Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Memo To America: Ron Paul’s Ideology Is As Dangerous As The Tea Party
Every election year brings out one or two quirky candidates that appear to have little chance of winning more than a seat on a local city council or if they are fortunate, a seat in the House of Representatives. This year, quirky candidates are extremist, main-stream Republicans seeking the presidency and although they may not reach the White House, they are gaining traction among Christian conservatives and anti-government groups that gave rise to the tea party in 2010 and resulted in Republicans taking control of the House. The 2010 elections gave Americans a glimpse of what electing extremists to positions of power means for the nation and although the tea party’s popularity is in decline, another quirky candidate is rising in popularity among conservatives and some mainstream Republicans.
Ron Paul’s third run for the presidency is different than in previous years and his Libertarian policies have caught up to Republicans who embrace his small government, state’s rights, and decreased taxes mantra that Paul has espoused for years. Ron Paul is no longer a fringe candidate, but his Libertarian ideology, if implemented, is as extreme as any tea party candidate and ultimately just as dangerous for America and its people. It is unfortunate that more Americans lack an understanding of Libertarianism because even Paul’s supporters would rail against some of his remedies for the country if he were elected president.
It has been well-reported that Paul’s racist views from the past are cause for concern, and last week he flaunted an endorsement of an anti-gay evangelical preacher who advocated for capital punishment as a “restorative” measure to prevent homosexuality. Paul removed the press release announcing the anti-gay preacher’s endorsement, but the preacher’s reason for endorsing him informs the dangers of electing a Libertarian who would give states latitude to implement harsh biblical laws. Under a Libertarian’s vision for America, giving individual states the right to make and enforce their own laws heralds a dark time for the country and its citizens.
Libertarians envision a country with every citizen fending for themselves with no federally enforced equal rights protections or programs to maintain and build roads, schools, hospitals, or regulations to protect consumers. In fact, Ron Paul said that as president, he would immediately eliminate five federal departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Education. He would end war spending and recall all U.S. forces from overseas, end foreign aid, and abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve. Paul’s vision for America is 50 states that make up their own laws irrespective of constitutional rights, and leave Americans at the mercy of the wealthy elite. If one talks to a Ron Paul supporter, they support the philosophy of anything goes and everyone is on their own, but upon further review and reflection, few Americans really advocate for being left on their own.
Libertarianism is a wealthy person’s dream with no regulations or taxes and no concern for anyone but themselves. The wealthy have financial security to pay for private schools, private security, private fire departments, private roads, and private airports and for them, go it on your own works well; especially when their corporations avoid regulations, consumer protection laws, and taxes. However, for everyone else, Libertarianism means a return to frontier America where each family provides all the services the government provides today. There are few Americans who can afford to individually pay for services their tax dollars provide as part of being an American citizen, and yet it is astonishing the number of supporters Ron Paul has amassed over the years.
The notion of a Libertarian president who eliminates entire departments that preside over and regulate education, commerce, housing and energy as well as the IRS responsible for assessing and collecting taxes the federal government uses to guarantee all Americans are protected and educated is a nightmare scenario. Ron Paul’s idea of returning power to states means that cash-strapped states and communities that cannot fund basic necessities such as fire protection will have no option but to allow homes to burn to the ground unless individuals band together and pay, by subscription, for a fire truck and fire fighters.
Two weeks ago in Tennessee, a couple watched their home burn to the ground as firefighters stood by and watched because the couple did not pay an annual subscription fee. The local mayor defended fire fighters and said if they responded to non-subscribers, no-one would have an incentive to pay their fee. It is the second time in a year that South Fulton policy allowed first responders to watch, with equipment in hand, as a home burned to the ground. In Ron Paul’s Libertarian vision for America, homes burning to the ground and vicious rapes would be spectator events for first responders if residents could not afford to buy a subscription for law enforcement or fire protection.
