Which candidate are you closest to?
I take it all back about Ron Paul.
Take the test.
Rather strangely i came furthest from Fred Thompson.
-
LINKS
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
I take it all back about Ron Paul.
Take the test.
Rather strangely i came furthest from Fred Thompson.
I’m closest to Ron Paul, although he is a little too conservative, coming neutral on the social liberalism axis.
I disagree with at least one of the questions analysis, that being abortion. Ron Paul is personally against abortion, but he believes it to be a state issue. A Ron Paul Presidency would not look to make abortion illegal at a federal level.
It is a shame that the questioniare didn’t address centralisation versus federalism, although it would be difficult to address that on a 2-axis basis.
Comment by Brendan Halfweeg | January 9, 2008
Yeh Ron Paul for me too. No real surprises. Although I’m next in line to Rudy. I must have messed up on how the question regarding my feelings for opportunistic, parasitic vermin. My bad.
Comment by Ben | January 9, 2008
PS Pommy is your blog dead and buried?
Comment by Ben | January 9, 2008
Ben - hibernating, Ben. hibernating. that’s a bit harsh on Rudy.
Comment by pommygranate | January 9, 2008
Hmm…middle of the libertarian square, most like Ron Paul, but least like Obama?
Comment by Mark Hill | January 9, 2008
Ditto.
Comment by Andy | January 10, 2008
Is this one of those tests where the answer is always Ron Paul?
Comment by nicholas gray | January 10, 2008
Nicholas
And people accuse me of being a Ron Paul cynic!!
Comment by pommygranate | January 10, 2008
No, I answered contrary to my beliefs and got Hilary. She’s evil!
Comment by Mark Hill | January 10, 2008
I thought Ron Paul (like Mike Gravel) was a refreshing addition to the election contest, but the more I learn about just what kind of libertarian he is, the less I like him. You might want to read what one libertarian has to say about the recent revelations.
Comment by Trinifar | January 10, 2008
I got closest to Ron Paul, of course, but almost got Obama instead. Given that Obama is listed as the most progressive candidate that doesn’t surprise me.
Of course stricter gun control is actually considered “socially liberal” when really it’s quite a socially conservative stance.
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 10, 2008
Trinifar, Ron Paul isn’t the best libertarian candidate out there. But he’s the only libertarian candidate in this election.
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 10, 2008
Trinifar,
I couldn’t care less if he thought that Black Jews from outer space injecting AIDS into our Chicken McNuggets had caused 9/11. He wants to give power back to the states and the people so we aren’t controlled from the top by someone with personal prejudices and/or grand plans. That’s really all that counts for anyone who wants the government out of his/her face.
Comment by Ben | January 10, 2008
Wow, I didn’t realise what a socialist control freak Obama is. Or what a silly old conservative Thompson is.
It’s a shame Giuliani is such a hypocrite on guns (it’s a fault with many New York politicians). But for that he’d be almost a libertarian.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 10, 2008
The truth about Ron Paul and racism:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters/
Comment by Mark Hill | January 10, 2008
I got Ron Paul, of course. After that the closest were Obama & Guiliani… which seems pretty accurate too.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 10, 2008
Having both Obama and Giuliani as second closest puts you in a category all your own.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 10, 2008
David, draw a line at where Giuliani is economically and where Obama is socially and you have roughly where John is.
According to that chart Obama is one of the more right-wing Democrats economically- especially, it seems, his education policies. Rudy is one of the more left-wing Republicans socially. Especially on guns and abortion.
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 11, 2008
Obama’s economic policies are indistinguishable from the other Democrats. They all want to play Robin Hood with other people’s money.
Having examined the graph a bit more, I think it’s flawed as a representation of social and economic liberalism. The individual candidate positions on each issue are far more useful.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 11, 2008
There’s not much difference between Obama & Clinton… but Edwards is clearly pushing a more socialist agenda than the other two. He is anti-trade, anti-business and anti-wealth.
From what I’ve heard, Obama is slightly more market-friendly than Clinton. And he is more anti-war. And he wasn’t responsible for a hopeless health reform package a decade ago. So he’s clearly my preference on the Democrat side.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 11, 2008
I scored closest to Ron Paul too.
However, having read more about the recent brouhaha I’m having 2nd thoughts about my support. Being careless about newsletters is one thing but he did put his signature to this solicitation letter. Presumably he read it even if he didn’t write it. There is some really kooky stuff in it
http://tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
My pick of a really bad bunch among Republicans excluding Paul would have to be Mitt Romney but I doubt he will make the cut because of his Mormonism. Of the remainders, Fred is not going to make it, Giuliani is a crazy warmonger, as is McCain and McCain doesn’t really understand free speech as evidenced by his so called campaign finance reforms. Huckabee is a kook too and economically a left winger and protectionist. I suppose of these 3 I would regard Giuliani as the lesser evil but given these choices I not wouldn’t be unhappy with an Obama presidency.
Comment by Jason Soon | January 11, 2008
There’s quite a good chance the contest will come down to Clinton versus McCain.
Clinton is a big government nanny, if not an outright socialist. McCain is against free speech and has strong moralising nanny tendencies too.
