FeedPolitics: And thus, my flirtation with Ron Paul comes to an end
December 25, 2007 in Overset, Statehouse & Capitol Tags: Abe Lincoln, Libertarian, Ron Paul
Yeah, I know. He’s the most libertarian-minded candidate out there. Unfortunately, as much as I like his stands on so many other issues, he’s one of those libertarians: The sort who believe the Confederate States of America was right, that Abraham Lincoln was some sort of monster and tyrant. This is the sort of Libertarian deep thinker who convinced me to give up on the LP back in 2001.
All I want is a president (and a congressman and a city council member, for that matter) who are going to try to get the government just a little bit more out of my life than the previous day. I think Paul would try to do that. It will take more than stomping one’s feet and holding one’s breath until everyone else agrees to be a libertarian, too.
But more importantly, I want a president (and a congressman, and so forth …) who I trust, and I don’t trust any individual who thinks Lincoln was a tyrant. He was only the best president we’ve ever had. Who could possibly be more libertarian than the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course, if your brand of libertarianism focuses more on property rights, you might think differently.
So this small-L libertarian will not be voting for Ron Paul.
Hat tip: Marathon Pundit.
UPDATE: Abraham Lincoln Blog has this to say:
Paul claims that Lincoln started the Civil War. In a matter of weeks after Lincoln was elected president, southern states began seceding from the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln told the south that in their hands, not his, lay the “momentous decision of Civil War.” The South responded by attacking federal government property, culminating with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Dr. Paul either buys into neo-Confederate beliefs about the war or shows a complete lack of knowledge about it.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Lincoln was a tyrant. He ignored the 1st amendment, 4th Amendment, and 10th Amendment. He censored all telegraphs and arrested journalists and lawyers. He arrested 25 members of the Maryland State legislature (to stop them from seceding). He deported a Congressman (Velangdeham) to Canada, threatened the head of the Supreme Court with arrest, and arrested dissadents, and held them without Habeous Corpus in gulags near New York. If you liked how Iraq was unified under Saddam, then you will like how the US was unified under Lincoln. It’s no wonder the man was shot.
Oh and everyone talks about the slaves - for your information, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves everywhere the Union didn’t have jurisdiction. Lincoln had no problem freeing slaves in the South, but why didn’t he free them in DC, the city in which he lived? He was a hypocrite and a traitor.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Well you need to ask yourself. What other candidate comes close to the ideals that you believe in. Dennis Kucinich is the only one that comes to mind. Paul and Kucinich are the only advocates in the campaign for smaller government. So are you going to let just one opinion of Pauls that you disagree with stop your support? Then you are fickle anyway and probably would have change your mind because of some other issue. I figure it like this. Selecting a candidate of choice is like marriage…gotta take the bad with the good. Seems to me though that Paul hits too many correct chords NOT to be ignored.
December 25th, 2007 at 2:59 am
I’m glad that you’ve found that Ron Paul is the lunatic that many of us already knew he was, Billy. The guy is looney tunes… and not in a Bugs Bunny sort of way. If guys like Ron Paul had run this country through the years, we’d still be hosing down Civil Rights walkers, and letting people starve because “this nation weren’t founded on charity, by gum.”
The guy is an idiot. An absolute idiot. The sooner he’s off of the political map, the better.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:09 am
I saw this interview, too. Lincoln was a deeply flawed man, like every president we’ve ever had. He has been made into a plaster saint by popular historians. There are parallels between the extraordinary powers he claimed as chief executive and the powers claimed by the current president.
Every person I have ever met from Texas thinks Lincoln was the worst president ever. I was intrigued by Paul’s argument that the United States could have abolished slavery without a war. Who knows?
He has some good ideas, but I don’t think he’s ready to be president. He was not particularly articulate. Not that it makes any difference. He won’t get the nomination.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:39 am
I should add that Winston Churchill thought Lincoln saved the world in the twentieth century. He reasoned that if the Confederate States had been allowed to secede, the United States would not have become a world power. It would thus not have had the motivation or resources to save Europe from German domination in World War I and World War II. Not to mention Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
If Germany hadn’t been defeated in World War I, would Adolf Hitler have risen to power? You can play these “what if” history games all day — and get nowhere.
