That’s what Tony Campbell, a former Republican Party official from Baltimore County, is saying.
If Paul wants to continue his campaign, he has the right to do so as a third-party candidate. Ron Paul is NOT a Republican and certainly is not a Conservative. The sooner Republicans figure out that the Ron Paul of 2012 is no different from the Paul of 1988; the sooner Republicans can get to the business of deciding our nominee without distractions from fake Republican candidates dressed up in elephant clothing.
This line of attack might have a bit more traction if there was some substance to back it up.
The substance of his objections lies in large part on Paul’s 1988 campaign for president as the Libertarian Party’s candidate, during which he criticized Pres. Reagan’s record and the fact that in this campaign he has not attacked Romney the way he has attacked Santorum, Gingrich, and others.
As for the first, it might cost me some of friends in the MDGOP, but Reagan was no perfect president. He did raise taxes (something even conservative stalwarts like Grover Norquist have acknowledged as a big mistake), he displayed a less than stellar commitment to cutting government spending, and he probably could have employed better discretion as concerned foreign affairs. It’s a dishonor to Reagan’s legacy to recognize all the good he did but gloss over his mistakes.
And as for the second, why is anyone surprised that Paul has attacked Romney less than Gingrich and Santorum (and yes, it’s a matter of less, Romney has been criticized by Paul too)? After all, both have displayed significantly more hostility to Paul and his candidacy than Romney has.
Remember this bit from Gingrich?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N2Sm9KpLsLE#t=116s
And then there’s Santorum who has been quite open about his hostility to the libertarian project within the Republican Party.
“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement…I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the tea party movement to sort of refashion conservatism, and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
In contrast, Romney has been incredibly respectful of Paul even as he disagrees with him. Given a field where most of the candidates have been open with their disdain for the libertarian congressman while one has been gentlemanly, where do you think his attacks would be focused?
Of course, Campbell thinks otherwise and uses a Huffington Post article as evidence that there’s a backroom deal between Romney and Paul, with Paul undermining Romney’s competition in exchange for Paul’s son Rand being named the VP candidate.
It seems that the only reason that Paul is still in the race is to assist Mitt Romney is bullying his way to become the nominee of the Republican Party. If that was not enough, it seems that his sonSenator Rand Paul has publicly said that he would accept the Vice Presidential slot on the Romney ticket.
Unfortunately, the article doesn’t say what Campbell thinks it does. Rand Paul never said he would accept the nomination, only that he would be honored to have it offered. And really, is there anyone who wouldn’t be honored to be offered the Vice Presidency of the United States, regardless of whether or not they accept the offer?
But if you’re a Republican, you probably ought to be eager to see one of the Paul’s on the Republican presidential ticket. Why?
Gov. Gary Johnson.
Johnson was an extremely popular two-term governor of New Mexico, a former Republican, and the presumptive nominee of the Libertarian Party for the upcoming election.
As a former governor, he is probably the most credible candidate the Libertarian Party has ever fielded. More importantly, he already polls at 9% in hypothetical match-ups against Pres. Obama and various Republican nominees, putting him in close range of qualifying for debates.
Now I happen to think that while Johnson’s candidacy will do more to hurt Obama by highlighting his hypocrisy on medical marijuana, gay rights, and foreign policy, he has a fair amount to offer disaffected Republicans as well.
And who will be more disaffected amongst Republicans than Ron Paul supporters if one of the Paul’s isn’t on the ticket? If you’re a Republican think about this possibility for a moment:
- A former governor, with more executive experience than either of the major party candidates;
- Calling for more aggressively right-wing policies on taxes and spending;
- Backed by Ron Paul’s army of supporters and getting tons of media attention from it;
- Qualifying for the debates;
- And then being on the ballot in all 50 states
If that’s a scenario you’re comfortable with as a Republican, then by all means, continue to be disdainful of Ron Paul’s candidacy and dismissive of the idea of Rand Paul as VP. On the other hand, if that worries you, it might be worth reconsidering how the Republican Party engages with its libertarian wing.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I am the former Maryland State Director of Gov. Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign. I am also a member of the Queen Anne’s County Republican Central Committee. From the point at which Gov. Johnson left the Republican presidential primary I have endorsed no presidential primary candidate.)