I’m glad I don’t have to vote.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 11, 2008
I rather admire John McCain. He is a man of principle. He voted for the surge in Iraq knowing full well that the US public wanted to forget all about Iraq and that it would damage his electoral chances. He also refuses to kowtow to the Religious Right.
Comment by pommygranate | January 11, 2008
I agree with McCain about Iraq and his distaste for the religious right. But most of the Republican candidates follow their own principles.
For example, Huckabee follows his principles entirely. God tells him that gays are sinners, abortion is a crime and immigrants are terrorists.
Romney derives his principles from the Mormon church and has somewhat similar views.
It’s different for the Democrats. They don’t have any principles, unless you consider socialism a principle.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 11, 2008
Actually, I think Romney derived his principles from the Mormon church far more when he was governor of Massachusetts. He used to be pro-freedom, which is a key Mormon principle. I think his backflips on gay rights and abortion are actually to garner support from the evangelicals and to try and make himself seem like more of a mainstream Christian.
As for the quiz- well it doesn’t reflect attitudes, it only analyses positions based on those 36 questions. Ron Paul actually ends up being the most centrist! Based on those questions, though, Obama is slightly right of the other democrats. He supports diversified teacher salaries and is less critical of vouchers.
American Republicans all seem a little more market friendly than Australian Liberals. But spending has sky-rocketed during Bush’s administration so it still looks like a choice between a big spender and bigger spender.
I’m hoping for Obama over Hillary. It’s likely a Democrat will get in. Romney sounds interesting. Being an ex-Mormon makes me like him more and hate him more at the same time…
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 12, 2008
Jason — the comments in that letter about race, gays & Israel are harmless. The letter is much scarier with regards to his stupid rant about money and impending economic collpase. That has always been by biggest concern with Paul’s platform.
But he’s still better than the alternatives. And as he promises to leave most issues to the States & the congress… he’s not really a threat to anybody.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 12, 2008
What sort of silly political quiz is this anyway? Not a single question about whether you want to abolish central banking, return to the gold standard and legalise hemp. Other than abolishing income tax these are some of my favourite things (I feel a song coming on).
Comment by Terje Petersen | January 12, 2008
This may sway a few voters : -
Following are selected results from Luntz’ survey: — More people under 40 have sex at least once a week than vote for president once every four years. — 25 percent of all Republicans and 35 percent of all Democrats have had more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime-a higher percentage than vote in congressional and local elections. — 55 percent of Republicans have sex at least once a week, compared with just 43 percent of Democrats. — 14 percent of Thompson supporters and 12 percent of Obama supporters claim to have sex “almost every day.” 5 percent of Clinton and Giuliani supporters have sex that frequently
Comment by Jim Fryar | January 12, 2008
http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/12/live-free-or-whatever-a-ron-paul-postmortem/#more-344
After a couple of days of dispiritedly mulling over the Ron Paul fiasco I came across this, which sums up my own opinion.
My biggest worry is that the segment of Australians that have heard of libertarianism through Ron Paul are going to associate it with calling blacks ‘animals’, the ‘federal homosexual AIDS cover-up’, the ’secret plans for world government’ and all of the other insanity.
Comment by nickstevenson | January 14, 2008
John,
Except if you live in a State (like one of the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Texas) that is going to take away your rights if left to its own devices. A woman could lose the right to control her own body, and gays could lose any number of rights they now have. Is morality purely subjective or not? Do you leave such things to the “tyranny of the majority” in each state? Libertarians are not of one mind in this area.
Timothy Sandefur, an American lawyer and libertarian author, addresses this in A guide to the perplexed re. Ron Paul and libertarianism.
The good news is Ron Paul isn’t going to be elected president — ever. The bad news is, as people get to know him better, they’re going to be left with a distorted and I think quite negative view of libertarianism as is being noted on many American blogs.
Comment by Trinifar | January 15, 2008
I have to agree with Nick and Trinifar. Ron Paul is a disaster for the libertarian movement.
He has attracted a band of kooks, nutters, truthers and racists. Sure, he claims no knowledge of these people but he does little to distance himself from them. And frankly claiming that he had no knowledge of the contents of pamphlets written under his name either makes him a liar or grossly incompetent - neither particularly good adverts for the movement, let alone the Presidency!
Australians will now associate libertarianism with racism and kookery. It’s a huge shame.
Now if only Ezra Levant could be persuaded to take up the mantle..
Comment by pommygranate | January 15, 2008
1. Has Ron Paul ever voted to get rid of Fourth Amendment rights?
2. Has Ron Paul ever voted against 14th Amendment rights?
They are the real acid tests of Trinifar’s scaremongering and shilling.
I don’t like assassinating people’s characters, but I find it necessary to defend Dr Paul.
Al Gore vilified gays to get elected to Congress. Does or did he actually believe that shit? No. He just wanted to get elected. Should we strip his nobel peace prize for this reason? Hell no. Paul just wanted to coax some votes from some pissed off mountain men. Does a twenty year old scandal about guilt by association really bloody matter - no.