The lesson is that history is made by individual human beings. Despite imperfect knowledge and unintended consequences, what each of us does every day can profoundly shape the future.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Some comments from other blogs if find interestng in making an informed decision:
I don’t think that his views on abortion and gay rights would make him consistent with a truly dogmatic libertarian.
On earmarks-> And why should a vegetarian deprive himself of delicious meat just because most people still eat it? Of course Ron Paul is being hypocritical about this - he does not deserve a free break just because he’s crazy or generally consistent elsewhere. Ron Paul needs to learn being a part of the solution, rather than the problem.
Is the hypocrisy charge here so crazy? Russert quoted some articles suggesting that Paul’s district is tops for bacon. Did he vote against every bill that had earmarks for his district that he put in? Really? It would be one thing to propose a reform bill that would outlaw earmarks and then still play the game — you have to play with the rules you have until you can change them. It’s like campaign finance reform. Or term limits, which Russert also brought up. But Paul, apparently, opposed New Orleans relief on the ground that it was like an earmark, but didn’t go out of his way to make similar headlines about Texas flood relief that he engineered. You can’t oppose every earmark but your own. You can’t make headlines in opposition to every earmark but your own either. He’s quietly engineering his own pork while he loudly decries everyone else’s. If he was ever serious about addressing the issue systematically, as opposed to making a stink about this or that line item, that would be one thing, but that’s not what I see here.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:05 am
I’m with you. Ron Paul is a loon. He sounds much better when someone else is telling my what he believes. He should never speak in public again. I’m always dubious of anyone who tells me all problems can be solved by eliminating taxes. And that Lincoln stuff was pure neo-confederate revisionist history. It’s like saying if I punch you in the face, then you punch me back, YOU are at fault for the fight. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way in reality. Lincoln was forced into war by the treason of the south.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:20 am
So let me see if i can get this straight. You’re all concerned about politics from Lincolns era and yet the atrocities of today’s politics don’t seem to phase you. I don’t get it. Milk is over 4 dollars a gallon, inflation is rising on a monthly basis, gas has never been higher, my dollar doesn’t go half as far as it did 10 years ago, my once good paying job is now a regular J.O.B. (Just Over Broke) the Canadian dollar is worth the same or more than the American Dollar, we’ve lost more rights in the last 8 years than in any previous 8 year period. We can be searched and property seized without a warrant or charges, people with good credit are failing to make ends meet and are failing to pay their mortgages, public education is at an all time low, “reality shows” are at an all time high ( as if life isn’t real enough), there is a huge transfer of wealth going on and the most damning argument you can muster about Ron Paul is his remarks about Lincoln and Ron Paul using the system that is in place to help his own constituents? You mean just like your congressional representatives do? Just like every candidate running for president? Seriously? So you feel that Romney the flip-flopper, Ghouliani the adulterer or Tax Hike Mike are somehow better candidates? Not one person among you thinks that things would be better if our dollar went further than it does now? That our currency should be backed by something of value? That there wouldn’t be less corruption if the Federal Government wasn’t able to write the laws that affect everyone but benefit the wealthy? That we shouldn’t end this WAR?!?!? NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO END THIS WAR? How much longer will we allow our American citizens to die for nothing more than oil? How much more money does Haliburton and Blackwater need to make off of you and I ? What will you be saying if the draft is re-instated? Oh yeah, they raised the draft age to 42 so you’re not out of the woods yet. Honestly, how many of you really want to pay income taxes? If we cut our spending back to the level of 1997 we could eliminate the federal income tax.! I don’t see the harm that could cause. I just don’t get it.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
With you on a lot of that, except…
My mind is large enough to think about two things at once. And when those two things come from the same candidate, I have no problem spouting off about it.
Your position is much like the following: The Hitler war economy is good for Germany, I don’t know why you are focusing on the Poland and genocide issues.
Paul is a nut case. I don’t care if that blind mouse still occasionally finds cheese. Even when he’s right, he got there wrong.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Paul really should have brushed the Civil War question off as being irrelevant, but that is not in his nature. I don’t care what Ron Paul thinks about Lincoln or the Civil War. I care about what he thinks about the problems of today. I care about integrity. These are reasons why I’m going to vote for Ron Paul in the New Hampshire Primary. The question from Russert was an attempt to marginalize Ron Paul and Russert knew that every question would be answered forthrightly.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Prego, nice opinion…your a sheep. Do more than 5 minutes of research online, and come up with logical reasons to vote or not vote for someone. Be original, do your homework, and try to shake the media’s view off your shoulder.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Mr. Dennis, I think it’s unfortunate that you would turn against a candidate on that sole issue. You know, I happen to like Lincoln. I have his portrait on the wall in the room I’m sitting in at the moment, and have no plans in taking it down anytime soon.
I believe what Paul was merely saying here is that instead of draining the South’s political power by restricting the spread of slavery, which led to war, Lincoln and the early Radical Republicans should have offered to buy the slaves their freedom, like the British did. Lincoln actually proposed this late in the War. I do think that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas and of the Constitution was questionable, and that the 14th Amendment helped centralize power in Washington with unfortunate results, but I’m not sure that Paul is correct when he talks about buying the slaves. I think it might be presumptive to say that the South would have been willing to go along with it.
But to say that there is no room for disagreement on the issue is, well, dogmatic. And to dismiss those with a different viewpoint as “Neo-Confederate” as someone did and make presumptions about their motives, instead of having an honest intellectual debate above name-calling, strikes me as intolerant and closed-minded. There is no evidence that Paul has ulterior motives behind his Lincoln position. It appears to be his honest belief.
Count me as one libertarian who is staying in Paul’s camp despite a disagreement on Lincoln’s legacy.
Prego says,
If guys like Ron Paul had run this country through the years, we’d still be hosing down Civil Rights walkers, and letting people starve because “this nation weren’t founded on charity, by gum.”
…
If we had Ron Pauls in office throughout America there would be no need for Civil Rights marches because there would be no discriminatory legislation in the first place. And Ron Paul is actually the greatest proponent of charity. As a doctor he rejected Medicare and Medicaid and operated for free on people who couldn’t pay. If Ron Paul ran the country, the poor would be taken care of by charity and churches, instead of a giant expensive, wasteful and inefficient bureaucracy.
dingo says,
I don’t think that his views on abortion and gay rights would make him consistent with a truly dogmatic libertarian.
…
Well, that depends on your idea of when life starts. If you believe life starts at conception, and oppose all aggression, as most libertarians do, then you could be pro-life. I happen to disagree with Paul’s position because I don’t consider the fetus a “life” and thus it is a matter of the mother’s liberty and privacy for me. How are his gay rights views not libertarian? He said he’s not opposed to government interference with gay marriage. In fact he says he thinks it should be a private function.
On earmarks-> And why should a vegetarian deprive himself of delicious meat just because most people still eat it? Of course Ron Paul is being hypocritical about this - he does not deserve a free break just because he’s crazy or generally consistent elsewhere. Ron Paul needs to learn being a part of the solution, rather than the problem.
…
I don’t see this as hypocritical on his part. I think you misunderstand. He doesn’t believe the people in his district should have to pay a price for his opposition to big government. The people of his district have already paid their taxes to Washington, so they should get their fair share back. Paul is fighting the system without dragging his district into the fight. In fact this is similar to my educational experience. I go to a public graduate school (which means my education is being funded by taxpayer dollars), and at the same time I’m a libertarian who would like to lower taxes and spending. It’s not inconsistent for me to benefit from a public institution because my taxes are paying for it anyway — I’m paying for it whether I like it or not. While I’d like to change the system one day and am philosophically opposed to it, I’m not going to make personal sacrifices for my political beliefs. I can accept the current system while trying to change it.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Ryhs sez: “He deported a Congressman (Velangdeham) to Canada”
I sez: Clement Vallandigham was a FORMER Congressman (had lost re-election bid in 1862 by a wide margin) and was the leader of the Copperhead movement during the Civil War. He was NOT deported to Canada, but sent to the South - deported is probably the wrong word, but sent to live among those he sympathized with. He then did travel, on his own, to Bermuda and then Canada.From Canada he launched a bid for the Ohio governorship in 1864.
Copperheads opposed the war and opposed abolition.
Ryhs also sez: “for your information, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves everywhere the Union didn’t have jurisdiction.”
I sez: The Emancipation Proclimation declared the freedom of slaves in those states that had not returned to the Union by January 1, 1863. The rest of the slaves were freed on December 18, 1865 after the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....tification
(oddly enough, Mississippi ratified that amendment…in 1995 - yes, NINETEEN Ninety-Five).
For all the rest of you,
Lincoln was not seen by many as the genius he was until after his death…long after his death in some cases. During the war, he was vilified from almost every direction.
I challenge all of you who choose to detract from his astonishingly great legacy to provide the name of the President who does live up to your definition of “great”. There are a few who approach his stature - FDR perhaps, Washington maybe, Jefferson is often mentioned but he was more than a little bit hypocritical. John Adams was a bit too obtuse. LBJ, perhaps socially but his legacy is too closely tied with Vietnam.
I don’t think you will find any serious challengers.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
It is soooo obvious we have a lot of bored sheeple out their in the American political wilderness
What is so hard to comprehend about what Ron said??
600,000 lives of men who had families. Mothers, fathers, wives, children. They died for what?? The right to have state rights?? The civil war has been painted into a slavery issue when in fact it was more about a states rights issue. These men fought for states rights.
Then the simple issue no one wishes to comment on is that other countries opted to have the government purchase the slaves , then release them..
What a novel idea, but obviously not worth saving over 600,000 mens lives. No one is so blind as he who WILL not see. All you anti Ron Paul pundits, go ahead and vote for more of the same.. that is exactly what your philosophy deserves.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Brad: For someone who claims to be an independent thinker, you seem to be quite fond of the catch phrase “sheeple.”
I too would like an alternative to more of the same. But it has to be a viable, rational alternative. Paul isn’t that person.
In November, I’ll probably end up voting for whoever I consider the lesser of two evils, or perhaps casting my vote for a “third party” candidate. It won’t be cast for a guy who’s obviously either a member of or in sympathy with the Southern Identity movement.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Bill,
Truth is not about location, and the issue is not about my alliance to the U.N., or the A.C.L.U. I believe
in the soverignty America, which the states have granted to it. (not the other way around)The constitution applies to all states, but each state has a right to exersize its own soverignty as long as it stays within the bounds of the constitution which the union of the states has agreed upon. If we need change, the states can bring an amendment to the table. But let the states do it, not the courts or the executive branch. Too few folks can drive the country in the direction they see fit. By the way… Benjamin Franklin despised the idea of an executive branch, he felt that was a road to tyranny. And now the courts are at it… EX.. imminent domain, when did the states vote on that one?? Whether you like Ron or Not, he is correct on many more issues than any other candidate you have to choose from atm.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Brad sez: “The civil war has been painted into a slavery issue when in fact it was more about a states rights issue. These men fought for states rights.”
I sez: The States rights to do what?
The issue *was* States rights - States rights to enslave human beings.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Bill,
Bt the way, any one that thinks these days is an independent thinker.. I mean lets face it, what few thinkers we have to chat with, they all think they are experts
December 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Anon sez-The issue *was* States rights - States rights to enslave human beings.
you did, now go do a bit of research and see if what brad Sezed is really off the wall. Without me telling you , you can find plenty of data that Slavery was a side issue, the real issue as allways was economics, and state rights… Just as it is this very day… no difference. A republic concept was at stake, and guess what, the republic died to a great degree..
Brad Sez- he never sezed that
December 26th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Slavery was not the “side issue” of the Civil War. It was the ONLY issue worth dying for; and so many did just that. If you think for a moment that the Civil War was started because of a mint julep recipe, guess again. If you want to paint it with a “State’s Rights” crapola stick, keep trying with that, too. Lincoln put up with the agony and death caused by the Civil War because he felt it was God’s punishment to us for ever enslaving human beings.
Anyone who tries to put even a shred of reason to the southern states having the “right” to do whatever they wanted to (slavery), simply because they were “sovereign” states, ought to be strung up, have honey poured over ‘em, and send a batch of hungry red ants aimed at your navel, and up your arse, as well. Shame on you, Brad. Do a little more in-depth research next time when you investigate the Civil War… don’t just stop with Ron Paul’s personal encyclopedia collection.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Lincoln put up with the agony and death caused by the Civil War because he felt it was God’s punishment to us for ever enslaving human beings.
…
Oh please. Lincoln said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” Sounds to me like this wasn’t the “ONLY” issue for him. Saying that Lincoln fought the Civil War over slavery is like saying FDR fought WWII to close the concentration camps. It makes for a nice story and it would be nice if it were true but it’s not the truth. And no, correcting people who say that doesn’t make you a bigot. Really, this intolerance to opinion sounds distinctly Orwellian.
I challenge all of you who choose to detract from his astonishingly great legacy to provide the name of the President who does live up to your definition of “great”.
…
Thomas Jefferson, William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mike sez: “Lincoln said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” ”
I sez: Thank you for proving my point. The Union could not be saved without the abolition of slavery. Every other issue was negotiable with the South.
As for your picks for “Great Presidents”:
Thomas Jefferson should have taken his own advice. He fought for freedom for all men, as long as they were wealthy and white. What he did to another near-great sitting President (John Adams) was near inexcusable - especially since they considered themselves ‘close friends’.
Thanks to Mr. Taft and his foreign policy, we were left with a mess in Central and South American that continues to this day. It might be possible to argue that Reagan’s greatest toe stub was almost directly attributable to Taft foreign policy.
While there is much to like about Coolidge, he left office just before the beginning of the Great Depression. Perhaps the effects of the Depression would have not been so deep had the Coolidge administration been a little less ‘hands off’ with business, especially banks.
It is very tough to argue against Ronald Reagan. He had a large hand in bringing about the end of the USSR. How much of that is attributable to the Soviet leadership (or lack thereof)? One wonders what life would have been like if he had been nominated four years earlier (and won the general election). He has my preliminary vote for greatness - but 20 years since his presidency is still too close to be able to judge it fairly.
Lincoln faced the largest threat the United States had ever confronted, and that threat was from within.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Brad, you are so very wrong.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Mike sez: “Lincoln said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” ”
I sez: Thank you for proving my point. The Union could not be saved without the abolition of slavery. Every other issue was negotiable with the South.
…
What it proves is that the slavery issue was a means to an end (ie, solidifying the Union). It wasn’t the “only issue worth dying for.” And maybe it was possible to save the Union without pure abolition — again, purchasing the slaves like Britain did could have staved off the war.
Thomas Jefferson should have taken his own advice. He fought for freedom for all men, as long as they were wealthy and white. What he did to another near-great sitting President (John Adams) was near inexcusable - especially since they considered themselves ‘close friends’.
…
True, but for the 18th century he was a true progressive, championing freedom of religion and speech and of assembly. And he authored the Declaration of Independence. John Adams was a would-be autocrat, with his Alien and Sedition Acts outlawing criticism of himself. Even Bush with all he’s done wouldn’t dare go that far. Besides, they were political enemies, as in those days the President and VP were not necessarily from the same party.
Thanks to Mr. Taft and his foreign policy, we were left with a mess in Central and South American that continues to this day. It might be possible to argue that Reagan’s greatest toe stub was almost directly attributable to Taft foreign policy.
…
I agree that he should have never sent in troops into Nicaragua for financial interests. It’s unfortunate that he succumbed to that temptation. Anyway I’m more a fan of Taft because of his role on the Court afterward.
While there is much to like about Coolidge, he left office just before the beginning of the Great Depression. Perhaps the effects of the Depression would have not been so deep had the Coolidge administration been a little less ‘hands off’ with business, especially banks.
…
That’s possible. Maybe the boom of the 1920s wouldn’t have been so great either. There’s widespread disagreement on the what and when of the cause. I think it’s more financial irresponsibility on the part of individuals that led to the Depression. Chicago and Austrian schools blame the Fed, for different reasons. Milton Friedman points to Fed actions after Coolidge left office.
Lincoln faced the largest threat the United States had ever confronted, and that threat was from within.
…
That’s probably right. But the argument is that there may have been a less-costly means of confronting that threat. Maybe, maybe not. History is made for second-guessing and what-ifs. That’s what makes it such an interesting academic exercise.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Real National Universal Healthcare, Free College Education, Diplomacy and Peace, Marriage Equality, Fair Trade, Better Wages, Civil LIberties, An End to the War in Iraq, Straight Talk on the Issues………..a vote you can be proud of………
There is an alternative. His name is Dennis Kucinich. He really cares about our country and has intelligent progressive ideas.
Find out more about Dennis on more than 10 key issues at http://www.dennis4president.com now.