Ron Paul will not be elected president, but his ideology that was quirky and fringe a decade ago is part and parcel of the Republicans drive to eliminate the federal government. In one of the Republican debates a month ago, Rick Perry struggled to remember the departments he would eliminate if he were elected as president, but the idea of eliminating entire departments is relatively novel; except in Libertarian ideology. The pre-Civil War, state’s rights secessionist movement is gaining traction as the Tenther Movement that espouses that many United States government actions are unconstitutional and wants to allow each state to have autonomy to make laws without regard for federal protections such as civil rights, women’s rights, and anti-discrimination laws. The result is 50 separate little fiefdoms that, depending on the population, can pass laws based on theology or oligarchy without intervention of the federal government to stop archaic activities like executing homosexuals, or women for giving birth out of wedlock.
Republicans could not care less about whether or not a home burns down or gays are executed by stoning. Their main impetus is eliminating regulations that prevent corporations from unfair business practices and ending taxation for the wealthy. Ron Paul’s small government has identical goals as Republicans and except for his idea of greatly reducing defense spending and foreign aid, he will garner support from many main-stream Republican voters; especially the racists and homophobes in the extremist Christian conservative segment of the population.
As Americans have witnessed since Barack Obama’s election victory three years ago, Republicans bolstered by racists in the tea party have lurched so far right, that a one-time novelty candidate like Ron Paul whose quirky, fringe political philosophy was laughable, is now mainstream in Republican ranks and it demonstrates just how far the country is regressing back to pre-Civil War America and frontier sensibilities where government did not exist and each family was on their own. The sad truth is that regardless of which Republican earns their party’s nomination for president, the result of a GOP victory will be an America with no federal government and a Libertarian’s dream that benefits only the wealthy and their corporations; a dream Republicans have fostered since Ronald Reagan was president.
Image: chron.com
Related Posts :
In every country in the world, there are certain infrastructure projects that need government’s infusion ...
On Fox News Sunday Ron Paul upped the ante on his opposition to sexual harassment laws by claiming that ...
As a country, the concept of community generally means that the intent, resources, and needs are common ...
There are many opinions and ideologies proffered by pundits, historians, and politicians about the role ...
Texan Ron Paul is thinking about Iowa and New Hampshire and his campaign is dropping a hefty sum of cash to ...
29 Responses to Memo To America: Ron Paul’s Ideology Is As Dangerous As The Tea Party
Public Service Advertisements
Reynardine
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Libertarianism is a misnomer for this return to Dark Ages tribalism, which will evolve for more wuickly than it did then to baronial feudalism, and likely therafter to absolute monarchy…with access to technology for the special few. We could wind up looking like North Korea, only bigger- much bigger.
Linda1961
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 10:30 am
So basically the gop wants to dissolve the United States, it’s just that Ron Paul wants to do it quicker than the rest of the gop. And maybe the rest of the gop doesn’t realize that what they want will result in the destruction of the United States, but wanting to install state’s rights will do just that.
Jeff
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 10:41 am
This artical is a joke he is the only person running for president that is not corporate backed and has never switched his ideals. yes I do disagree with about 50 % of his ideals but he is still better than any other candidate running at this time including Obama who I voted for. Wake Up and get your news someplace besides your own web page !
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Read up on Paul a little deeper. He is just as whacked out a fundamentalist as Bryan Fischer is. And he wants to destroy the government
You wake up
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
See also, from Kevin Drum at MOther Jones: Yes Virginia, Ron Paul is a Kook
kimbutgar
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
The ARTICLE states a lot of valid points on how Paul’s ideology on paper might sound reasonable but put in action would destroy America as we know it. Cranks like Paul are out of touch and dangerous to America. While I agree on ending wars and legalizing drugs everything else points to Paul wanting us to return to the Gilded Age where only corporation had rights and the voice of the people would be silenced. Sometimes it’s best Jeff to think beyond the ideology and look at the consequences of the ideology. Looking at the bigger picture shows Paul’s ideology is illogical and misguided. I don’t want to go back to the days of having to sit on the back of the bus.