Libertarians who think conservatives and socialists aren’t without their own moonbat hangers on are paranoid. Ann Coulter should make republicans unelectable. Where are the hollywood emigres since Bush’s re-election?
Still, Wayne Allen Root is a better candidate. If Ron Paul folds, he should donate to and endorse Root.
“Australians will now associate libertarianism with racism and kookery. It’s a huge shame.”
Garbage. Tackle it head on. What was the basis for our tariff and immigration policy last century? Who was responsible - the non libertarian parties. The free trade party opposed racism. Our opponents don’t have a leg to stand on.
Comment by Mark Hill | January 15, 2008
“My biggest worry is that the segment of Australians that have heard of libertarianism through Ron Paul are going to associate it with calling blacks ‘animals’, the ‘federal homosexual AIDS cover-up’, the ’secret plans for world government’ and all of the other insanity.”
Come off it, perception matters but most Australians couldn’t even name Fred Thompson. Most Australians don’t give a flying fuck about US politics. Most don’t know who Ron Paul is.
The Liberal party have far more explaining of the poorly spelled buffoonery of Messers Chijofff and Kelly. The ALS or LDP have never produced a statement like that, and the LDP defended the Muslim school in Camden against criticism from nationalist type party supporters.
You’re right about perception though. For ages the gay movement had Reagan as a wicker man to burn. Recently, in the gay press he has been given far better treatment as a beacon of tolerance in the conservative party.
Comment by Mark Hill | January 15, 2008
Pretty spot on piece by Sandefur. Really appalling to see Ron Paul defending the State’s right to regulate sexual behaviour. The guy is not really a true libertarian (I also suspect his opposition to free trade agreements on the basis that they are ‘managed trade’ is insincere and a way of skirting over the issue of not defending free trade). I mean, look at the way he goes on about how NAFTA etc is undermining living standards …
Comment by Jason Soon | January 15, 2008
Trinifar… I agree that federalism will allow some jurisdictions to implement non-libertarian policies and this is unfortunate. I don’t think the solution is to centralise power.
There would be no problem if a perfect person ran government. But while I am guaranteed an imperfect politician I want power to be decentralised. This has many benefits, including competition between jurisdictions, giving greater choice & diversity, allowing more new ideas to be tried and tested, and making policy mistakes easier to identify and remove.
I don’t think morality is purely subjective. But this is a question of which political structure is more likely to protect individual freedom in the long run. I (like most libertarians) would argue for decentralised political power.
Jason — I think Paul does support free-trade, but I disagree with his tactics. He is clearly dog-whistling to the anti-trade crowd. It’s a shame. But it’s his monetary stuff that is the most unfortunate.
Still — I think he is the best alternative and I think he still might end up being a force for good.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 15, 2008
What a kooky remark. And the idea that Ron Paul has damaged Australians view of libertarianism is even more kooky. Most Australians don’t even know who Ron Paul is.
I’d like to distance myself from these views.
Inherent in this position seems to be some notion that libertarian ideas are fragile things that are easily damaged in the wrong hands and that they should only be uttered by worthy and experienced sages who are morally pure. Personally I think that they are a very robust set of ideas and I’m happy for kooks, nutters, truthers and racists to promote any and every aspect of libertarianism they feel inclined to. In fact I’d encourage them to do so.
Take for instance a very basic libertarian idea such as free speech. Does this idea become a less worthy idea if it is promoted by somebody that is anti-Islamic, racist, left-wing, right-wing, green, gay or Mexican? I think not. The messenger and the message are not the same thing. If somebody is on a soap box defending free speech and some kooks, nutters, truthers or racists find cause to applaud then so what?
And for what it is worth Ron Paul has answered the racist charges:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrCXJyWACw
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
Some will accept his explaination. Some won’t. However Ron Paul has not damaged libertarianism by deciding to promoting it. I wish more people would step up as Ron Paul has.
Comment by Terje Petersen | January 15, 2008
Terje
You misunderstand my point.
For most Americans and Australians, Ron Paul will be their first taste of libertarianism. Those who have liked what they have heard so far may be willing to overlook these transgressions. However, i suspect that for many people, especially in Australia, this will be the first time they have come across Ron Paul. They will now associate the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘racist’, consign them to the depths of their brains and think no more on the subject.
And his explanations just aren’t convincing. He signed his name to stuff that would make the KKK blush. Why?
Comment by pommygranate | January 15, 2008
I think poms has a point… I still like RP, but I am concerned about some of the people he attracts. In the past, I criticised Fox for portraying him as a truther… I still think there story was a bit grubby, but I’ve since seen footage where whilst he doesn’t claim to be a truther, he does seem to go out of his way not to offend them.
I’ve only seen one interview where he outright rejected the truther claims, but only after being pushed by the interviewer, and even this was done rather softly.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the Libertarian Party itself in the US that attracts kooks (in fact, Aaron Russo was one of them)
Comment by Fleeced | January 15, 2008
Mr and Mrs Average Australian haven’t heard of Ron Paul, but quite a few in the demographic that would be attracted to Paul and the LDP have. Some proportion of them are now going to be disgusted and discouraged.
