United Liberty
An Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:20am | posted by Doug Mataconis
Brian Doherty, whose written a history of the libertarian movement and, most recently, a history of Ron Paul’s two most recent campaigns for the Presidency, writes today about what might come next for the movement that has sprung up around the retiring Texas Congressman now that his campaign, and his political career, have come to an end:
While Ron Paul has no future in politics, the Ron Paul machine and his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, will. That’s why the political pros in the Paul movement don’t appreciate acting-out like Richard Gilbert’s lawsuit. That’s also why Rand Paul risked the wrath of his father’s hardcore fans by endorsing Mitt Romney, just as soon as Ron Paul admitted he would not win.
Senator Paul knows he needs to reach beyond his father’s 10-15 percent base in the primaries to more mainstream, red-state, talk-radio Republicans. He can’t do that by marking himself as a traitor to the party. So he stands behind nominee Romney and plans to actively campaign for him.
But he also can’t mark himself a traitor to the Ron Paul cause. So Rand Paul followed up his endorsement by calling out Romney in the pages of National Review for Romney’s declaration that he would have the authority as president to start a war with Iran. That sort of foreign policy adventurism — especially when done without respect for Congress’s traditional constitutional power over declaring war — is anathema to the core Ron Paul crowd, and Rand Paul condemned it.
(…)
Indeed, despite the Rand Paul endorsement, Romney will be hard-pressed to win the votes of many Paul fans in November, though he’s clearly trying not to offend them intentionally by openly disrespecting their man. Paul’s fans are driven by a sense of crisis. For his whole political career, Paul has been predicting big trouble based on government overreach — with spending, with monetary policy, with managing Americans’ choices, and with a world-straddling, expensive, imperial foreign policy. Paul’s devotees see those crises as no longer looming, but here right now. America, they think, could soon be Greece. And they don’t see how a Romney who supported bailouts, who thinks a trillion-dollar spending cut would harm the economy, who helped lay the groundwork for ObamaCare, who believes in more overseas wars, can save America.
It’s easy for establishments to mock that sort of fervor. But the Republican Party has seen young, radically anti-government, quirky, curious movements conquer before. The Goldwater kids did it in the ’60s; the Religious Right did it in the wake of Pat Robertson’s failed presidential bid in 1988.
Personally, I’m skeptical that the Ron Paul wave can be quite as successful as either the Goldwater movement or the Religious Right. In both of those cases, the activists were backed by powerful and experienced political insiders who knew what it took to win elections, what it took to gain support and influence inside the Republican Party, and how to pick which battles to fight and which battles to hold back on. They also succeeded because they had a significant grassroots organization that made itself available to the Republican Party on numerous occasions and, when needed, voted as loyal Republicans. That’s what it takes to succeed at party politics, and I have real doubts about whether the Paul people have those skills or would be able to muster them instead of continuing to engage in the same tactics that they have in the past two Presidential election cycles.
Another problem one finds with the the Paul people is that there seems to be an unwillingness to consider supporting anyone who isn’t completely behind the Ron Paul agenda, whatever the heck that may be. The problem with that, of course, is that you’re never going to find a politician who agrees with you completely, which means that you’ll have to make some choices about what issues are most important to you, whether it’s economics, or foreign policy, or the War On Drugs. Saying that a candidate that doesn’t match your opinions, or Ron Paul’s opinions, completely is by definition unacceptable means that you are going to be both eternally disappointed and eternally irrelevant. This kind of orthodoxy is the reason, I think, why Paul supporters have been so vehement in their rejection of Gary Johnson , even though the two men agree on pretty much every major issue. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a common libertarian mistake, and its own that Paul supporters will find themselves falling victim to frequently if they insist on complete orthodoxy from every candidate they support.
So here’s my advice to Ron Paul supporters. Try and learn some practical politics for once. If you really want to be a part of the Republican Party, then you are going to have to accept the fact that the Republican Party is a coalition made up of many different kinds of people with different ideas on some issues. On some issues, you’ll be able to convince people to see things your ways, form coalitions, and get things accomplished. On others, you’ll have to accept the fact that your in the minority on a given issue and that the Republican Party doesn’t exist to reflect only your point of view. In the meantime, education and activism might start bending the party in your direction. Even then, though, it’s never going to be a complete reflection of everything you want. In other words, you’re going to have to compromise. That’s what big party politics is all about.
You aren’t paying close enough attention. What you are suggesting is exactly what is being done by Paul supporters. “Another problem one finds with the the Paul people is that there seems to be an unwillingness to consider supporting anyone who isn’t completely behind the Ron Paul agenda, whatever the heck that may be.” You write for a libertarian newspaper and you don’t know? Give me a break. It’s simple: follow the Constitution. The rule of law. Idiot.