SinghX
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Paul rings the cognitive dissonance Pavlovian “bell”, wherein, he can tell a little truth (legalize drugs), then covers up with a lie (but don’t control the substance via regulation); then, back to some ubiquitous universal truth (we need to end war) and then use false equivalency (the UN got us into this global welfare) to justify his lie (foreign aide is nonsense) …then another sprinkle of true with another big fat lie to make the truth sound unbelievable and the lie sound so much better…and remember, all these “ideas” that he throws out there are always half-way explained, never fully. Plus, he uses one of three key phrases at the end of all his diatribes:
1. “Theoretically, it may work” or
2. “Hypothetically it could work”.
3. He usually finishes by saying “I don’t know, it’s never been tried”
He’s held his office many years now and knows how to speak like a polished “cult leader” to gain power and followers. Yeah, he’s good, but a liar and a creep ready to throw us all under the bus so he and his can have a good time saying “NO” like Ted Stevens.
Reynardine
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Dammit, that sounds like cherry-flavored codliver oil. I’d rather take my dead fish straight.
SinghX
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 9:18 am
Open wide, sweetie, it won’t be so bad…maybe a tasty as a Micky-D shit sandwiches before will make the Ron Paul go down a little better…cheer up, at least Ted Stevens is dead.
Anne
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 10:59 am
The people taken in by Ron Paul’s facade of folksiness are not just conservatives. There are also liberals who foolishly grasp at the very few things Ron Paul is right about in order to embrace him. After folks like GW (people said they could share a beer with him) and Palin (she’s just like us, some folks said), one would think Americans would be done with the kind of faux folksiness that attempts to disguise the fact that the “folksy” individual has little or nothing to offer for this country’s progress. There’s nothing wrong with being folksy because it can be endearing, but these folks are wolves in sheeps’ clothing. There are young people who are just starting their adult lives and have no concept yet of what it takes to earn a living and support families. His attraction for people in these groups is that he is “consistent,” without considering that consistency doesn’t always mean being right. Most of his ideas are scary because they would threaten the cohesiveness of this country by dismantling agencies that set standards for things like education, health care, protection of air/food/water, and the revenue from taxes that helps to keep the country going. The reality is that each state would have to raise a lot of taxes in order to perform these functions. That’s what these followers keep missing, and it’s ironic that his defenders accuse those of us who support President Obama of looking at him as a “messiah.”
He is 76 years old, and many of his views are antiquated. He wants us to revert to a time when it was everyone for himself/herself with no concern for fellow citizens. Aside from his well-documented racism, his embrace of the proposed Personhood Act is a huge turn-off for me as a woman. In addition, his defenders tend to trivialize the newsletters that have surfaced from the late ’80′s and the early ’90′s. They are revolting examples of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic bigotry. He not only signed them, but also made a big profit from them. Whether he actually wrote them himself or had others write without reading them, neither scenario makes him look credible. Someone so bigoted has no place in the White House, and anyone dumb enough to sign off on anything without reading it, especially garbage like this, apparently doesn’t understand that a signature conveys approval. Plus, as president, he would have to read an infinite amount of material that would be as cumbersome as it is critical. What it boils down to is that he is no better than his GOP rivals, and it says as much about his followers as it does about him that they are so eager to defend so much that is indefensible.
ProChoiceGrandma
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Many people are unaware, or need to be reminded, that billionaire David Koch ran as VP on the 1980 Clark/Koch Libertarian ticket. The Clark/Koch ticket promised “to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.”
Ron Paul the Libertarian and the entire GOP field of clown candidates are all extremists with one common theme – regress the USA back to the days of 1861, or even pre-Magna Carta feudalism. The American middle class has been nearly decimated into serfdom because of 8 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich, deregulations for rich corporations and two unfunded wars in which the military industrial complex profited handsomely from the blood of our servicemembers.
Ron Paul is a kook, just like the Koch brothers.
Mo
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Mike Konczal has another take on this old goon’s appeal, which dovetails ironically with the above:
“But I want to abstract away from both Ron Paul and the ugly tone and language in the newsletters. What was their political strategy? As Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez dug up, there was a very clear path. According to Rothbard in 1992, they could gather disaffected working and middle class people by exposing an ”unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”
Take white middle-class people and explain to them how the safety net is ok for them because they are part of the virtuous hardworking backbone of the country, but it’s a dangerous creation because elite liberals will use it to create a mass, dangerous Other that don’t deserve to be part of it.”