Terje,
It matters if ‘kooks, nutters, truthers and racists’ start promoting libertarianism, because it turns off sane people. Objectively, the message isn’t the messenger, but the quality of the messenger affects how the message is percieved, which is why mainstream politicians flee from crazies who want to support them. Ron Paul’s past- employing a man who wants to stone philanderers like in the Old Testament, being interviewed by a man who thinks Queen Beatrix of Holland is plotting to exterminate 80% of humanity- tripped him up as soon as he started catching on.
If libertarianism’s public image gets polluted in this way the LDP will just be on the fringes forever.
Comment by nickstevenson | January 15, 2008
It seems to have escaped everyone’s notice that fringe groups are attracted to libertarianism precisely because it offers protection from the whims of the State.
If we think Ron Paul should be disassociated from the libertarian movement because he does more harm than good, then we should also disassociate ourselves from the LDP.
Does Lisa Milat ring any bells? The media certainly thought it was a lapse in judgment. And mainstream libertarians from the CIS & IPA have hesitated because of the “kooky” gun owners the LDP attracts, not to mention the pot-heads, prostitutes and gamblers.
Libertarianism attracts fringe groups because the majority is OK with using morality to trample on individual rights. I shouldn’t have to explain this to libertarians, but some of the comments above indicate an explanation is necessary.
Comment by Sukrit Sabhlok | January 16, 2008
If libertarianism’s public image gets polluted in this way the LDP will just be on the fringes forever.
No, the reason the LDP will achieve 0% influence is not because of the Ron Paul scandal, but because Australian libertarians seem relutant to learn from the political skills of a ten-term Congressman who performed the remarkable feat of defeating an incumbent. Instead, there’s a lot of nit-picking from the sidelines.
John — Paul fearmongers over economic collapse because it’s an effective way to get votes… this is what politicians do. Why should we let the left monopolise an effective political tactic?
Jason — Same deal. Paul’s opposition to government managed trade is just him using populist rhetoric. He’s for unilateral free trade, which doesn’t require trade agreements spanning thousands of pages.
I don’t understand this tendency to apply academic standards to a politician. Ron Paul doesn’t need to be precisely right in everything he says. His job is to win votes, and that means simplyfing his message. He’s already using historical examples and talking about inflation in a presidential campaign — and people are cheering him for it instead of falling asleep! Truly an achievement.
Comment by Sukrit Sabhlok | January 16, 2008
The most amusing comment on this thread is by pommygranate, who said Ron Paul has been a “disaster” for the libertarian movement. By what logic 20 years of advocacy (through books, articles, media appearances) in the United States Congress equates to “disaster”, I have no idea. What have you done lately pommy, apart from blogging on a site hardly anyone reads?
He’s done more to promote liberty than anybody in 2007. For this, I hope he gets this year’s Milton Friedman Prize by the Cato Institute.
Anyway I’ve given up on politics, academia is the way to go… think-tanks are more influential than libertarian micro-parties.
Comment by Sukrit Sabhlok | January 16, 2008
Sukrit
i) Libertarianism attracts fringe groups because the majority is OK with using morality to trample on individual rights.
Rubbish. Libertarianism attracts fringe groups because many nutters listen to Ron Paul and mistake his message of less State involvement for ‘let’s shoot the bastards if they come on my ranch’ and ‘they’re all out to get us’. There’s a fine line between a rational libertarian and a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
ii) What’s Lisa Milat got to do with Ron Paul? If she has written letters calling blacks criminals and that the Jews are in a conspriacy to take over the world, then i would agree. But she hasn’t.
iii) there’s a lot of nit-picking from the sidelines.
This is not nit-picking. Being a racist, an anti-Semite, a conspiracy nut and a homophobe are not nit-picking. His pathetic explanations are just that. Pathetic.
iv) What have you done lately pommy, apart from blogging on a site hardly anyone reads?
I’m sorry this site doesn’t meet your high standards, Sukrit. Perhaps you should go somewhere else.
But i’ll tell you what i do Sukrit that is far more important than sitting in some closeted ivory tower
wetting my pants about the government and thinking they’re come for me in the night, that’s far more important than funding a bunch of LDP candidates so that they could afford their $750 Senate candidacies and get their messages of libertarianism across, and that’s far more important than blogging about freedom.
I’m in the process of setting up a business that will provide jobs, pay taxes, incur huge risks to myself and contribute to this great system of free trade that we have here in Australia. I would highly recommend that you step out of your ivory tower for a week or so and check out capitalism at the coalface.
Comment by pommygranate | January 16, 2008
Come off it. How can Ron Paul be a dedicated bigot and complacent in signing off on those letters?
Let’s get real. The LDP needs cash.
Comment by Mark Hill | January 16, 2008
Ron Paul is a disaster for the libertarian movement.
This is a rather pointless discussion. Nobody “owns” libertarianism. Anyone can claim to be a libertarian and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. The rest of us might agree or disagree, but we can’t censor.
I’ve previously expressed reservations about Ron Paul in relation to foreign policies and issues such as abortion. I don’t think he is libertarian on those issues, while naturally I think I am. But I also know many libertarians have serious blind spots - guns anyone?