Perhaps we don’t want to be part of big party politics if it means having to compromise our principle beliefs. I’m sure as hell not willing to compromise just because I should for the better of the republican party. Hell, I wouldn’t even be voting Republican if it weren’t for Ron Paul. To be honest, I couldn’t care less about the fate of the republican party, or the democratic party for that matter. All I care about is restoring liberty and the constitution, which both parties obviously don’t care too much about.
And I think you misunderstand the majority of Paul supporters. It’s not that we are looking for the perfect Paul-esque candidate, or will shun anyone who isn’t a Ron Paul clone. It’s just that we have our standards and will stand by them. The fact of the matter is that all other candidates aren’t up to par on issues like foreign policy, the economy, etc. Now, I’m not opposed to Gary Johnson and I don’t vehemently reject him like some other RP supporters admittedly do. And while he would certainly be better than Obomney, he’s much more of a war hawk than I’m comfortable with, and doesn’t know that much about economics.
PS, it’s ‘you’re in the minority’, not ‘your in the minority’. ;)
Wow, how off the mark you are Doug. First off, let’s save the “now that his campaign and political career is over” talk until after the convention. Second of all, “If you really want to become part of the Republican Party???” Are you kidding? We don’t. Ron Paul is only running as a Rep b/c it was the best way to get his message to a broad audience. He lamented that four years ago he spent half his personal money just trying to get into the debates. We don’t compromise. “Big party politics” is not what we’re about. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what we are about. And RP pulls plenty of Democrats as well. People from both sides who are ready to embrace liberty.
Have fun losing to Obama in November :)
Ron Paul 2012! No compromise, no surrender.
Doug Mataconis’ comment seems to be premised on the fact that Paul supporters want to be part of the Republican Party more than anything else. That simply isn’t true. The party is simply a means to an end. If it doesn’t serve the end, it no longer has a purpose. That is why the revulsion at Rand’s endorsement of Romney while his father was still fighting the Party power structure. I have to agree with anonymous above, if you haven’t figured out what the “Ron Paul Agenda” is by this time, your are far to ignorant to be writing on the subject.
For those concerned with liberty, being right is far more important than being loved by any party. They will not “sup with the devil” regardless of the length of the spoon. History is littered with the wreckage created in the name of political expediency.
Actually, we can compromise. We’re willing to compromise on anything, anything at all, except for the Constitution. And the “vehement” rejection of Johnson, wherever you saw it, is not characteristic of Paul supporters.
A candidate who believes in individual rights and fiscal responsibility will get support from many of us, regardless of the letter by his name. We don’t demand perfection; we’ll vote for whoever is closest to our ideal. This year, that’s not Romney, and the RNC and their cheerleaders are wasting their time whining about it.
I noticed - with a marked lack of surprise - that you ignored the reality of what Paul supporters have faced this year. Given how the party is treating them, it’s hard to blame them for not wanting to follow the script.
First off its understandable what Rand did he’s got a long career ahead of him. Second be original if your gonna try swaying us I’ve read five articles saying the same thing. Become sheep and maybe well get a crumb of what we want done. Sorry but no the Great Doctor may have accomplished what he wanted but he woke a giant and were not conforming. It not our point of view, Its Thomas Jefferson’s, George Washington’s, Ben Franklin’s. Courtesy of the US govt every person who graduated highschool has to pass the Constitution test so we know our rights and we are not giving up that easy
First off its understandable what Rand did he’s got a long career ahead of him. Second be original if your gonna try swaying us I’ve read five articles saying the same thing. Become sheep and maybe well get a crumb of what we want done. Sorry but no the Great Doctor may have accomplished what he wanted but he woke a giant and were not conforming. It not our point of view, Its Thomas Jefferson’s, George Washington’s, Ben Franklin’s. Courtesy of the US govt every person who graduated highschool has to pass the Constitution test so we know our rights and we are not giving up that easy
first… this article is just plain bad.
second… I love how individual Ron Paul “fans” think they speak for every other Paul supporter.
The “fans” are all saying the same thing; principle before party. The metric being used is adherence to the Constitution as interpreted by the founders. If you know any RonPaul “fans” that disagree with that, I suggest they are either not supporters or are pulling your leg.
True, Ron Paul’s political career may be coming to an end, but his political influence is just beginning to gain momentum. There’s a big difference in the distinction. My wife and I used to be rank and file Republicans, but not anymore. We will NEVER vote for anyone like Romney, and guess what, we’re raising kids who we’ll teach to love the Constitution and live by it. About 20 of my relatives (parent, inlaws, uncles, cousins, etc.) are now committed to the same end, uphold the Constitution, live by it, and inspire others to love it. True Americans, of every race, religion, and state, UNITE!
You don’t know what Ron Paul’s agenda is? Have you been listening. I’m tired of people like you who support a corrupt party and corrupt government. A better question would be if you know what Mitt Romney stands for? Who even supports Mitt Romney? Not the people. Our contract with the government has and is being broken and we must Revolt. The question should be when will the people revolt. Ron Paul’s message is sound, yet we were awakened by how far the establishment went to silence him and how they tried to silence us. When you have one candidate who gathers 200 people and that is on the mainstream media, and one that gathers 6000 people and that isn’t, you come to wonder why these criminals want to silence Freedom. They know once we realize what they have done, justice will be done by the people.