Clark says
Ron Paul does not follow the Republican party line on an array of issues, foreign and domestic. He is entirely real and sincere about it, though, take it or leave it. In some ways I think he is a scary man.
Keith Thompson says
Clark, I’m curious about what it is that makes Ron Paul scary for many people. It is because the idea of freedom, which also requires a level of personal responsibilty, is now a scary idea for Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) who have become more dependent on government? Is that a reflection that perhaps the United States has strayed from many of the ideals of our Founding Fathers? Were the Founding Fathers wrong about these ideals? These are all valid questions and we’re starting to ask them.
Love him or hate him, I think what Ron Paul has brought to this presidential race is an re-examination of what it means to be an American and an re-examination of the direction the country is heading. I think he has changed the nature of some of the dialogue which makes him a valuable contributor to the political process. That also makes him dangerous to the status quo.
Steve Payne says
I think the Romney people and the Paul people may be double teaming Santorum. Makes sense for both.
I doubt it has anything to do with a future VP slot though. If Romney gets the nod the last thing he’ll want is either Paul going into a general election.
I also think that the American people are substantially more free now than ever before.
Gren Whitman says
The problem with presidential candidate Ron Paul is not that he’s a “fake, but that he’s a “flake,” a volatile mixture of open-eyed sanity and sheer nuttiness.
For example, if you want to bring U.S. troops home from everywhere, end the phony war on drugs, and protect civil liberties — as does Mr. Paul, and as do I — just keep in mind that he also advocates no environmental protections, no Social Security, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no anti-poverty programs, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination laws, no laws ensuring safe food, drugs, and consumer products, no air safety regulations, no workers’ rights, and no abortions.
Keith Thompson says
Steve, in terms of civil liberties I would agree with you that this country is as free as it’s ever been. As for economic freedom in terms of the government assuming functions of providing services requiring taxpayer funding, we’re likely as burdened as we ever have been. To me the idea of freedom and liberty extends to economic freedom as much as civil liberties.
Gren writes…”just keep in mind that he also advocates no environmental protections, no Social Security, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no anti-poverty programs, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination laws, no laws ensuring safe food, drugs, and consumer products, no air safety regulations, no workers’ rights, and no abortions.” Well not exactly in all cases as I think you’re guilty of hearing how Paul’s (as well as Johnson’s views) are portrayed in the media than by what they actually say. The chief belief of libertarians is that the Constitution severly restricts the power of the federal government and therefore most of the functions you cite are supposed to be taken care of by the states or by the people themselves.
Environmental protections..the Paul/Johnson/libertarian view on the environment is that pollution is a form of trespass. The idea here is that instead of blanket one-size fits all government policies that can use environmental policy as a form of government control, you view environmental protection on a case by case basis in the civil courts.
Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid…retirement benefits or healthcare are not government functions authorized by the Constitution and therefore are programs that the federal government have taken on outside the parameters of the Constitution. Whether or not it is constitutionally permissible for the federal government to take on these roles, I think it is fair to debate how much the federal government should be involved with these issues.
Anti-poverty…again, not a constitutionally mandated government function and therefore a libertarian view is that this is something better handled on a more local level via charitable organizations or local governments who are much better in tune with the poverty conditions in a community.
Public education…a state and local government function, not a federal one (as No Child Left Behind certainly points out).
Civil rights laws/anti-discrimination…of course, most of the civil rights violations and subsequent discrimination were as a direct result of government sanctioned discrimination. Even the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5th of a person, women did not have voting rights, and “separate but equal” was the law of the land. Now that we are a much more free in terms of civil liberties today, anti-discrimination laws are almost unnecessary today and were largely necessary before because discrimination was government policy. Certainly it may be acceptable for a church, for instance, to not want to have employees who don’t believe in the church’s mission, but on the other hand in 2012, would it make sense for a restaurant to refuse to serve minorities? (although would you want to force an upper scale restaurant to refuse to serve a man not wearing a jacket and tie?)
Safe food, drug and consumer products…it all depends on what you want the government to do. Regulating that food must not be contaminated with salmonella or that household products are not contaminated with lead are legitimate functions of government but is regulating that food not make you fat or consumer goods that don’t promote violence of immoral behavior a legitimate government function? That’s a different question.
Air safety regulations…certainly a government function as long as the government role is promotion of passenger safety.