As for what the rest of the community thinks of when they hear the term, I doubt if Ron Paul is having much impact in Australia. I cringe far more when I hear the term “civil libertarian” because it’s mostly applied to a leftie complaining that the government refuses to impose their particular moral standards. I regularly have to spend time trying to explain the difference between a libertarian and a civil libertarian, but I have so far not had to explain why why Ron Paul is not a perfect libertarian.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | January 16, 2008
The standard libertarian position is no government intervention except to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens of that country. I’m not saying this is right or wrong — but that’s the cliche position. This obviously doesn’t include spending hundreds of billions invading countries for foreign aid reasons.
Pommy — your anger doesn’t make sense and seems more bigoted than the RP newsletter.
First, RP is clearly not an anti-semite. He is opposed to foreign aid to Israel, and consequently he is opposed to lobby groups in Washington that continue to argue for foreign aid for Israel. It is dishonest in the extreme to say that this is the same as anti-semitism.
Second, I don’t see any evidence that RP is a homophobe. Both sides of politics in Australia & America are opposed to gay marriage. Only RP supports equal rights for gays. Lots of people disagree with other people’s lifestyle choices, but the question is whether they will tolerate diversity and allow free choice. Of the candidates, only RP does. It is dishonesty in the extreme to say that “tolerance” is “homophobia”.
Finally, how is his excuse “pathetic”? It seems overwhelmingly likely that he is telling the truth. All “insiders” agree that he didn’t manage the newsletter, didn’t write on race issues, and was busy working & travelling during the early 1990s (when the objectionable material was published). He has spent a lifetime saying the exact opposite of what’s in the newsletters about race. Yes, he made a mistake allowing a friend to edit a newsletter in his name… but in the greater scheme of things that is a relatively minor offense.
There is very scant information on which to base the charge of bigotry against RP. Indeed, your response to him has shown more bigotry than RP has ever been known to say himself. I wish we could all follow RP example and show a bit more understanding and tolerance.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 16, 2008
John:
I disagree. To me this is exactly the sort of thing that disqualifies one from a position of public trust. Paul put his name (and reputation) in the hands of someone else then failed to monitor what was being done with it. If it had been a single or even a few occurrences, that’d be one thing, but from what I understand it was many and over a long period of time. In addition he appeared at events held by some at best dicey and at worse dispicable organizations and allowed (or allows) them to sell their material at his on events. I think he’s done as a public figure.
This conservative blogger get’s it right:
Since Paul is an American running for president of the US, it may not affect anyone in Australia, but it sure is a huge setback for the idea of libertarianism in the United States. To me this is quite a loss; the US needs a healthy alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties.
Comment by Trinifar | January 16, 2008
I’m with pommy on this. The guy is a dead duck. He is depending on how you look at it irresponsible, prone to manipulation by his dodgy friends or a liar and a bigot. His campaign is a dead duck anyway in light of these allegations and the libertarian movement is more important than one man and the priority should be salvaging the reputation of the movement. It’s time to cut Ron Paul and the Mises Institute nutballs loose.
Comment by Jason Soon | January 16, 2008
John
Take a look at Jason’s Catallaxy post on this issue for countless examples of homophobia and anti-Semitic bias not to mention the racial slurs.
My choice of phrase that he has been a ‘disaster for the libertarian movement’ was poorly chosen. He has achieved what hardly any libertarians have yet to do - he got libertarian issues debated in the mainstream media. For this, he should be praised.
But i just don’t understand how you can write these newsletters off as a ’side-issue’. They are a core issue. How can he have missed this for 17 years? It’s just not credible. Having achieved so much, he has set the movement back a long way in the eyes of the apolitical public.
It is such a wasted opportunity and a tragic shame.
Comment by pommygranate | January 16, 2008
Also his support for equal rights for gays obviously masks a repulsion for their activities. That doesn’t sit easy with me.
Comment by pommygranate | January 16, 2008
You’d prefer someone who you think isn’t repulsed by gays but hasn’t got the balls to give them equal rights?
Comment by Mark Hill | January 16, 2008
In some of these newsletters where this nasty stuff was picked up, he alludes to personal details about his family. Now it is possible Paul said to his ghostwriter ‘Now, Lew, when you write issue 54 mention something about my marriage’s 40th anniversary and the birth of my grandson will you?’ but I don’t think we can completely rule out the possibility, given this, that he wrote some of this stuff himself.
Comment by Jason Soon | January 16, 2008
There seems to be a certain amount of sensationalizing and to some degree Ron Paul is being a bit less than forthcoming in relation to this matter.
Eric Dondero, in Libertarian Republican states in part: -
Eric as he said was a personal aid to Ron until a falling out over defense. He is supporting Giulliani and against Paul. I think it is significant that he gives him some support on this, although the article uses this as confirmation that he wrote some of the articles.
Personally, I find it incomprehensible that he would allow stuff to go out under his name without checking it, although this could be a case where he has placed too much faith in people who purport to support him while running their own agendas, in this case it appears to be Lew Rockwell.
