• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't back Ron Paul, you're a neo-con. If you don't back Ron Paul you're an idiot. If you don't back Ron Paul you against the constitution. If you question Ron Paul you're a sheep that believes everything every other candidate says. And even some rambling about hair, whatever that's all about? It's a terrible tactic and one that does nothing but make you all look childish with a cultish attitude.

Wait a second now. For four long years anti-war conservatives have been called every name in the book, traitors, unpatriotic, supporters of Islamo-fascism etc., and now we are the sensitive ones when Ron Paul is criticized?

Check out this classic cover article by neo-con David Frum in the National Review at the beginning of the war esentially calling anti war conservatives american haters who would take pleasure in seeing america defeated. http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Money quote:

"There is, however, a fringe attached to the conservative world that cannot overcome its despair and alienation. The resentments are too intense, the bitterness too unappeasable. Only the boldest of them as yet explicitly acknowledge their wish to see the United States defeated in the War on Terror. But they are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it, and they will take pleasure in it if it should happen.

They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.

War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."
 
My point was, I question things every candidate says, especially things that pop up in your face as this did with RP.
It's good to question. But it's even better to learn your native tongue. If you heard Ron Paul's response as blaming America for 9/11, you misunderstood something. It's perfectly plain he did nothing of the sort.

--Len.
 
I guess I am getting too old. Is adding 1,000 per day on myspace exceptional, good, average, or does it just suck?

My take on Ron Paul, who I have admired for years, is that he is the last chance we have to avoid violent civil war. Yes, that is a dramatic statement, but when you figure that the federal government for at least 100 years has been in the business of shifting wealth out of the pockets of the majority into the pockets of politicians and those who pull their strings, you might get a glimpse of the picture. Of course everyone accepted this plunder because their standards of living increased, even though the power structure increased their standard of living even more; the economic pie expanded but those in power took most of it, but not so much that the underclasses rebelled.

So here we are, at a point in history where there is a distribution of wealth similar to a slave state. What has given rise to this extra-ordinary increase in the economic pie is the once in a planets exploitation of stored hydrocarbon energy which is coming to an end. Been to the gas station lately?

As energy exploitation wanes and your life becomes more and more difficult to live, maybe those of you unaware will wake up to the simple fact that you are slave and those in power are master and you life means nothing to them.

I, frankly, do not expect Ron Paul to reach into enough brains to get him elected. As much as I care for him, I hope he fails, because I do not want an advocate of freedom to be blamed for the collapse of the slave state.

I fear for my children and grandchildren as the collapse follows the laws of nature. Things should shuffle along for the next 3 to 5 years, and than look out.
 
no matter who is president they will be blamed... its obviously their fault.

like buyinga used car with sawdust in it to keep it running smooth. Just long enough til the engine seizes, then you have to gut it and find out exactly what went wrong, replace it wtih something equal, better, or just enough to get it running again, and start the process over.
 
My girlfriend is a genius. We were just talking about Ron Paul when she suggested that we put a sign on our lawn supporting him. I know its early, I know he hasn't even won a primary yet... but does anyone know if such a thing is yet available? I apologize if this has already been addressed, but this is a pretty long thread and i didn't want to search through it to find that out:) thanks in advance.
 
It's good to question. But it's even better to learn your native tongue. If you heard Ron Paul's response as blaming America for 9/11, you misunderstood something. It's perfectly plain he did nothing of the sort.

budney,

Take your own advice. You need it desperately. I never said I heard Ron Pauls Message as blaming America for 9-11. I have pointed out that he came across as not convincing and
I have seen that same behavior have an imposed "questioning/suspicious" meaning many times before, on purpose.

I said .......
If he truly believes the government had nothing to do with it, he should have not paused......then said....., "there's no evidence of that", leaving some question to his thoughts. He should have just come right out and said, "Heck no! Let there be no mistake, I do not think that has any merit whatsoever, it's unfounded and is not my view." He would have cut off his critics and competition at the knees and made his own row a lot easier to hoe.

