Ron Paul

There have been requests for what I think of Ron Paul. This, I think, makes important points:

It comes from Ezra Klein, who also says this:

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect: THE ODD APPEAL OF RON PAUL: As Dana says, it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing. But, as Peter Suderman argues, it's probably a mistake to focus too intensely on policy when trying to evaluate the appeal of Paul. Rather, Paul provides a home for those who feel alienated, misled, lied to, and marginalized by mainstream politics. As one of my commenters said, "It's like he's quietly amassing and army of outcasts from the Perot and Nader campaigns." Add in outcasts from whomever the Libertarian party tends to run and I think you've got a pretty good sense of the coalition.

With Paul, the positions aren't the point. His candidacy is tonal, aesthetic in nature. It's a movement united behind Howard Beale: They're mad as hell at politics, and not going to take it anymore. The force of that statement is far more important than whether Beale's political opinions or likely comportment in office precisely match up with what his supporters would desire. Paul's candidacy is an indictment of the system, not an argument for who would best administer it.

Comments

[Doug]

It's sad that people are quick to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon before looking more closely at his neo-fascist vision for America. Dennis Kucinich offers are more humane and sane hope for America.

[jerry]

Brad,

I give you credit as Ph.D economist and your years of experience to understand the market in ways I never will.

I give Ron Paul credit as an MD to understand life in ways I never will and Ezra Klein never will.

I am pro-abortion rights, and mainly from a civil libertarian point of view, "keep the gov't off our bodies." But I think there is a very decent and reasonable argument to be made that Roe was decided improperly, and that that in fact has led to 30 or so years of Democrats being beaten up needlessly by Republican hypocrites.

I might be callous, but I think there it might be wise to let the states deal with Roe, which, last time I checked (several months ago) was Paul's and many others' argument.

Both Democrats and Republicans have a tortured relationship with state's rights. We like the states being independent crucibles and experiments in democracy sometimes, but not always.

So I can disagree with Paul on abortion, but this statement from Klein is just bullshit propaganda inserting thoughts into Paul's head that seem unjustified: as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing.

I don't see Paul setting up maternity assembly lines and I don't see Ezra Klein saying that 8th month abortions should always be legal.

So I come to the conclusion that Paul is not in favor of forcing a woman to use her body as a vessel for childbearing, and I come to the same conclusion, that perhaps Ezra Klein is.

Or maybe there is just some gray and nuance there, the kind us reality based liberals are known to observe.

There's plenty of reason to oppose Paul based on what he has said and his policies and votes. Ezra shouldn't need to go the depths of a hack to do this.

And neither should you.

[Randolph Fritz]

Huckabee/Paul--for those tired of lesser evils.

Jerry, what a load of bollocks. The man has so many ties to the American fascists that he might as well be one. See: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

[Randolph Fritz]

This is getting scary. Paul's not defensible; his record speaks for itself. So...why are there so many defenders? Surely they can't all be paid propagandists...or maybe they can be?

[medoc]

I have a simple theory; circular.

Libertarians; libertarian capitalists, unfettered, anti-regulation "let the market decide" free-marketeers are all wrong for the same reason "gasp" COMMUNISTS are wrong.

Kinda funny really.

Both theories fail to account for the hard-wired, evolutionary, genetic, necessary for survival primacy of GREED.

And no Gordon Gecko in a complex society unfettered greed ain't good. ( but a little greed appropriately rewarded and REGULATED keeps the ball rollin.)

Just this {southron} hick's porch view of life. ( And I wouldn't pour......... on Ron Paul, well not if he was on fire.

[leo]

"So...why are there so many defenders?"

Easy answers to difficult problems is always an attractive solution especially if, you know, you're lucky enough not to be in need of government assistance yourself.

Self-gratification with free speech and free drugs has a lot of appeal to a certain kind of individual.