20 years later, what forms the core of the Tea Party movement? According to the latest research on the Tea Party from Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, here’s what is ”identified as Tea Partiers’ most fundamental concern: their belief that hardworking American taxpayers are being forced to foot the bill for undeserving freeloaders, particularly immigrants, the poor and the young.”
Cute, eh? Persuade the fearful (old white Republicans) to imagine that the looters (Wall Street and global corporations) are on their side and will save them from those greedy kids, loafers, and brown people.
So, Paultard geeks, how does it feel to be allied with The Living Dead?
Hilarious! Those who imagine themselves politically disaffected free-thinkers, so-o-o-o above party politics, are now in same bed with rabid crazy grampa Republican.
A Walkaway
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
This has been going on to the founding of this country, and the idea of the undeserving poor vs the deserving poor is a lie that started in the fourteenth and fifteenth century England (The Henrician Poor Laws were founded on that concept).
They’ve always used the meme of “undeserving other taking your money” to divide and control the masses. This sort of thing can be traced in this country back to before the creation of the US government.
JoeyTranchina
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I don’t see the Libertarian Party as more dangerous than the Tea-Party for several reasons.
#1 To the limited extent that the Tea-Party remains a viable force they LP is already part of the TP; in fact, it was Libertarians who started the TP before it was hijacked by big-money parasites (most notoriously funded by the Koch bros.).
#2. the Libertarian party begins with a philosophy that all of us would accept in part, the maximum individual liberty consistent with general order is a good thing. I don’t want government intrusion in my home or my personal choices. those positions are consistent with Libertarian philosophy as expressed by JS Mill or even Barry Goldwater.
#3 And probably most important the LP has been overwhelmed by the psychopathic and totally hypocritical and dysfunctional philosophy of Ayn Rand that makes is unable to function in any coordinated manner. If you know the history of the Civil War, you know that that inability to give up individual rights for group power was one of many reasons the South lost the war. The LP is a debating society not a political party, as such I appreciate some of their ideas. There is no way tat this gaggle of monoliths can agree on anything that constitutes a reasonable platform — bold faced extremism doesn’t sell.
#4. Probably most importantly, Ron Paul has enough ideas that run counter to corporate welfare that there is NO CHANCE that this corrupt corporate owned Republican Party will accept him as a candidate.
#5 Ron Paul is a demonstration project in political failure. His well-organized but structurally deficient campaign will go nowhere… again. In fact, this is probably Dr. Paul’s last flash in this pan…
PS. That doesn’t mean that we should not embrace the best of Paul’s ideas; Ending the failed and now fraudulent farce of international drug war by the establishment of rational drug policy reform is a good idea,that should appeal to anyone who does not love violence and supports the building universities instead of prisons.
Jo Hargis
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Oh, it’s Ron Paul’s last “flash in the pan”, for sure, but then…..coming right behind him is Rand Paul. It’s time to discredit this entire set of political beliefs and be done with it in this country.
Mark
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“Libertarians envision a country with every citizen fending for themselves with no federally enforced equal rights protections or programs to maintain and build roads, schools, hospitals, or regulations to protect consumers.” So you think all self described libertarians believe the same thing? One of the main bad personality traits of collectivists is to see people as groups instead of as individuals. It’s like saying Americans are this or that. Collectivism does not work in a diverse multicultural society. It barely works in a homogeneous one.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Ah yes the one note song. Collectivists. I love it!
Why do you come show your cluelesss? What countrys in the world handle their wealth the best? What countrys have the best healthcare?
I could go on and on but its not this coutnry
Mark
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“Why do you come show your cluelesss?” What am I clueless about? (assuming that’s what you meant to say.) As to why I left a comment, well… I enjoy open debate. I feel people learn and grow as they are exposed to different ideas and develop critical thinking skills.
So you disagree with me and believe all self described Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats believe the same thing?
Eric
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Stop me if I’m wrong, but I believe there are more branches to the government than just the executive branch. By no means do I agree with all of Dr Paul’s ideas, but for the past few decades, we’ve tried corporate politics – isn’t it time we try something else?