Sir, we do not give a shit about party politics. We care about principle, because it is PRINCIPLE that wins hearts and minds. Ron Paul has proven that over the last thirty years, and the unstoppable momentum you are apparently oblivious to is the result of his courage and conviction.
He is an authentic American hero, and has spawned tens of thousands seeking the hero in themselves, and I am one of them.
I am a broke real estate agent in Las Vegas who got elected to the state republican central committee. Our new state chair caled for our first meeting 400 miles away from where I live. I cannot afford lodging, so I will sleep in my car, but I am going.
I am no one special, and if you cannot see the political importance of nobodys answering the call to serve and defend their country against tyranny from within, whatever the cost, well, you need a new line of work, because you cannot write about what you cannot see.
Rand Paul ended his chances for support from his father’s legions when he publicly embraced the enemy. There is no chance that any real Paul supported would consider voting for Romney unless Paul is in the VP slot - and even then, it’s not a sure thing.
Romney is not any better than Obama for those who value freedom and peace. When another republican comes out as strongly demanding an end to the drug war and the other pointless wars (i.e. all of them), s/he has my vote. Until then, screw the republican party, they deserve to lose despite all the dirty tricks.
“The problem with that, of course, is that you’re never going to find a politician who agrees with you completely”
Not true - I happen to give with Gary Johnson on every issue. But I would have been willing to settle for Ron Paul, warts and all.
The problem is that Ron Paul has never had to accomplish anything of consequence in politics, nor serve in any leadership capacity, hence he was able to stand on principle every time and inspire a cult following. And much of his cult following is less interested in ideas and their application and much more devoted to steadfastness and a scorn for pragmatism. These are people from the Christine O’Donnell school of politics, which is not a terribly effective or persuasive one.
I fully expect at least half of Ron Paul supporters to no longer have any involvement with politics once the man himself has left the public sphere. That’s quite regrettable and I’m sure Paul himself, who entered politics to spread ideas, not build a cult, would be saddened by the number of his followers who consider the messenger more important than the message.
It’s obvious that, thanks to Ron Paul’s imprint, the liberty movement has a realistic chance at reshaping one of the major parties, and it should be clear why the goal should be taking over the Republican party.
That said, Romney is so close to the opposite of everything that Ron Paul stands for (very well summarized: bailouts, Obamacare, no cuts, imperial foreign policy, no Fed audit) that I can understand why Paulites cannot bring themselves to support or vote for Romney. Those who can, should, just for the sake of party influence - and most especially those living in states either so red or so blue that they are not really changing the outcome of the election either way.
As for those who cannot support Romney, on principle, and they are not political pro’s, it’s good enough to just shut up during the campaign and let the trains collide. The most likely election outcome is still Obama winning. The most likely outcome of four more years is still more ways in which the crises (notice the plural) proves Ron Paul right. Now that you mention Doherty, he mentions himself in his books that both the man and his campaign have always been reluctant to use his prescience as a political point. Well, the grassroots certainly should.
And wherever state you are in, and whether or not you support Romney in public or not, it’s granted that a vote for Gary Johnson is going to be taken by both parties as a protest vote, and by the Republicans as a vote they lost by their treatment of Ron Paul and his wing.
A good percentage of Paul supporters- including myself- have absolutely zero interest in the Republican Party. It is just as corrupt and devoid of foundational principles as the Democrats. If you don’t stand for ideas that differentiate you from your opposition, then your organization is no more than power-hungry gang. I had great hopes after the tea party began, and American conservatives seemed serious about the Constitution and limited government. But Republican leadership reacted very weakly when the rubber meets the road- just like they always do. Then the average “tea party” voter rejects Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Ron Paul- the only candidates who could even credibly pretend to carry the tea party banner. YOU ARE A JOKE.
I’m convinced that the average Limbaugh-listening conservative couldn’t care in the least about big government. They just want to pay less taxes. If a Republican had introduced Obamacare in 2006, the vast majority of “conservatives” would not have opposed it. I hope that Paul supporters within the GOP have great success. But spending any time around the Party, one quickly realizes that they operate alot like government, itself. Rules can be summarily ignored when the establishment desires, and a grassroots takeover = a dysfunctional party in chaos.
The writer’s tone is so incredibly condescending! He acts as if the GOP is a grand coalition- I disagree. The hawks ARE the social conservatives, and there is very little stomach for fiscal conservatism ANYWHERE in the Party. The modern day Republican Party is the perfect complement to left wing statism. As the technocrats back in the 60’s (like Bertrand Russel) told us, the power structure doesnt desire two diametrically opposed parties. All that is necessary is the illusion of choice, and if you’re a sucker for empty rhetoric, you might never catch on.
Post new comment