[bad Jim]

As a Democrat, I'd love to see Huckabee or Paul at the head of the Republican ticket. Either would guarantee a Democratic landslide. They seem to be nice, reasonable guys, but most people are going to regard them as nuts.

That being said, their honesty seems to be a big part of their appeal. I've met Ron Paul supporters who are ardent environmentalists. I didn't get into discussion with them - I'm inclined to edge away from them after learning their preference - but the appeal could easily be either his open opposition to the war or his unabashed libertarianism.

Moreover, his ties to the worst racist crazies don't seem to be widely known yet.

[Randolph Fritz]

"I'd love to see Huckabee or Paul at the head of the Republican ticket. Either would guarantee a Democratic landslide."

We hope. The Dems. are so damned messed up that I wouldn't count on it. A panic might carry one of them into office, and what would we do then?

[jerry]

I am certainly not voting Paul, but after eight years of Bush chipping away at civil rights (as well as a perception that the prior Presidents going back to Nixon were as well in one way or another), can you not see the attraction of a libertarian without resorting to druggies and hippies?

Frankly, if the guy ever became President and was an honest libertarian, that would be much better than having another corrupt Republican, and perhaps even better than a weaseling triangulating Democrat.

An honest Libertarian would roll back a lot of government programs some bad and some good. But the same guy would presumably strengthen our civil liberties.

At the end of his eight years we'd have a much smaller government and like a spring cleaning we would have a nice change to rebuild it and reform it.

Stick in another corrupt Republican and we'll all be pledging allegiance to Halliburton.

[P.M.Lawrence]

Jerry writes "An honest Libertarian would roll back a lot of government programs some bad and some good. But the same guy would presumably strengthen our civil liberties."

Why the "but", as though there were somehow an opposition or tension there? Many people regard those as independent, and many of those regard both as desirable.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

"tonal in quality?"

I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but is that what you call it when somebody says what he really thinks, instead of spouting the carefully crafted obfuscations of a Hillary or a Romney. I happen to think that Paul's ideas are bad ones, but I give him credit for saying what he thinks instead of what the polled and focus grouped consultants tell him to say - sort of like McCain before he began his desperate attempts to whore himself out to wingnuts.

[vt codger]

I can't imagine that I'd ever vote for Ron Paul, but I can cite two positive items. First, he caught my eye back around 2000 because he was writing intelligent stuff about Iraq. And he stuck to his guns on that one -- including voting against the Iraq War resolution. Second, he teamed up with then congressman Bernie Sanders to try to moderate some of the more flagrant Civil Liberties excesses of the Bush Administration. In American politics you don't get any further left than Sanders. In short. Paul may be nuts, but name a Republican isn't. At least he has some redeeming features which isn't something you can say for most of those bufoons.

[jerry]

On the Thomm Hartmann show, Sanders has had some very positive things to say about Ron Paul and Paul's integrity. And I respect Bernie Sanders immensely and wish he would run for an even higher office.

[jerry]

I can't see the above quote (using my Treo as a modem which works but is slower than DSL) but the quote that Ezra posted has been discussed widely.

It apparently appeared in a newsletter written under Ron Paul's name in 1992. Some people say that Paul wrote it.

Paul says he didn't write the quote, never saw the quote, doesn't agree with the quote, but since he didn't proofread the newsletter, he feels a moral responsibility and accepts blame for the quote appearing. That's what he told Stephanie Miller last month.

YMMV.

I think it's ironic that Ezra is focused on that, some of his blogroll friends have said equally racist statements and said them in 2007, not in 1992. But he has never said anything about that.

Did Ron Paul write that? Beats me. Did Ezra's friends write what they wrote on prominent blogs? Absolutely, no doubt about it.

Did I mention I'm not voting for Ron Paul?

[vt codger]

***I respect Bernie Sanders immensely and wish he would run for an even higher office.*** I think Sanders would have a bit of trouble as president since the tact and graciousness bins on the assembly line seem to have been empty when they assembled him. If there is such a thing as too straight a shooter, Bernie is it. But I have hopes that he will be an outstanding Senator.