Here's my tongue budney...........Personally, I think he did it on purpose, he's not an idiot. I think he wanted to come across as "being on record" saying there's no evidence of that but yet, in a way to let there be a question to it. To have others wonder. I don't think it was a smart move. I noticed it, but it only backfired as to the end result, at least with me. It fits his whole campaign actually. Bold, questioning, etc; but yet he knows better than to come strait out and say that. Do I think he thinks that? I have no idea? I doubt it though. I think it was a strategic calculated response. I just don't think it was a smart one. But hey, don't let me get in yaaawll's way with a different viewpoint to a reply he made. My little 'ol self doesn't want to cost Paul an election. :rolleyes:
 
Marshall,

Ron Paul is the man. Period. I dont see a problem with saying that there is not another candidate who works to uphold the constitution as much as he does.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited due to non-highroad material.

-Chris
 
His Voting record has been beat to death here and his stance on every subject is well known.

I do not see a problem with any of it.

What is not to like about being able to live in a country where you wont have your guns taken away, you wont be robbed blind by your own government, and my cell phone will not be used as a bug anytime the powers at be want to listen in to see where my head is at.

I like Ron Paul, I love liberty. I guess I'm in that cult.
 
I dont see a problem with saying that there is not another candidate who works to uphold the constitution as much as he does.

Glad we agree, I don't have a problem with you saying that either. Unfortunately, you can look back through the thread and see many examples of what I was referring to.
 
Glad we agree, I don't have a problem with you saying that either. Unfortunately, you can look back through the thread and see many examples of what I was referring to.

I will check out the rest of the thread when I have time.
 
I'm not saying you have to vote for the constitutionally based candidate. you can vote for whoever you want.

I dont understand why you would want to vote someone into the office dictated and controlled by the constitution, to have anything other than respect for it, and ANYONE who advocates gun control (especially any further than it already is) is OBVIOUSLY working against the Constitution. there are some other candidates (Tancredo i've seen is pretty constitutionally stable) i wouldn't hesitate to vote for in Paul's place, but so far any of these 'frontrunners' are so fargone its completely against principal for me to vote for them.
 
This is interesting. Though it may provoke an emotional response.
Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? A phone conversation about the unseen operations of the Federal Reserve System

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the
power of congress to lay tax on the people.

CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

CALLER - What are these assets composed of?

MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER - Where did they go?

MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in
circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

MR. SUPINSKI - No

CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.

CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin
air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.

CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically
state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.

CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.

CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.

CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

CALLER - What is the solution?

MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.

CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.

CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.

CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.

CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.

CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.

MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.



If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true.
And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality's . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations - federal reserve banks are listed neither as "wholly-owned' government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846 (moved to Section 9101) nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. ' Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality's of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operations' of that entity.
Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities ...
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act.
Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ." According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears," published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia).
The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US" *
Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.
'Monopoly,' as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.
Source: Daniel Doyle Benham
Retrieved from "http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=A_Phone_Call_With_The_Federal_Rese rve"
 
My emotional response is that the conversation sounds pretty fake. My intellectual response is that these are some of the same arguments made by Ed and Elaine Brown, and they are currently under siege in New Hampshire for acting upon their beliefs. In this respect I suppose they are lucky that Bush is in the White House. If they had taken this stand with Clinton, they would probably be dead by now.
 
If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK!
Hahah, I can just imagine some poor, curious, young libertarian calling up a bank and talking to the most vapid phone jockey in the universe.

Here's an attempt at a stream-of-conscious parody:

Why do you need a driver's license? A phone conversation about the unseen operations of the DMV

The following is a conversation with Ms. Samantha Jenkins of the DMV of Atlanta, GA. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER - Ms. Jenkins, do the states own the system of driver's licenses?

MS. JENKINS - Who da hell is dis? You want a new license or what?

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it controlled by the states, or does the federal requirement of reciprocity usurp state control over licensing to operate vehicles on public roads?

MS. JENKINS - Whaaaaaaaaaa??

CALLER - Is the DMV a Corporation?

MS. JENKINS - We have incorporated offices all over Atlanta if you need something nearby.

CALLER - No, no. I mean, is the DMV a private organization contracted by the state government?

MS. JENKINS - Shiii', I donno! Mr. Burke gives me my paycheck every 2 weeks and I'm outta heah!

(muffled from the background) - Hell yeah, payday, baby!

CALLER - I was reviewing the state constitution and I can't find any authority for a department of motor vehicles. What authority allows you to exist and issue licenses?

MS. JENKINS - Look, if you don't get a license, you can't drive, understand?!

CALLER - To exist without a specific charter is a little strange, isn't it?

MS. JENKINS - I got some pamphlets that talks about what we do here. Now whatchu want? I got break coming up soon.

CALLER - Um, actually, I just wanted to renew my license.

MS. JENKINS - Mail $5 and a photocopy of your license to our location. SEE YA, I'M OUT! (click)

CALLER - Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. It makes me feel good that individual citizens in this country can still contact government agencies to get to the bottom of how the system works. Too many people these days simply do what they're told or rely on secondhand information, but I'm glad I can go to the source and get some answers to my hard questions.

CALLER - ..are you still there? ..please?
 
I'd expect the banker to refer them straight to the legal dept and transfer or hang up.

I've seen similar stuff for years.

And until you can get a court or Congress to agree and impose sanctions, it's not going to change. End of story.

But, looking at a couple of those points:

"They'd know you bought X gallons of gas at Y station for Z price and an A donut at B shop for C price..." Who the @!$@#! cares??? Why would the government care? Why would ANYONE care? And if you're doing something questionable, you won't be using a debit card and they have much better ways to track you. "The defendant went to a gas station and CONDUCTED A LEGITIMATE TRANSACTION!! Or at least, someone using his debit card did."

And yes, it's a fiat currency and has been for almost a century. So? Last year at an event, one of these agitators tried to get me to take old silver coins.

First of all, he wanted waaay more than metal value. He wanted what he called "market" value. No, thanks.

I explained to him that the market value of a silver quarter was, to any gas station flunky I'd meet on the way home, 25c. The value of a thing is what that thing will bring.

"But that paper you have is WORTHLESS PAPER not backed by anything!" he insisted.

Yup. And that "Worthless" paper will get me 1/3 of a gallon of gas without question. Therefore, that "Worthless" paper is WORTH 1/3 of a gallon of gas. It's fiat and as flexible as barter, but it's recognized as a medium of exchange.

I have a substantial amount of silver and enjoying conducting trade with silver for eventual disasters. Guess what I'll do with that silver if it quintuples in value because the dollar takes a nose dive? Convert it to dollars and throw it into the equity in my house, thus reducing my debt at a beneficial rate to me. I won't offer silver to the mortgage company. I'll offer them "Worthless" electrons backed by "Worthless" paper bought with "valuable" silver and come out ahead.

Because if the dollar drops by a factor of 5, so does my mortgage, relative to the buying power of said worthless paper. Real estate and tangible metal. I win.

But the medium of exchange will be those "Worthless" dollars.

And if society tanks tomorrow and no more dollars are printed, they will acquire intrinsic value as a relic of the Empire that cannot be replaced. And they'll still be "dollars" and people have been taught since birth that a "dollar" is money.

I don't argue with the sheep. I fleece them.
 
If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won't find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true.

Alright who else is going to try this? I dont have anything to do this afternoon.
 
So here is the best of Ron Paul yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTRDfKg_20

This is the first part of 5 so you can figure out the next parts.

I am 63 years old and it almost brings tears to my eyes to see Ron Paul get better and better. I hope those of you who do not yet embrace the concept of liberty can grasp what this old man is telling us. My God, if you have children and grandchildren and do not want them to live in slavery, give it a listen with an opened mind.

Neil
 
The Ron Paul phenomenon is being noticed in other coutries.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1988


Why Ron Paul?
June 20, 2007
Alvaro Vargas Llosa



WASHINGTON—I was dumbfounded last week when three radio stations, one in Spain and two in Latin America, asked me to explain who American presidential hopeful Ron Paul is and why his candidacy in the Republican primaries has generated such a buzz. The congressman from Texas has hardly registered in national polls but is a political celebrity in the blogosphere and on cable TV Web sites, and has been the subject of front-page stories in The Washington Post and other major news outlets. Apparently, he is making waves around the world too.

The obvious appeal of this uncharismatic, straight-talking physician is that he opposes the U.S. military presence in Iraq. In a Republican Party in which most presidential candidates compete to claim the most “macho” foreign policy credentials, Paul—who once suggested that President Bush allow private bounty hunters to pursue Osama bin Laden rather than have the U.S. invade Afghanistan—stands out.

But Paul’s opposition to the war is probably not enough to explain the appeal of this 71-year old libertarian among many young people. It would have been simplistic to attribute the counterculture of the 1960s to the Vietnam War, even though opposition to that conflict gave impetus to the moral liberation we associate with that era. And it may be simplistic to attribute the current symptoms of rebellion against the party elites in the United States, of which the Ron Paul buzz seems to be an unlikely manifestation, to the disgust with the war in Iraq.

In an age in which technology has given young people the tools to exercise personal choice in ways previous generations could not dream of—for instance, by substituting customized information and group communication through the Internet for traditional media—one senses a growing revulsion against the intrusion of the authorities into people’s lives. The exasperation with established institutions affects both parties, but the most blatant target is the Republican Party.

The GOP, whose discourse paradoxically stresses individual responsibility, has come to be associated with two powerful forms of intrusion: the use of force abroad and of moral bullying at home. The first is a courtesy of, but is not limited to, the neoconservatives; the second is a child of the religious right. Although the Democrats have traditionally been the big-government party, the perception today even among many Republicans is that the GOP has pushed the boundaries of authority beyond reasonable limits. The younger generations of Republicans seem to have found a spokesman in Paul, who calls for limiting the reach of government on all fronts—foreign policy, moral issues, economic activity.

Paul probably comes across as more consistent than his fellow Republican candidates because his stands fall in line with the republic the Founding Fathers envisaged. His positions—including the abolition of the income tax—are on the fringe of the political debate because of how much the country has moved away from the spirit of the 18th century. But Paul’s eccentric qualities also send a stern message to the party elite.

There is no telling whether these are the initial stages of a cultural transformation or a passing fad. No one foresaw, at the end of the 18th century, the extent of the liberal reaction against theocracy in the American colonies (“liberal” in the classical, not the contemporary, sense), and yet it grew so powerful that it soon gained control of key academic institutions, including Harvard, originally founded as a training ground for orthodox Puritans. No one foresaw, two and a half centuries later, that the marginal beatniks of the 1950s would usher in the counterculture earthquake of the 1960s.

We cannot predict whether the current signs of grass-roots rebellion against the political elites will be seen a few years from now as the harbinger of something bigger. But there is enough iconoclastic sentiment out there for us to wonder if we are not in the presence of an explosion of individualism that will transform the politics of the Republican Party into something less intrusive, bringing it closer to the small-government discourse it has preached in the past.

The phrase “time will tell” is one I dislike because people often use it to evade responsibility. But culture, that Protean beast, adopts so many unpredictable forms that one can never be sure of what shape it will take next. Something, however, seems to be building—and it could be interesting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Send email

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow and Director of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. He is widely published and has lectured on world economic and political issues including at the Mont Pelerin Society, Naumann Foundation (Germany), FAES Foundation (Spain), Brazilian Institute of Business Studies, Fundación Libertad (Argentina), CEDICE Foundation (Venezuela), Florida International University, and the Ecuadorian Chamber of Commerce. He is the author of the Independent Institute books The Che Guevara Myth and Liberty for Latin America.

------------------------------------------------------------------

www.ronpaul2008.com
 
I keep hearing people call Paul a libertarian and once he did run for that party. Using that logic you'd may as well call him a republican because that is the party he's run and gotten elected with many times now. Looking at his service record and current positions I've got to say he looks a whole lot more like a straight constitutionalist than a libertarian to me. Very interesting. I suppose it's easier to marginalize someone as a libertarian than to marginalize the Constitution itself.
 
heh

enough politicians marginalize it now, its become a second-hand tool for government control, next to unfairness
 
I was talking about people, not politicians. Most politicians have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. Most individual Paul bashers make a point of calling him a libertarian regardless that the party he represents and gets elected with is the republicans and his service record shows him as a constitutionalist much more strongly than a libertarian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top