corporate employees.
Sometimes even “freedom grabbing” is good or necessary, and in the last debate Santorum himself tried to make defenses that explained a political reality that went beyond the “boiler plate” if consistent Conservatism/Libertarianism of Ron Paul.
Paul didn’t get where he is at by being Santorum or vice versa. Both can be authentic “conservatism”, if by “conservatism” you mean “hamburger joint” and not “McDonalds”. If anything is clear it is that they can’t be the same franchise.
We can litigate the past, and increase without measure or principle the branding of the politician to include random commenters who “seem” to be favorable to a candidate. Or we can impose a statute of limitations and narrow the scope to the actual positions articulated by the candidates themselves. You are generally very good at this Pete.
Or we can try to do both and get away with it:) But then you aren’t climbing the wall of worry, but tumbling from the heights of confidence, (what happens when you bake in good news that doesn’t pan out). Consider just how fickle the voters are right now. Even if drawn from different backgrounds Ron Paul supporters are the least fickle of the bunch.
February 26th, 2012 | 11:13 am
John, I really only have time and strength for the first couple of paragraphs so…”I don’t really know the full past, but it is undeniable common knowledge that Republicans of various stripe, perused a racist strategy in order to win the south.” For the purpose of clarity, might we restrict this conversation to presidential candidates who published newsletters that included such thoughts as 90-95 of African American men in Washington DC are criminal or semi-criminal and then defended the racist comments as taken out of context or otherwise hold those candidates to the same (very low) standard?
“I am bothered by your singular focus on this red herring of historical debris.” I am amused that you can’t seem to keep straight that this portion of the conversation was a result of discussing a particular exaggeration of Paul’s virtues.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact