Ron Paul Has Already Won
Ron Paul's bid for the U.S. presidency ranks among the most heroic anyone has ever undertaken. We live in emergency times, with a choice between forms of socialism or fascism. The parties' leadership have embraced this decrepit old model, despite all evidence of the bankruptcy of statism. Ron alone dared pose a challenge. His bid has also been the most unusual in modern history. Its main energy has come not from a political machine, but from millions of volunteers, most of them young and most of them exposed to new political and economic truths for the first time.
In that sense, and in addition to garnering more primary votes than any libertarian candidate in American history, Ron has accomplished precisely what he set out to do. He has re-founded the libertarian movement on a principled basis, liberated the ideas of peace and free enterprise from monopolistic control, exposed the political apparatus for the fraud that it is, and laid the groundwork for a future flowering of liberty.
Let us consider why this is so. FULL ARTICLE ON LRC
Comments (35)
Niccolo Adami
Sounds more like trying to form a consultation prize out of the high hopes that were smashed by the same defeat Anarchists predicted would happen when the Ron Paul fiasco began.
"Its main energy came from the young," that's right, and now that energy has been sapped. Awesome!
At least one good thing may come of this, people will now be so disgruntled by the failures of Paul they'll have no choice but to turn to something more beneficial to the libertarian movement.
Published: February 12, 2008 9:21 AM
lester
real classy nic.
I don't mind saying that I believe some of the energy was lost when the campaign wasn't more forthright about the newsletters and I think the post-kirchick donations are proof of that.
if we are being honest here
one thing he was very succesful at was pointing out our declining stature. the candidates and the media are oblivious. they are acting like this is the america of 10 or 20 years ago, not one in two wars, a recession, and a dollar crisis. it's surreal, like their Baghdad Bob like ignoring of the paul campaign.
Published: February 12, 2008 9:32 AM
Niccolo Adami
What type of enemy do you expect to just lie down like a dying dog?
You think you can just ask these people to be nice and friendly like Ron Paul did? It was a failure for the reason that the broader libertarian movement has been a failure; it focused its energy in the worst possible arena to do so - the political arena. Until libertarians begin to abandon this absurd notion that they can "fight the system from the inside," they will never see any success, ever.
Published: February 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Christopher Hettinger (Telpeurion)
I'll have to agree with Niccolo, although I am not an anarchist and rather indifferent to what form, or lack thereof, the state takes.
I give credit to Rockwell and Rothbard for their idea of trying to convert the mindless oafs in the bible belt over to Misesian thought. Ron Paul was their medium, a seeming hybrid of liberal and conservative ideals. Unfortunately, paleo-conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and such are no more our friends than the "Neo"-Conservatives. Seriously speaking, the paleo-conservatives are only anti-war when it is expedient; in this case because it is against their protectionist "American" manifest destiny. Of course, they could care less about making war on China. Do they live a double standard? I think so.
Did Ron Paul's synthesis campaign work? We can say there have been mixed-results. We all can agree that he is doing much better now than when he, or his ghost writer(s), first opted to draw on the populist predjudices. Newsletters anyone? However, most of Paul's support is coming from young and hardly conservative people! In my opinion, Paul may have even done better as a democrat! While swaying some disgruntled Republicans, Paul has failed to gain support. He was not conservative enough you see.
Face it, you guys can continue to call liberalism by the disgusting psuedonym, "libertarian", or we can embrace that we are part of the farthest Left! Stop trying to sway our historical foes, the conservatives... It just will not work. As someone working on the ground, I can say that it is far easier to bring over a socialist than it is a mercantilist.
Published: February 12, 2008 11:42 AM
Grant
Its not like anyone really expected him to win. Intrade certainly didn't. He basically just got to spread his views in ways he'd never be able to otherwise.
Who knows, maybe it will shift the USA towards some more sane policies, and save a lot of lives. Or maybe it won't.
Published: February 12, 2008 12:00 PM
Brent
For what it's worth, Goldwater & Reagan got slaughtered the first time they ran nationally. In spite of my personal wishes and disagreements with them, I would never call either of them failures.
In that spirit, I would not call losing a nomination or a general election that 'everyone' says you can 'never ever' win a failure. Niccolo Adami and others just like to complain. I personally know literally dozens of people that Ron Paul turned from statists into freedom-wanters. That is a success beyond my wildest imagination.
Published: February 12, 2008 12:42 PM
subhi
If Ideas have consequences, then this campaign will have its consequences.
Published: February 12, 2008 12:48 PM
David
I think many of you are over analyzing Ron Paul and what he did.
He simply was a man running for president with a political philosophy of less government intervention in our lives, more liberty, more economic freedom...you know the rest.
There are those of you that will always be negative towards people like Ron Paul, and that's fine. There are those that will be a bit unrealistic as to what kind of impact he can make, and that's fine, too.
But you have to admit he got much more attention than anyone thought he would get, he was very professional and straightforward during his campaign, and he's adored by a lot of people.
Was it a good thing for our country or a bad thing that he ran? I say it was a good thing. Even if all he did was stir up interest in a small percentage of people towards smaller government and free market economic ideas, it was a good thing.
And Niccolo, I wouldn't call the Libertarian movement a failure. A movement can't really "fail", it can either gain or lose supporters. A candidate can fail when trying to get into office, but that doesn't mean the candidate's philosophy failed.
Libertarianism is simply a philosophy that many people believe in, it gains some supporters, it loses some, some don't care, etc. But saying that it's a "failure" just sounds like you're being spiteful or bitter...it doesn't really make any sense.
Published: February 12, 2008 12:57 PM
George Gaskell
As someone working on the ground, I can say that it is far easier to bring over a socialist than it is a mercantilist.
I have had the opposite experience. I attribute this to the legacy of FDR. Some of the conservatives I know have an instinctive aversion to price controls and protectionism. This is especially true in the post-Baby Boomer set. Gen-Xers have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to a lot of these New Deal and Great Society boondoggles.
Of course, war is the deal-breaker. (Although for the life of me, I do not understand how an occupation in Iraq, consisting of teenagers riding through ghettos in Humvees and kicking down doors is supposed to prevent more 9/11-style attacks, though.) They shut down all economic thinking when the topic of war comes up.
Published: February 12, 2008 1:47 PM
Christopher Hettinger (Telpeurion)
Haha, don't get me wrong, I'm still a fan. I am just annoyed that Paul is using money many people donated for other purposes; thinking it was for Paul's run for the presidency only to have it spent on radio ads for his congressional seat. He already spent over 700,000 for it. Say what you will about this, but in my opinion he should just give the money back if he is gonna blow it, even if it is slightly less valuable than it was a few months ago!
His congressional seat is barely even contested, and never had major funds before when he won, so why does he do it now? There is no reason whatsoever why millions of our fiat dollars should be spent just so Paul can do an 11th term of saying "No". (That is unless more "Ron Paul" Republicans start running)
Published: February 12, 2008 2:18 PM
Curt Howland
"thinking it was for Paul's run for the presidency only to have it spent on radio ads for his congressional seat."
That's completely illegal. I do not believe he would do that, in fact he has specifically stated in public that it would be illegal.
Published: February 12, 2008 2:40 PM
Brent
Using money donated to one campaign for another campaign is illegal. The Ron Paul presidential and congressional campaigns have both publicly stated this obvious fact.
>(That is unless more "Ron Paul" Republicans start running)
More are running. Sabrin is running for US Senate in New Jersey and several Ron Paul republicans are running for house seats in Maryland. I am undoubtedly forgetting to mention some people.
Published: February 12, 2008 4:29 PM
josh m
Without a doubt, Paul has been a divisive figure among libertarians.
I don’t think Paul is as good (or hyperbole-worthy) as the supporters make him out to be, but neither do I think he's as bad--or as bad an influence on libertarians-- as the libertarian detractors make him out to be.
I remain confused by it all (maybe that’s the feeling of growing up more) although it’s been quite educational.
Published: February 12, 2008 4:39 PM
FvD
Whatever Dr Ron Paul may or may not achieve in the electoral statistics, he is a great educator (and I do not mean one who makes a career in "education"). If only there would be a Ron Paul in every next generation! And that is the point, isn't it? Thanks to Paul there will be plenty of voices for freedom long after grey-haired (not to say balding) libertarians like me are dead.
Published: February 12, 2008 7:38 PM
Jordan
RP's campaign has provided the rational force to persuade me over to a solidly libertarian and Austrian philosophy of government and economics.
I have always had an affinity towards libertarian ideas but was led to believe they were ultimately impractical and reckless. However, the arguments coming from RP's campaign and some of his writings along with Bastiat's "The Law" have convinced me of the theoretical and practical superiority of maximum liberty.
But the point is, RP's efforts are largely responsible for my switch in views and affiliation and certainly for that of innumerable others also. Because I seriously doubt his campaign had the reverse effect on anyone, his effort should be seen as a net gain shouldn't it?
Published: February 12, 2008 8:20 PM
Vedran
My problem with those very pessimistic about the movement is their alternatives. I've heard things like what Niccolo says plenty of times. "we shouldn't try to change things from the inside we gotta do it from the outside" After following a statement like that they make some extremely broad generalization of what should be done on the "outside" or they make some insane recommendation.
If anyone has different ideas on what should be done in the libertarian movement, please let everyone know. But if you're just going to continue on and on about how this direction doesn't work but not suggest a new viable direction than it's simply no help at all and only lowers moral.
Published: February 12, 2008 8:53 PM
rhys
Exactly Jordan! The Paul campaign has given a rallying cry about which political power may coalesce. Strict Constitutionalism is not 100% libertarian, but it is legally and traditionally defensible. I tell conservatives, "If strict Constitutionalism is good for the Judicial branch, why is it not equally good for the Executive or Legislative branch?"
While I consider myself a libertarian, these days I tell my Republican friends that I am a strict Constitutionalist. Then I tell them I voted for Paul and I hope that we can get strict Constitutionalists in the courts, in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. They have a difficult time arguing with that.
Published: February 12, 2008 9:28 PM
Raja
Speaking of solutions, how's this: the politicians' rule over us is illegitimate. They are a very real threat to our person and property. We should recognize them as the criminals they are and protect ourselves. If they initiate force, then force is justified in defense. Unfortunately, no protection agency we form can ever hope to match the US military. Alternatives? There is a very obvious one, but some may consider it extreme. What I ask you is how is it any more extreme than shooting the mugger before he shoots you?
Published: February 12, 2008 11:36 PM
Mitchell
I understand a lot of anarcho-capitalist will criticize Paul's campaign for running on a "smaller government, more freedom" platform. Sure, maybe he should have run on a "no government" platform but then 90% of the people in this country would have a reason to call him a nut case and kook. Call him a statist, minarchist or whatever you want. The fact remains that Paul is the only person up there talking about things that we all agree one: commodity based currency, non-interventionist foreign policy, personal liberty, etc.
The Paul campaign has woken up millions of people to the idea that we don't need a big government to take care of us. We don't need to be the policemen of the world and we need to have sound money. The Paul campaign is a good thing and will effect future elections if more people like Dr. Paul run for office at whatever level.
Published: February 13, 2008 1:42 AM
A-R
Niccolo is right. "Libertarian politician" is a contradiction in terms. Freedom will not be achieved through coercive means. Act free. Be free. In the absence of compliance, the state ceases to exist.
Thank you, Niccolo, for turning me around.
Published: February 13, 2008 2:23 AM
Eddie
A certain percentage of the population has been shown to be unable to create a positive response in peopel so they are left with the choice between creating a bad effect on others or no effect at all - and the latter being completely unthinkable to them. So they march out their cliched rhetoric of negativity and slander and take actually pride in their hope that they upset someone. Because, as I stated, a bad reaction is always better than no reaction. Obviously anyone with any morals would avoid anything BUT causing a positive reaction, but that's an option that this small percentage of people have decided is impossible after countless failures in the area. Of course there is an even smaller percentage of the population that are simply making the effort to create a negative reaction at all times because they fear how little reaction they could cause if other people really did achieve their goals and were truly happy. It certainly makes things look a lot different when you look at it from that angle.
Published: February 13, 2008 4:16 AM
Thomas
Regardless of the immediate impact of Dr. Paul's campaign, I will be running here in Louisiana as a "Ron Paul Republican" for the House in a few years. (Don't forget, Dr. Paul came in second place for delegates to the State Convention here, only behind McCain)
Published: February 13, 2008 9:58 AM
Ball
The Ron Paul campaign has been instrumental in organizing individuals who would otherwise not know each other.
Having been involved in the campaign since early summer, I can't tell you how many people have said words to the effect of "I thought I was the only one who felt this way." This campaign has helped tens of thousands of people find their voice in the political forum (which, like it or not, exists) and has impressed on us the importance of changing the world through action instead of having sophomoric discussions online.
Classical liberals (and Miseans in particular) have the habit of describing the water we're all drowning in. Ron Paul Revolutionaries are trying to rally the free-thinking world to save civilization! It's not about one campaign—it's about getting people to think one phone call or door knock at a time. It's also about taking over institutions, wresting them from neoconservatives and Fabianists. It's not that hard if you actually TRY! Take a look at what we've done in Alaska, for example:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=117171
The Mises Institute is invaluable in trying to do similar things in academic institutions, but many of us need to graduate from the school of truth and apply it in the real world. Are you all going to spend the rest of your lives wistfully wishing for a gold standard while the Treasury Dept. shuts down every competing currency by every legal and illegal means possible?
Ron Paul made monetary policy part of the national discussion. He's accomplished more in one campaign to that effect than the rest of you have your entire lives combined. Show the man some respect and follow his example!
Published: February 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Niccolo Adami
Uh oh... No one better disagree that Ron Paul is messiah... Their comments will be blocked or they will be banned as mine were in a reply to Grant.
Published: February 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Niccolo Adami
If anyone has different ideas on what should be done in the libertarian movement, please let everyone know. But if you're just going to continue on and on about how this direction doesn't work but not suggest a new viable direction than it's simply no help at all and only lowers moral.
Vedran, this shows how little you know. An underground movement has been forming over the past decade that is gaining strength on local levels.
That movement is Agorism.
See, http://agorism.info
Published: February 13, 2008 1:23 PM
jeffrey
No comment of yours was deleted Niccolo. We are still working out the bugs here. One goofiest errors I see in today's world is people who assume that every software glitch is really a conspiracy against them. sheesh.
Published: February 13, 2008 1:56 PM
CFroh
I linked to this story, in yesterday's blog, which I hope Mises readers click and at which I hope folks leave a comment: http://www.commoninterest.info/2008/02/13/congressman-barr-as-lp-candidate/.
Don't forget that commenting at my blog will keep Lew's story on Ron Paul alive, so please click the link above!
I've done a lot for Dr. Paul, from broadcasting for Ron Paul Radio and even LIVE broadcasting from the Blimp. Find out what's going on by clicking the link above.
Blessings.
Published: February 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Michael Price
One thing made the Ron Paul run justified all by itself. When Rudy Mussolinin said he'd never heard anyone use american intervention to explain 9/11 Dr. Paul gave him a reading list. Millions of people were introduced to the idea that political events are explainable and the explanation is in books! And those books don't neccesarily agree with what the poltiicians said! If only 5% of people who saw him do that think "Gee, maybe I'd better read something about political events and not just take some elected officials word for it." then it will have done more to damage imperialism and war than thousands of war protests.
Published: February 14, 2008 8:26 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Niccolo Adami wrote 'Until libertarians begin to abandon this absurd notion that they can "fight the system from the inside," they will never see any success, ever'.
People might be interested in the mixed strategy that the Irish developed by trial and error in "the long 19th century". That involved having an overt poltical side that had to be accomodated and not cheated for fear that the weight would shift to the other leg (going underground, as it eventually did), while the overt poltical side applied "join and sabotage" tactics since a unitary Parliament never could give Ireland proper Parliamentary expression and put things through on their merits ("if you won't do the right thing then you won't do anything"). Mind you, some cheating was implemented, like inventing the Parliamentary guillotine to thwart Irish clogging of Parliament - and, of course, eventually the weight shifted in response. Parliamentary action had demonstrated that the system was institutionally incapable of providing proper expression, thus justifying using the other leg.
Published: February 15, 2008 5:22 AM
IMHO
I find it interesting that people who considered Ron Paul to be a man of honor would be so quick to accuse him of misappropriating Ron Paul for President campaign funds in order to fuel his run for Congress. It only goes to show the shallowness of their loyalty.
Last I heard Ron Paul was going to run both campaigns concurrently. One to use the national exposure to continue spreading libertarian principles, the other to run as congressman. He has no intention of mixing up the money from the two campaign funds.
One of the most important consequences of Ron Paul's campaign is that he brought to the public's attention something that CNN and Faux News never do...a platform of sound economic principles and foreign policies. This is going to have a long-reaching impact on the future as young people who participated in his campaign run for office 10, 20, 30 or 40 years down the road.
Published: February 15, 2008 6:30 AM
IMHO
One other thing. I once had a friend who told me that there was absolutely no hope for this country. That we should keep a low profile and let everything collapse of its own weight.
I told him that, as basic as my knowledge was, I was still going to give it a shot by trying to tell people about libertarian principles. Then the Ron Paul campaign came along and it presented an opportunity for tens of thousands of us to spread the word.
I hope that our efforts were able to restore his faith in what people are able to accomplish; however, I doubt he would ever admit it.
Published: February 15, 2008 6:44 AM
Nelson
It was a good start. He could have done better by having a good contingency plan to end the war in Iraq without leaving civil war. Opposing immigration reform didn't help spread libertarian ideas either.
Published: February 15, 2008 9:18 AM
Nelson
Are there plans to keep the organizational components together to build up support over the next 4 years and beyond?
Published: February 15, 2008 9:21 AM
SBGA
What I fail to see in all of the analysis of the Ron Paul campaign here is an acknowledgement of the death grip that our educational system and media has on the minds and opinions of the majority of the public. Ron Paul has been mercilessly black balled by the media. Watching the debates made the manipulation incredibly apparent. For example in the last debate there was a period of time where candidates were permitted to ask each other questions. Not one candidate of the four others on the stage directed a question to Ron Paul.
Let's be honest here, the American public has been dumbed down by an educational system that pushes a globalist system of socialism. (See the short book - "FedEd" by Quist for the facts on the global curriculum.) The media determines the thinking of the majority through its constant drum beat marching us toward a global model of socialism which leads to the Oligarchy of Corporations and oppressive government we have today. (See the report "Ten Thousand Commandments" by the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute for the facts on the $1.14 Trillion hidden tax of government regulations on American businesses.)
Ron Paul's campaign faltering is not the result of the delivery of his message IMHO or many of the other reasons I see cited. As I see it the primary problem is a grossly distorted and programmed point of view that a conditioned and unreflective public blindly and unreflectively acccepts as reality. Ron Paul's message is falling on the ears of a public that doesn't have the capability of comprehending it.
It's kind of like a man who has a bullet lodged in his skull. He may be able to work around the bullet and his body will compensate and circumvent the invading foreign body but it will still be impacting him unknowingly. However, if you remove the offending body suddenly there is a lightness and freedom of blood and energy that causes the man to feel, think and act more freely. The people of this nation are walking around with the bullets of globalist socialism lodged in their brains. It colors all of their expectations and perceptions. Consequently, when a good public speaker like Obama makes promises of socialist hand outs, they respond favorably.
Unless we, who perceive the dangerous path this nation is on, actively work to re-educate the public against the massive assault of a manipulated educational and media propoganda machine, candidates offering a free market capitalist paradigm in place of the illusion of a free ride from government will fall on deaf ears.
To me, that is the primary reason for the failure of the Ron Paul message are:
1.) Direct suppression of his message by the mainstream media which also has done everything they can (which really is not much at all in reality) to paint him as incompetent
2.) A dumbed down society that believes in the globalist message of socialism.
Until those flaws are corrected by the cold water of reality (possibly economic collapse as Duncan notes in "The Dollar Crisis") no candidate offering a message of free market capitalism will receive strong support from an increasingly manipulated nation of sheep. Don't shoot the messenger for the public's lack of insight. They will get what they have asked for in due course and I personally do not think it will be very pretty at all. No fault of Ron's, thank you.
Published: February 15, 2008 9:31 AM
jeffrey
I really don't understand why anyone would think his campaign was a failure. He spoke. He got the message out. He brought around hundreds of thousands. On top of it all, he was getting 5-20% of the vote in GOP primaries -- which is way way more than I ever expected that someone with a radical libertarian message would get. So I guess much depends on one's expectations.
Published: February 15, 2008 10:02 AM