“What countrys in the world handle their wealth the best? What countrys have the best healthcare?” Its not this country simply because we try to use blanket policy, a successful stockbroker in NY city has different needs compared to a farmer in New Mexico. States need more power, but NOT complete power – a federal government is still very important. The smaller and more localized the population, the easier it is to find common legislative ground.
A Walkaway
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Depends on the “something else”. Ron Paul and all of the Republicans will lead us down the path to theocracy. Not a one of them should be allowed within a mile of the presidency.
I would advocate a return to good old liberal values… regulation (control) of corporations, help for those who need it, lower taxes and so on for the poor and middle class, and making the rich pay their fair share. (Actually, in my worldview, they should be pulling the load.) In other words, people working together to solve problems and make life better for others, instead of everyone for themselves and Social Spencerism being the guiding thought.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The 1 % should realize that their taxes are dependant on how much the middle class is contributing. If they are the job creators they would be right on creating in no time
Jo Hargis
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Eric, you say it’s time we try something different. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean embrace the whackiest, most “different” thing that appears on the political scene. You say the needs are different for a stockbroker in NY compared to a farmer in New Mexico: in some instances, yes, but if you’re talking about health care, education, infrastructure, air and water quality, industrial regulations, etc., then no, they aren’t any different. I live in rural Texas, for example, and my health care needs are no different than the stockbroker in NY. We both need affordable health care. My needs for roads, bridges and other infrastructure is no different than that for NY residents. We all want clean (as possible) air and water and want corporations regulated to the point where they cannot abuse the system and let their greed rule to the demise of others. These are all things that SHOULD be controlled by a central US government, so that ALL citizens can be protected equally across the board. Giving control of those things to individual states is a prescription for discrimination and control by the greedy. I can easily see how, under an administration of someone like Ron Paul (who by the way is hardly libertarian…he’s whackjob republican, frankly), we would have some states where homosexuality is a criminal offense. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that some states might decide to make it punishable by death. I see states who would decide to abandon all industrial regulations (think Rick Perry) so that corporations can be greedy, make more money, and put more cash payments in the pockets of politicians. Is this really the kind of country we all want? Of course not. These paulbots simply must wake up to the realization of what his agenda really means in terms of real, on the ground effects. They must stop latching on to one singular issue, like the drug war, or stopping wars, and ignoring the rest of Paul’s agenda.
Frankly, it isn’t even just Ron Paul. It’s the entire republican ideology at this current time. They all want to dismantle government as much as possible, eliminate social programs that are proven to work such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. Republican rule, if it should happen, is going to result in chaos. Think, people, use your noggins!!
JoeyTranchina
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“Community” is what I call it. In my experience, A sense of community works just fine in “a diverse multicultural society,” but it does require citizens to work past their bigotry, which too many Americans are unwilling to do.
PS. I grew up on a cattle ranch in what became Silicon Valley. I’ve been surrounded by self-reliant individuals all of my life. Very few of those men and woman were so foolish as to imagine that they became successful without the support of a community. I was first exposed to Ayn Rand in a fraternity house in 1964. I have never known anyone who was enamored of “Objectivism” — that hypocrite’s psychopathic philosophy — for more than a month, who isn’t a wimp.
Anne
Dec. 30th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
You made an exceedingly good point about the balance of self-reliance and community support. Too many people act as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Bayman
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 12:57 am
Libertarians are Confederates.
Mirela Monte
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Go ahead: keep fractioning the population, that way we couldn’t possibly fight the evil at hand. Ron Paul is the only candidate opposed to perpetual war, thus he is the number one enemy of the military industrial complex that is funding the media. How much did you get?
Dan Collier
Dec. 31st, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Frightening, utterly frightening. These people sympathize
with pre-conversion Scrooge.
CheryP.
Jan. 5th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
So, if states make all their own laws, and are responsible for everything, then we really would NOT be the UNITED States of America, we would be seperate little countries! Paul essentially wants to DESTROY THE USA! THAT IS TREASON!