[Kate G.]

I think the phrase "tonal in content" is exactly right. When you talk to very energetic supporters of someone who comes out of nowhere, like Ron Paul, you find that they are, essentially, a blank screen onto which their supporters (even half hearted or backhanded ones like Jerry) project their dissatisfactions with other candidates. Their *actual* political histories and policy prescriptions are either not understood at all or misunderstood. But even more to the point their anti-glamor is a kind of plus. In a year when each of the other parties is struggling directly to appeal to some kind of typical charisma seeking voter (you like blacks--we've got a *great* one! you like women--here's your chance to vote for one! You like guys on tv? Here's one!) the "outsider" candidate is always one who is stunningly, almost bizarrely out of step with glamor. Ralph Nader? Dean? (although I loved him!)and Ron Paul appeal to the "illuminati are running everythign" crowd. Their very lack of sex appeal, their insistence on being an outsider--old, thin, ugly, tired, cheap, no photos with babes etc..etc...etc...--*is* their shtick. Anti glamor is a kind of glamor. And that is all their followers see.

To the retort that their followers actively like one stand or another that the candidate actually takes (I love the gold standard! I'm all for state's rights! blah blah) the thing to remember is that Ron Paul's followers are not more intelligent or more historically informed or more anythign than the regular run of voters. Just like people voted for Bush thinking that "clear skies" meant he was really an environmentalist people will vote for Ron Paul thinking, somehow, that he wouldn't allow a national ban on abortions or that he isn't a stormfront stooge. People just can't face up to the actual realities of our political offerings and the cognitive dissonance is too great. Only someone totally disaffected from the system can recognize that even the alternative candidates are terrible and no real alternative.

Kate G.

[jerry]

Perhaps I think that outrageous claims require outrageous proof. If you think he's a stormfront stooge you should be able to prove that without resorting to a 1992 newsletter. Otherwise I think you just say more about your own powers of projection than others.

I dislike very much the casual manner in which labels of anti-semite, racist, and misogynist are thrown around. These words have meaning for me, and they are very repugnant labels. When someone is labeled one of these things, they can expect a lot of shit to come down on them. I think we should be precise and accurate, and to do otherwise lessens the meaning of these words, cheapens the horrors that victims of anti-semitism, racism, and misogyny face, defames the falsely accused, and speaks very poorly of the accuser.

[Tim Bartik]

I was surprised that this blog entry didn't address the economic content of Ron Paul's policy proposals, specifically his positions on government domestic spending programs and macroeconomic policy.

With respect to government domestic policy, I can't see why Ron Paul appeals to anyone who is progressive, liberal, or even anyone who is a moderate conservative, given that Ron Paul advocates getting rid of most of what the government does domestically. Unless you adhere to an extreme version of libertarianism, Ron Paul's opposition to domestic safety net programs, health programs and educational investments is a major negative point against his candidacy.

With respect to macroeconomic policy, Ron Paul's advocacy of the gold standard, and opposition to the Federal Reserve, run counter to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of economists, of widely varying political sympathies. The mainstream opinion among economists is that a return to a gold standard would probably significantly increase economic instability.

I suppose there is the argument that people are supporting Ron Paul as a protest candidate to express their opposition to the Iraq War and abridgements to civil liberties. However, although supporting Ron Paul as a protest candidate may give legitimacy to his positions on war and civil liberties issues, such support also gives legitimacy to his positions on other domestic policy and macroeconomic issues.

[Kate G.]

