Thursday, October 6, 2011
Ron Paul is a funny little man
The moderator asks Paul about the yearning of Republican voters for another candidate to "jump in"... first Perry, then Christie, etc., and whether it reflects their lack of satisfaction with the current candidates.
Paul's response?: When people yearn for another candidate it's because all the candidates except for me aren't "asking the right questions" and represent the status quo.
But somehow it apparently doesn't say the same thing about the one Republican everyone knew would run in 2012 since 2008: Ron Paul! It doesn't seem to dawn on him that if people are yearning for someone better than the current slate of Republican candidates, and he's in the current slate of Republican candidates, it seems like they don't think he's up to snuff either!
In his response, Paul also clearly has no idea what Keynesian economics is, but that's not particularly surprising or important. What I found more funny was when he called the other Republican candidates the "status quo". This is the guy that's been in politics longer than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. And yet somehow he still manages to convince otherwise intelligent people that he's not just another politician.
Speaking of Ron Paul, Bob Murphy alludes to Paul as the candidate who consistently supports the Constitution. I had to laugh at that, but I suppose if you read the Constitution how Paul does he's been a consistent supporter. In the same post, Bob considers how Sean Hannity would approach a Romney nomination, writing: "I can’t wait to hear Sean Hannity explain why RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a bold experiment in federalism, whereas ObamaCare in the USA is crazy socialism." It's true that it would be entertaining to see Hannity make that case, but it's actually a very solid argument and one of the many reasons why I like Romney (not that I'd call ObamaCare "socialism", but I've held from the beginning that a more federalist approach that is not reliant on a national mandate would be preferable). Romney is the only Republican right now that I could see myself voting for over Obama. The big problem with Romney is that he'd take the wrong approach to the recession, but since Obama is for the most part taking the wrong approach to the recession that doesn't seem like quite the obstacle to supporting Romney that it could have been. On a number of other issues Romney is better than Obama (although the reverse is also true).
Regardless, one of the biggest reasons I can't support Paul is that he's so bad on the Constitution. Consistently supporting what you wish the Constitution said is not consistently supporting the Constitution in my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Does not status quo measure beliefs over time, and not just time itself? I hardly see how Ron Paul is a member of the status quo if he's been consistently voting against the majority his entire time in Congress. Your other two vague and unsubstantiated statements, that he doesn't understand Keynesianism or the constitution, require at least a modicum of proof.
ReplyDeleteConor Friedersdorf has had a number of good articles about Paul (the second in particular):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-does-ron-paul-scare-you/243987/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-progressive-critique-of-ron-paul-he-isnt-libertarian-enough/244110/
"Romney is the only Republican right now that I could see myself voting for over Obama."
One of the very pleasant things about not voting is not having to think of the world in terms like that.
I'll start with your last point first (although perhaps not with the detail you want).
ReplyDeleteFirst, I submit that calling Romney, Perry, or Bachmann Keynesians is all the proof you need that either (1.) he has no idea what Keynesianism is, or (2.) he knows what it is and he is being deceptive for his own political gain. Given other statements he's made, I lean towards the former. Given what we know about politicians, though, I can't rule out the latter.
As for the Constitution - do a word search on "Constitution" on this blog. Although I don't always cite Ron Paul specifically I've gone into great detail about why libertarians misread the Constitution.
As for this: "Does not status quo measure beliefs over time, and not just time itself? I hardly see how Ron Paul is a member of the status quo if he's been consistently voting against the majority his entire time in Congress."
The status quo is not monolithic. There are lots of Republicans and Democrats that think very differently from each other that are all part of the status quo. And Ron Paul thinks very differently. But he's maintained elected office for longer than any of the other Republican candidates, and if people turning to Perry or Christie or any other possible "new candidate" it is clearly as much a statement about Ron Paul as it is a statement about anyone else on the slate. It's amazing that this is lost on Paul. How does Paul justify claiming that people are dissatisfied with his opponents while simultaneously making the argument that he is a solution? If Paul really believes what he says, why aren't people flocking to him instead of these new potential candidates?
Oh right... it's the "mainstream media's fault".
The mainstream media can ignore Paul and even dent his numbers, but people are aware of him and that he's running. The media isn't preventing people from supporting him. The reason why you see hype about Christie or other options is that they don't think Ron Paul is any better an option than Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.
re: "One of the very pleasant things about not voting is not having to think of the world in terms like that."