It is possible that some of the support for him from extremist groups is the result of his support for (ironically) free speech and tolerance. I have recently done a post on free speech in which I found the following during the research: -
A number of websites and bloggers have proclaimed their support for the Fourniers and their condemnation of what they see as Warman’s attempts at censorship. Among them are neo-Nazis that Warman has targeted in the past. There is no evidence that the Fourneirs condone the positions espoused by these neo-Nazi supporters, however. In fact, a significant portion of Freedominion.ca’s user base appears to be supporters of Israel and Jewish causes.
In fact quite a few nasties including Stormfront were supporting them, only it seems because of the Fournier’s support for their right to free speech there being no other common ground.
I tend to discourage such people by asserting their right to say what they wish “even if it is obnoxious or just plain silly.
Comment by Jim Fryar | January 16, 2008
It has been suggested by people involved in the newsletter than RP did contribute some articles to the newsletter — apparently mostly about foreign affairs.
Pommy — I don’t understand why you care about RP personal feelings towards gays. Many religious people are uncomfortable with homosexuality. The important point in politics isn’t your personal views… it’s whether you want to enforce them on other people. I have heard him in an inverview appealing to conservatives to tolerate homosexual equality, even if they don’t agree with it. In contrast, your approach would apparently be to call those same conservatives dumb & bigotted. I think RP’s approach will be more convincing.
As for this “17 years” crap… the few (and there are only a few) objectionable comments happened over the course of a few years when RP was not closely involved with politics — and spending his time working as a doctor & travelling.
The continual distortions and exagerations are not helpful. Indeed… it seems that they are continued because the RP detractors have decided he’s bad and now want to justify it to themselves. A bit of perspective is needed.
If this newsletter episode is enough to disquality somebody from being President, then I suggest there are few people in America (or on earth) who would qualify. And if we’re going to be stuck with somebody who makes mistakes… wouldn’t it be better to have somebody who promises not to run your life?
Comment by John Humphreys | January 16, 2008
Oh… and these supposedly evil forums that RP has spoken at where forums that questioned the virtue of the US civil war. I also question the civil war. I think (as was the original intention in America) that States should be able to leave the union if they want. And I certainly think that such a decision did not warrant the massive loss of life that occured in the civil war.
You shouldn’t talk with me anymore. Apparently I’m an evil neo-nazi and could eat your spleen at any moment. You should all make sure you distance yourself from me and tell all your friends to do the same before I ruin the libertarian movement.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 16, 2008
Mark
No - i would prefer someone who isn’t repulsed by gays.
Comment by pommygranate | January 16, 2008
The Confederate States were within their rights to demand succession, even if the issues that they had with Washington were unsavoury to modern interpretation. Lincoln ignored the constitution and acted illegally to raise arms against the southern states.
Comment by Brendan Halfweeg | January 16, 2008
Pommygranate,
Whether RP agrees with the lifestyle choice of homosexuals or not is irrelevent if he makes no pledge to discriminate against them and a pledge to grant them equal rights with heterosexuals.
I’m not religious, I think religion is pointless, and sometimes even dangerous. But I would defend anyone’s right to believe whatever supernatural myths they like.
Comment by Brendan Halfweeg | January 16, 2008
I think the RP interview with John Stossel was a good one for showing his opinion on homosexuality, etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
It is one of the most tolerant view from any US politician I’ve seen.
Pommy, I don’t understand why you get so agitated about this aspect of his beliefs. Are you offended because he is a Christian?
The available positions are as follows:
Extreme right: Offended by gays, want homosexuality banned
Loopy left: Say people have no “right” to be offended
Libertarian: Nobody’s business. People have a right to be gay, and others have a right to be offended by it.
I don’t see how you could call RP homophobic.
I suspect that part of the reason you’re so offended is that you have different standards for discrimination against choice, and things which people have no control over - such as race, gender, and so on. But whether or not homosexuality is a choice (I believe it is, but I know you don’t), doesn’t change anything.
Comment by Fleeced | January 17, 2008
John, if there are organized groups that agrue only that states have the right to leave the union I’d have no objection to Paul associating himself with them. That’s a fair and debatable point. However, I’m not aware of any group like that. Look under the hood — or just read their literature — and you find a collection of bigots who lament equal rights being extended to people of color and in some groups also an abiding desire for the establishment of Christian theocracy.
Comment by Trinifar | January 17, 2008
Brendan
It may not be relevant to you, but it most certainly is to me. I vote for people who’s views i like (and RP talks a lot more sense on most topics than most) but also, and importantly, for people who i personally empathise with and respect (i would guess that 95% of voters vote for the guy they like the most - i’m no different).
Now a candidate that finds gays repulsive will not endear himself to me. That’s my choice. Your priorities are different to mine. That’s your choice.
Comment by pommygranate | January 17, 2008
Trinifar — I have no doubt that some people hold the views you mentioned. However, those are not the views promoted by the Mises Institute (which RP is linked to through friendship).
Lew Rockwell has often repeated that forced segregation is wrong. And when he defends the right of the confederate states to leave the union, he points out (as I do) that slavery would have ended there in the near future anyway… just as it was ending everywhere in the western world.