Jerry,
You think that "a lot of shit" happens to people who get charged with being racists, misogynists, and anti semites? I think those things are, historically, a *badge of honor* for republicans, certainly. They may have turned the "anti semite" thing around by working closely with the ADL and with the very vocal AIPAC but that doesn't mean that they don't market basic anti semitic storylines to the other rubes in the Republican alliance. But neither "racism" nor "misogyny" or downright sexism has ever proven a drawback for right wing politicians in other than a general election or a brief scrum of hysteria in the papers. For their base saying, for example, that blacks are genetically inferior to whites or that women shouldn't vote are actually *calling cards*--check out the bell curve and its defenders and Ann Coulter's oeuvre for everything else. She may be on the way out as a saleswoman but while she was hot she was very, very, hot and her quips and cracks marketing a hard line racism and sexism were very, very, popular.

What does all this have to do with Ron Paul? Well, he's still running as a Republican and attempting to appeal to a Republican party base, isn't he? The fact that some Democrats and third party progressive types are willing to be gulled by him and his followers doesn't impress me. Politics is like a game of telephone combined with a nigerian internet scam, for some people. They are always willing to believe a half understood rumor of great riches (or a noble post political candidate) more than they are willing to do their own homework and study up on the candidates actual history and policy proposals.

Ron Paul is a republican and any Republican who hasn't left the republican party officially out of shame can't get my vote for dog catcher. Is he also a racist and a misogynist? Well, sure it takes more than one quote from a few years ago though 1992 isn't really the dark ages for information technology and apologies but I know that David Neiwert, whose work I respect, has linked him with Storm front and I doubt it it is attributable to one phony quote. But Racism isn't the half of it. How about the sexism and the poor judgement to pander to a right wing base using code words like "state's rights" to attack *women's rights* and put pregnant women and families at the mercy of right wing anti abortion lunatics? I choose my words wisely. It has long been shown that "state's rights" is a dog whistle phrase used specifically and solely to garner attention and respect from both racists and sexists. Other areas of "state's rights" like the "right to die" or liberal drug laws or, hell, even EPA waivers are simply not politically important. Because they don't serve as code words for racist and sexist base politics.

We "turned gay marriage" over to the states in MA. and we've been hammered for it ever since by right wing anti gay activists who demand a national law on this matter. The existence of an "honest libertarian" like an honest republican has yet to be demonstrated. In my brief lifetime I've yet to meet either one and I doubt I've found one in Ron Paul.

Kate G.

[MaryLou]

Kate G: best comments of the day.

[bigTom]

I think Ron has several issues that a lot of people are passionately worried about, which he unabashedly pushes. Most of us agree with at least one of these, anti-war, pro-constitution, feds out of drug laws, anti-military-industrial complex... What is interesting is that few of his supporters will agree with the whole basket, but are happy to focus on the one or two issues that are important to them. I guess this comes with the protest-vote territory, we can focus on the things we like, and don't have to be too concerned about the things that don't make sense coming back to haunt us.

[jerry]

Kate G,

I don't care about Republicans in this discussion, I care about Democrats and self-identified progressive liberal pundits. I care about not letting the Democratic party get hijacked in the same way that the Republican party has been hijacked, through appeals to emotion that use labels, whisper campaigns, and "othering" tactics to dismiss the other side as a bunch of non-humans we don't need to care about.

I care about the way we use and abuse language and use and abuse people.

And in my book, calling someone an anti-semite, racist, or misogynist is a call that is "othering" and requires strong proof, and so far I'll I've seen is "but David Neiwert says he is!" David Neiwert is a good source and a good proxy, but he is not infallible, and he is not without his own biases and agenda, as we all are.

[Emma Anne]

Kate, excellent comments. You often save me a lot of effort by saying what I would have said, and much better besides.

Jerry, unless I am willing to do my own research on Paul (and I'm not since I agree with him on one and a half issues and disagree with him on about a thousand) I think I will give more credence to David Neiwert's research and conclusions than yours. I have been reading his blog for years, and he is very careful and thorough, while you are a guy who thinks it would be fine to sentence women in huge swaths of the country to having no access to abortion, because you allegedly disagree with the reasoning of a Supreme Court case that I doubt you ever studied.

[Kate G.]

John V's comments crack me up!