ReplyDeleteExactly what terms do you think I'm thinking of the world in?
"Exactly what terms do you think I'm thinking of the world in?"
ReplyDeleteThe whole, lesser of two evils argument.
"Although I don't always cite Ron Paul specifically I've gone into great detail about why libertarians misread the Constitution."
And you've never been terribly convincing on the matter.
re: "The whole, lesser of two evils argument."
ReplyDeleteYou need to elaborate more. I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not saying the lesser of two evils is ideal. I'm saying the lesser of two evils it the lesser of two evils. I highly doubt I view that circumstance any different from the way you do. The only difference is I'm explicitly saying "the lesser of two evils is less evil than the greater of two evils", which seems to me to be true by the property of transitivity. That's doesn't provide much to argue over. Would you disagree with that?
re: "And you've never been terribly convincing on the matter."
You say this even as you've failed miserably in providing a counter-argument.
re: "First, I submit that calling Romney, Perry, or Bachmann Keynesians is all the proof you need that either (1.) he has no idea what Keynesianism is, or (2.) he knows what it is and he is being deceptive for his own political gain."
ReplyDeleteWell I think calling any of those people "Keynesian's" is a massive stretch (and indeed very basic misapplication of the word), but Romney does have Greg Mankiw as an economic adviser, correct?
He's creating political theater so naturally in the process Romney becomes a full-fledged Keynesian as opposed to a politician who is advised by one.
re: "If Paul really believes what he says, why aren't people flocking to him instead of these new potential candidates?"
Well its the argument you'd expect any politician involved in a heated political campaign to make when given such a question, no? I think that's essentially the point- he doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but rather finds it valuable to try and frame the issue in the way that makes him look like the party's savior.
So I'd say your quite correct about #2 above, but I think its a stretch to say Paul is being anymore deceptive than the average player in this particular campaign.
"One of the very pleasant things about not voting..." is that it allows me to act above it all.
ReplyDelete"You say this even as you've failed miserably in providing a counter-argument."
ReplyDeleteThis elicited a nice eye-roll and chuckle. What I don't do is make many short-term dents in your ideology.
Gene,
No, it is far humbler than that; it just is an acknowledgment that I am not part of the people who count when it comes to politics. There are the people count and those who don't.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteAs one of my favorite political science professors as an undergraduate analogized the political system for me once in this rather convincing way - the way politics works is very much like social scene around a playhouse. You have the actors on stage, their assistants, a conductor, orchestra, playwrights, the audience, the ushers, the people just outside the theater, the people a block away, etc. Well most of the people in our polity are those outside the theater.
re: "This elicited a nice eye-roll and chuckle. What I don't do is make many short-term dents in your ideology."
ReplyDeleteNow this is truly funny. Gary - you realize that I'm simply pointing out that you and I are in the same boat, right? How are you rolling your eyes over that? If you're not convinced by me how can you respond so incredulously to the idea that you're not that convincing either. You shouldn't roll your eyes. Unless you're extremely self-absorbed you should be nodding your head because I'm only generalizing the point that you made.
re: "No, it is far humbler than that"
HA! Now that deserves an eye roll. You can't be a commenter here for this long and expect anyone to believe that you are a humble person, Gary. I know I'm not. I'm a stickler for making sure I always say IMO instead of IMHO, because I know the latter would not apply to me.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I didn't say I am a humble person (and again, no apoplectic fit).
"Now this is truly funny. Gary - you realize that I'm simply pointing out that you and I are in the same boat, right?"
That kind of goes without saying, so I'm not quite sure why you're saying it.
Is "apoplectic fit" the word of the day or something?
ReplyDeletere: "That kind of goes without saying, so I'm not quite sure why you're saying it."
Because you "rolled your eyes" over it... which didn't give the impression you thought it went without saying.
Phrase of the day perhaps, but it is a common phrase in the internets, so I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteHey as long as we're on the same page.
"What I found more funny was when he called the other Republican candidates the "status quo". This is the guy that's been in politics longer than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. And yet somehow he still manages to convince otherwise intelligent people that he's not just another politician."
ReplyDeleteI can't read your stuff anymore. I can't believe I actually need to explain this to someone who appears much smarter than myself. You can be a politician for many years. Let's say for so long you get a reputation as "Dr. NO" in reference to how many times you stand alone in a 199-1 vote as the lone dissenter, and in fact, not be symbolic of the status quo. In fact, you can even be a symbol of the opposite of the status quo.
He could convince people he is "not another politician" by you know, behaving differently than all other politicians. Like by his voting record for instance. Or his decisions to return his salary. Take care.
Why are commenters reading my phrase "status quo" to mean "everyone agrees with each other". OF COURSE Ron Paul disagrees with almost everyone Robert. Lots of status quo politicians disagree with everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe point is he is a politician that likes getting re-elected and he's found a schtick and a method for doing that. I'm sure he believes in it, but he believes much more in his own political career. And he's completely oblivious to the fact that most Republican voters aren't satisfied with him any more than they're satisfied with Bachmann or Perry. He can't see this because - like all politicians - he has an over-inflated view of himself. And THAT is something he may exceed other politicians in.
re: "He could convince people he is "not another politician" by you know, behaving differently than all other politicians."
Right. The problem is he behaves EXACTLY like other politicians.
Wow. My reply to you on Bob's blog is way more suited in response to, "The problem is he behaves EXACTLY like other politicians." I am fully aware you will never concede how stupid such a statement is, or admit you made an error and it is not true, that's not how these things ever go. I post this just in case someone whom is totally clueless about the nature of politics, history of US politics for the past 30 years, the history of Ron Paul specifically, and an understanding of the concept of "status quo" might be led to think there is some validity to the continually devoid of all substantiation claims you assert about Dr. Paul.
ReplyDeleteI never mentioned his views being different. I mentioned his actions. Like his actions of refusing to take a salary. Like his action of talking about monetary policy when no-one else was and it was considered political suicide as it was considering boring and too technical for the average voter to grasp.
I’m talking about his actions that earned him the nickname of Dr. NO. I’m talking about his action of voting against a bill honoring Mother Theresa because the Constitution does not authorize it.
I’m talking about his actions that literally shifted the status quo to become one in which “End the Fed” is a popular chant.
Your comments that he is a status quo politician because he wants to get elected president is stupid. It’s just stupid. I don’t know how else to say it. It is like calling Elvis Presley just another status quo musician because he wanted to sell tickets to his shows. Or Malcolm X just another status quo public speaker because he wanted people to listen to him.
You are defending your claim that he is “a very good status quo politician” by defining what a politician is. That doesn’t change the fact that he is so far from being status quo he has literally started to shift the conversation towards him. If you are a part of the status quo you cannot BY DEFINITION change the status quo. So to explain away how the Federal Reserve is now a topic of political debate solely because of the Ron Paul phenomenon as an example of him being “status quo” reveals how stupid your comment is, or to be generous, how horribly you fail to understand the words you are using.
Ron Paul’s supporters love him because he is the “anti-politician”. He speaks to you and tells you what he feels as oppose to political speak jargon. Ron Paul’s opponents criticize his extreme views and positions, and lament his refusal to compromise and play ball. Or in other words, how different Ron Paul is as a politician than all other politicians. Despite the understanding that not all politicians agree on all their views, they do mostly agree on the idea of playing the political game, being willing to compromise etc. None of which Ron Paul does and his supporters cheer him for it, his opponents attack him for it, those in between acknowledge how “out there he is”, but no one, I argue literally no one, except yourself, finds Ron Paul to be a status quo politician.
I’ve been torturing myself reading the “poorly written book, that is oftentimes contradictory and confusing” (Paul Samuelson) General Theory by Keynes and conversing with you reminds me of that. A very stupid comment dressed up in what attempts to be novel insights, based on nothing more than self-evident contradictions, misuse of terminology, or simply assuming that which you are trying to prove (Keynes has “employment as a function of demand”…because I said so! Daniel has “Ron Paul has an inflated view of himself”) is nonetheless still a stupid comment, and in this case, also totally false.
"Consistently supporting what you wish the Constitution said is not consistently supporting the Constitution in my mind."
ReplyDeleteWhich positions of Ron Paul's do you think are not compatible with the Constitution?
Also, I am interested in the question that I asked you regarding how you think the federal government is currently limiting its spending due to the Constitution. You said you think that constitutional limits on government spending are important. I'm curious as to what constitutional limits you think are being observed.