The confederate argument has been mostly silenced because any time people argue for the States right to leave the union they are branded a racist. This is unfortunate and unhelpful. The difference between Lew & most others is that he is not willing to let this dishonest tactic silence him. For that — I respect him.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 17, 2008
Pommy — you didn’t actually answer Marks question. Would you prefer:
a) somebody who didn’t approve of gay lifestyle, but didn’t want to discriminate
b) somebody who wrapped themselves in PC pro-gay rhetoric, but who endorsed continued discrimination
It seems like you are quite bigoted against mainstream christian & muslim views (ie people who don’t like the gay lifestyle). That’s fair enough. I respect your right to not like people… so long as you are tolerant.
Because we will never have a world where everybody agrees. But I hope someday we might have a world where everybody is tolerant of disagreement.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 17, 2008
John / Mark
In order of preference
i) someone who is indifferent to gays and who does not discriminate against them
ii) someone who is repulsed by gays yet does not discriminate against them (in public, anyway)
iii) homophobes who do discriminate, for example most Muslims and many Christians.
Iqbal Sacranie is head of the Muslim Council of Britain. He thinks homosexuality is a ’sin’. In saying this, he is merely reflecting the teachings of the Koran. He is a bigot and this is a stupid view. Though he has every right to think what he wants, i do not have to like it nor do i have to respect it. Provided he doesn’t call for discrimination against gays, i will tolerate it.
Are you saying i should be more understanding of people’s idiotic views? Should i hug a racist? Invite an anti-Semite round for tea?
They are entitled to their views. But i am entitled to think they are stupid and spiteful.
Comment by pommygranate | January 17, 2008
Pommy — it is a simple question and you still haven’t answered it. I gave two options. Your answer ignores one of the options and adds two more irrelevant ones!
The two options are: (1) person uncomfortable with gays, but who wants no discrimination; or (2) person happy with gay lifestyle but who supports continued discrimination.
You seem to be dodging the question.
I doubt RPs views on gays is any different to the rest of the Republican candidates, so it is strange that you would only be upset with the only person who is promoting tolerance.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 17, 2008
Pommy,
Which of the GOP candidates have promised equal rights for gays?
Which of the GOP candidates have promised no federal prohibition against abortion?
Which of the GOP candidates have promised to reduce taxation, including the long term goal of getting rid of income tax?
Which of the GOP candidates have promised to repeal the PATRIOT Act?
The list of the reasons to vote for a non-interventionist President far exceed any squeamishness about whom he keeps company with privately. If the racists and truthers who are attracted to Ron Paul’s campaign think that he’ll indulge their fetishes executively, they’re backing the wrong horse. That is their problem, not RPs.
Comment by Brendan Halfweeg | January 17, 2008
The two options are: (1) person uncomfortable with gays, but who wants no discrimination; or (2) person happy with gay lifestyle but who supports continued discrimination.
John; Be reasonable, firstly your two options don’t make sense, and deny the possibility of other options. Pommy is quite justified in answering as he did.
Its like Pommy, have you stopped downloading child porn? The two options are (1) yes, or (2) no. Do not try to wriggle out of it by saying something different.
For those who wish to see the latest go to Reason and look up ‘Paul’s Apology’ and ‘Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters.’ I am assuming that Reason is considered by most of us to be a libertarian publication. Here is a teaser.
Not everything you may have heard about the newsletters is true. Contrary to what James Kirchick claims in The New Republic, the newsletters did not offer “kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.” And although various media outlets have described parts of the newsletters as “anti-Semitic,” there’s little evidence to back up that description in the passages Kirchick cites.
But the truth is bad enough. In addition to anti-gay comments that pine for the days of the closet, the newsletters include gratuitous swipes at Martin Luther King, discussions of crime that emphasize the perpetrators’ skin color, and dark warnings of coming “race riots.” None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary. Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.
I tend to have so little interest in the sexuality of other guys that I don’t notice gays unless they make it blindingly obvious, or someone points it out, and even then I don’t give two hoots about it, so I am inclined a bit Pommys way on this.
Comment by Jim Fryar | January 17, 2008
Jim — I am being very reasonable and frustrated by people not understanding simple English.
I am perfectly aware that there are other possible options. But I wasn’t interested in the other order of options. The interesting question was exactly the question I asked. It was not a loaded question. I can easily answer it. Indeed — the question identifies exactly the choice available in America.
I doubt RP is a homophobe. But even if he was uncomfortable with homosexuality, he is the only candidate calling for the end of anti-gay legislation. Which do you think is more important? It’s not a difficult question. It’s not a loaded question. It’s just a question. Stopping dodging the issue.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 17, 2008
FYI, Sandefur has a long list of libertarian blog posts “that have commented on the Paul crackup and what it means for the libertarian community (not just the racial aspects or the political fallout).”
John, when I made my comment above I was thinking of groups like the John Birch Society not the Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com, but now that I’ve read many of the posts on Sandefur’s list I see why you might have assumed otherwise. Turns out a lot of libertarians think the Mises Institute does von Mises a disservice and that Lew Rockwell is on the lunatic fringe. I was, quite honestly, completely unaware of that. All the libertarian bloggers I know are libertarian-capitalists, and I naively thought they generally approved of the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
So this little dust up has taught me a lot. There are some great insights on Sandefur’s list of blog posts, some by armchair thinkers, some by luminaries of libertarian thought, and they’ve given this libertarian-socialist a much greater appreciation of liberatrian-capitalism.
Comment by Trinifar | January 18, 2008
John
I thought i’d made my views pretty clear. Obviously not. So one last time -
Clearly option (1) is preferable to option (2) but who is an example of (2)?
Second, to answer Brendan’s question, i am closer to RP’s stated views than the other Republican candidates. But this is not my point. My point is that RP has done significant damage to the libertarian cause by his newsletters. That people here are happy to shrug them off as side-issues is bizarre.
Look at the growing list of people wanting to distance themselves from RP - Cato, Reason, Glen Reynolds, Volokh etc - all reasonable and rational libertarians.
Comment by pommygranate | January 18, 2008
Pommy — you hadn’t answered the question until then. I’m glad you prefer option1 (ie Ron Paul) to option2 (ie every other Presidential candidate at the moment).
I agree that the newsletter was a mistake and has been damaging. Consequently, it certainly isn’t a side-issue. But I think that the progress made by RP in the last year is something worth holding on to, even if he has made mistakes in the past.
I think it’s sad that people are running away from him so quickly, despite the fact that nobody actually thinks he’s a racist. It seems we are so scared of the racist tag that we’re willing to abandon each other at the first sight of trouble.
The better approach would be to admit error, condemn RP for a lack of judgement, and then still note that he is better than the alternatives and try to concentrate on the issues.
Comment by John Humphreys | January 18, 2008
The essential part of Ron Paul’s campaign is economic liberalisation. He is a prominent contributor for the Mises Institute and has supported the Austrian School of Economics for many years. John might have pointed out his fear-mongering with the economic collapse of America, but I would argue that it is where change is most necessary for creating a freer society.
In the libertarian movement, people would support two main economic factions (whether they know it or not), the Chicago or Austrian Schools - with significant difference on money.
Banking is where Paul would strike hardest - and where I see most people in disagreement. I think Murray Rothbard said that it wasn’t because the system would collapse that he advocates change, but quite the contrary, the fact that fractional-reserve banking would continue.
Dr. Elgin Groseclose put it best -
“Sooner or later we must abandon the pretense that we can eat our cake and have it, that we may have money on deposit ready to be withdrawn at any moment, and at the same time loaned out in a thousand diverse enterprises, and recognize that the only assurance of liquidity of bank deposits is to have the actual money waiting on the depositor at whatever moment he may appear. This would not mean the extinction of credit, nor the disappearance of lending institutions. But it would mean the divorcement of credit from the money mechanism, the cessation…of the use of credit instruments as media of exchange…It would mean the disappearance of the most insidious form of fictitious credit. We could still have investment banking, providing credit at long term, and bill brokers and finance companies, providing credit at short term; but such credit would not be the transfer of a fictitious purchasing power drawn from the reservoirs of a banking system whose own sources derive from the use of the bank check; the credit available would be true credit, that is, the transfer of actual, existing wealth in exchange for wealth to be created and returned at a future time. Such credit would not be inflationary, as is bank credit, for every dollar made available as purchasing power to the borrower would be the result of the abstinence from the exercise of purchasing power on the part of the lender; it would be merely the transfer of purchasing power, not the creation of purchasing power by fiction”
I feel that banking today is largely a socialist venture where government can only get bigger (it certainly gives them the capital to do so).
A whole world’s mindset may be changed with one man at the head of the largest economy in the world - and out of the candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties, I would want that to be Ron Paul.
Comment by Tom Paine | January 20, 2008
Pommy - What is all this nit picking on Ron Paul? Ron paul is all for individual rights and liberties, and that core message attracts (nut jobs) both for..and against the message. His errors in print are of no consequence as he promotes in action, libertarian values, even when these conflict with his own Christian beleif system. When it comes to electing politicians,,,, free thinking individuals who make up the majority of the public,,,,, concentrate too much on what politicians say,,,, and not what they DO or have done.
Take - George Bush, he sounded beautiful on paper, he said what the public wanted to hear, HE GOT ELECTED!! BUT look at the damage BUSH has done!!! We focused too much on what the liar said, and not Bush’s dismal track record of deceiving the public, and blatent hypocracy. My point is free thinking individuals should focus on the political actions that affect us, not what ugly or beautiful words that come out of their mouths. Ron Pauls has integrity and a track record which proves this unlike every other cliche candidate running for President.
Comment by Brent | January 23, 2008
Brent
I’m all for judging a politician by what they have done rather than what they say. This is the problem with Obama - great speaker but his actions aren’t that impressive. However, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Comment by pommygranate | January 23, 2008
I am according to the test, Cosest to Ron Paul, second closest to Obahma and furthest from Fred Thomson.
Comment by Brent | January 23, 2008