No worker’s rights…keep in mind that rights that are obtained by workers (40 hour work week, minimum wage, etc. do have an effect on limiting what is technically a private contract that a worker enters into with an employer). A 40 hour work week can limit the opportunities of enterprising employers who would be willing to work more hours to earn extra money and minimum wage laws eliminate workers who don’t have the intelligence, experience, or skills above that level.
Abortions…not something that libertarians agree on except that the issue is something that is more of a state and local issue than a federal one. This is really the issue where I do differ from Paul (I’m not sure about Johnson on this one).
Anyway, the bottom line for me is that even if Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson) gets elected president, they are not going to be successful in implementing a libertarian government. Not even a libertarian majority in Congress is not going to implement a libertarian agenda, but if you have the view like me that the Constitution greatly limits the size of government; then in order to reduce the size of the government, you actually have to find a compromise point that reflects a move in that direction. As far as I’m concerned, both Republicans and Democrats favor supporting their slice of big government and any compromise between the two gives both sides what they want and the government only gets bigger.
If you’re viewing libertarianism as a mix of open-eyed sanity and sheer nuttiness, I think you’re missing the inherent consistancy that exists in our view of the world in that we’re embracing the idea of liberty and freedom (and the accompanying responsibilities) in ALL aspects of government and not ones that we pick and choose. If you see some aspect of freedom and liberty as nutty, then you have an inherent fear of freedom and liberty and is precisely the reason why Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are scary to some people. To me the most important part is that their campaigns serve the function of examining exactly how much we want the government to influence our lives which is not an issue that is being debated in conventional politics.
Stephan Sonn says
`A very well written piece Keith.
It is a great Libertarian Op-Ed.
Any Libertarian who gains power
is a knife in the back of Social Democracy
from whatever office they occupy
By both the overt and covert means
available to them.
The country would be more divided
than it is now and the wounds deeper.
Gren Whitman says
Keith Thompson’s libertarian zeal overlooks one little teeny-weeny-eensy-weensy fact: what’s “constitutional” is not what Congressman Ron Paul argues is constitutional, but what the Supreme Court rules is constitutional.
Fortunately for us all, the court has over the years ruled that federal environmental protections, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, anti-poverty programs, consumer protections, air safety, workers’ rights, voters’ rights, curbs on public religious practices, abortions (etc.) are all constitutional.
Mr. Thompson may disagree, and under the Constitution, that’s his right … but … his opinion doesn’t alter a single Court ruling … and neither does Mr. Paul’s.
Steve Payne says
The Constitution is intentionally not a exclusive list of what the government can do. It is the opposite. It sets up a government where the people can pass laws as they please except for some rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
Stephan Sonn says
Gentlemen
the Libertarian mindset simply will not accept
a fountainhead constitutional vision
of evolving thought and methodology
in the way that government serves a free society..
It is too nuanced for simple black and white thinking.
The particular brand of one per centers that are
invested in he breakdown of social democracy ,
have used bible-thumpers so effectively as goons.
And Libertarians so steeped in Darwinism
posed as free thinkers,
have borrowed heavily from Pavlov.
Lots of salivating going on and plenty of mad dogs
messing up the mangers.
Seems like it is not the Left that has delivered us to Big Brother,
but the Right..
Keith Thompson says
@ Gren
The Constititution is a flexible document and what one Supreme Court rules as Constitutional another court may not. A change in the direction of society with a president appointing and Congress approving more libertarian leaning judges would change the way the Constitution is interpreted.
@Steve, I agree with you to a point. I maintain that the Constitution is designed to allow the people to pass laws as they please except for those protected by the Bill of Rights. Where we disagree is that the 10th Amendment reserves the rights to the states or the people meaning that many of the functions of government that Gren cites should not be federal government functions, but should be handled through state and local governments (as long as they don’t violate the Bill of Rights).
@Stephan, if you argue that libertarianism is the knife in the back of Social Democracy, I’d argue that Social Democracy is the knife in the back of freedom and liberty.Ultimately the country always swings between these two extremes and right now I like to move it back toward the middle.
@Everyone, what is most important to me is that this is a part of the political dialogue right now and that’s the most important contribution that Ron Paul has brought to the presidential race.
Stephan Sonn says
What Ron Paul has brought to this race
is a personification of anarchy.
A rallying point for chaos..
Even the concept of loyal opposition
so carefully coveted in modern times
is lost to his mob centered disruptive talking points..
With a little help from the Kogh brothers
who find his agenda similar in purpose
Paul enables governing by frenzy.
Ron Paul has fanned the flames of cultural civil war
and contributes nothing remotely constructive
Worshiping Ron Paul is a Peter Pan reality fix
without the charm and no closure .
Just wandering through the endless caverns of denial.
chasing fireflies and calling them stars.
Stephan Sonn says
It seems to me Keith that
you are mining for utopia
strictly strictly from the confines
of your own mind and experience,.
There is a larger world
than Just the confines
of your own take
and you need to tap into that.
Please send your five cents contribution to
ucy at the lemonade stand.
Keith Thompson says
Stephan writes, “It seems to me Keith that you are mining for utopia strictly from the confines of your own mind and experience”
Actually, I think the opposite is true. I see “Social Democracy” as attempting to create a Utopia where everyone is clothed, fed, has healthcare, and a high paying job. I argue that Utopia is not attainable and therefore is not an option and I would rather create a society that allows people to succeed or fail on their own terms. That doesn’t preclude helping people that need to be helped and are otherwise unable to help themselves, but I see your experiment with Social Democracy as creating a society where people who are otherwise able to provide for themselves, are relying more on society and government to provide for them.
I also think you’re guilty (as well as most of the media) of looking at libertarianism as an extreme form of conservatism (in today’s political paradigm) whereas libertarism is largely built on the classic liberal ideas of folks like Thomas Jefferson. Libertarian thought doesn’t fit neatly into our current two-party paradigm and trying to define it those terms is misleading.
Stephan Sonn says
Jefferson was also a Deist .
Since the Industrial Revolution Social Democracy has evolved as
he chosen and best vehicle to server an 80 percent urban society.
It is Geo W who nearly bankrupted the country
by waging at one needless war.
And under funding programs.
Do you think for one moment
there would even be a middle class.
were it not for Social Democracy. emerging?
Part of the herding nature of elks is to sacrifice a few
to save most. from the Lions Hyenas, jackals and the like.
,
I trust basic instincts in this naturally predatory society.
Keith Thompson says
Stephan,
I will absolutely agree with you that “Geo W” nearly bankrupted this country by waging a needless war”, and Ron Paul would agree with you on that too. As for underfunding programs, if anything “Geo W” didn’t underfund any programs and actually created a few (No Child Left Behind comes to mind) but he also pushed through a tax cut to guarantee that we’d use borrowed money to pay for them. The point here is that you’re blaming fiscal conservatism for our nation’s economic woes except that “Geo W” was anything but a fiscal conservative. Actually his daddy had the perfect term for his economic policy, “Voodoo Economics” when he described Ronald Reagan’s ideas back in 1980. To me, this is where Republicans went horribly wrong…you don’t cut taxes to stimulate the economy, you cut taxes to reduce the size of government. Republicans never cut the size of government.
This is my point, you’re blaming the fiscal conservatism favored by libertarians as the root of our nation’s ills except that we haven’t had fiscal conservatism in this country for several generations now. You cite Social Democracy as the savior of our society, but I’d argue that just about everybody in the government now is a Social Democrat. I think it’s time to try something else.
Stephan Sonn says
I will say it again Kieth, what you postulate
is not a Whitmins Sampler:
try it ..if you don.t like it
‘don’t eat it again…
By the time the Kogh Brothers expropriate the result
of Libertarian confusion and disruption
there will be no mechanism
to turn back cannibal capitalism takeover
and the bad deal will be the only deal allowed.
And you and other Libertarians and other faux-freedom fighters
will have been the facilitators
Keith I realize that you are searching for a political,
moral and psychological position for yourself here but
you totally can’t appreciate the crossroads here.
Don’t flatter yourself and your
Mini_Me philosophy so much
is not Progressive V Libertarians
Libertarians will play their bit part and exit
.in the same way all free thought could.
This is a morphing power play
years in the making
that you are not equipped to understand
.the consequences of.,
so long as you wear blinders
and blindly worship Ayn Rand
Who led a very troubled life.
beneath her cult /lecturer facade.
There are some truths that are above debate
and some liars who think they are beyond mortals.
I am a bit tired to this racing around the tree like a chained dog with you.
Have your own truth but it is not worth my time to chase misguided abstractions.
Good Luck.