A) do your own reading a bit more carefully. My name is Kate G. not "katie." B) Its a *great idea* to vote for a candidate the entirety of whose positions you don't agree with on the hope that he will be so ineffectual that his nuttiness "will be tempered" by congress. Do your own homework on a libertarian candidate or *don't* do your own homework on a libertarian candidate its not my business. I'm on record (having researched it) as determining that libertarians are just another word for relatively young, unattached, white males whose real motto is "I've got mine, jack, now screw you" but they save "I'm a libertarian, baby" for when they are trying to date women or voting. Another version of this is "I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian who just votes republican when I think it will save me money."

But please do realize that voting for someone whose stance [you think] you like on one set of issues who is so out of the mainstream that you expect that he will simply be ineffective at the actual game of politics that results in policies is political masturbation followed by political suicide. What happens if you don't get your candidate? The real question becomes what happens if you *do* get your candidate and he actually proves able to do some damage with the part of his agenda you didn't want? Pace Godwin that's the recipe that got us Hitler and, of course George Bush. Remember all those people who thought that one of those candidates was "good on some things" and "bad on others" but that various powers that be would restrain them?

Kate G.

Oh, and Emma Anne is correct. The people who say they are all righteously and academically enraged that Roe was decided unconstitutionally 'n shit is exactly equal to the people who discovered that after 9/11 they are worried about chappaquidick and concerned about floridation as a commie plot. In other words--its a signficant but significantly stupid minority of americans. With such folly the gods themselves do contend in vain. I'm certainly not the woman to take Jerry "concern troll" I'm a democrat who...cares deeply about women on. If he cared deeply about women's rights he wouldn't be blathering on about state's rights in this political environment.

Kate G.

[dilbert dogbert]

A Paul presidency would mean rule by congress. Good idea? Bad idea? Would history record his one term administration as the one where more vetos were over ridden? This would be an interesting experiment to run if I were not sailing on the same boat.

[jerry]

Emma Anne, can I ask where you think I suggested you rely on my conclusions? I believe what I have suggested is that you should not rely on third party smears from others, nor should you pass them on.

"while you are a *guy* who thinks it would be fine to *sentence* women in huge swaths of the country to having *no access* to abortion, ... *that I doubt you ever studied.*"

I have starred all of the assumptions, sweeping generalizations, overly broad statements, and inflammatory elements of that one clause of yours. I guess that no women think this way (no liberals think this way either). And you are correct, I am not a law student and so I guess I have never studied this decision. Perhaps you're saying only women or lawyers can comment on abortion issues? Or is it okay for interested parties who have done a lot of reading on the issue to come to their own decisions and discuss them?

If the issue was wrongly decided, then overturning it may make for more just decisions in the future, something that I think would probably be of a great deal of value to my children and yours, if not to you and I directly.

If the ruling was overturned because it was wrongly decided, I fail to see how that "sentences" women to anything, although using less inflammatory language I agree that it probably denies abortion to some women, and the poor and young girls in particular. I don't think that's good at all. And I would hope and work towards getting them the access they deserve.

On the other hand, there are currently ways in which I have been denied due process, equal protection, justice, happiness, and basically good health. And armed with research, I work towards overturning those laws too, although I do so without the support of NOW or so-called progressives that apparently do not mind discrimination against some.

And while the discrimination against me and others like me may not be as immediately harmful as a botched back alley abortion, let me tell you that my life has in many ways been effectively destroyed by it, as I wonder where next month's rent is, wonder about my employment, live without my family and nowhere near my relatives in the poorly heated too tiny apartment that I can barely afford, eating top ramen, and all because I want to be a parent to my own children and a court precedent that was later overturned as having been wrongly decided allowed my ex-wife to move to a completely different state, one with few career prospects for me.

I am progressive and optimistic enough to believe that overturning Roe would result in many states temporarily outlawing abortion for many but not all reasons, and a fight that would within 2-10 years restore abortion in the state capitals to most of those states.

And I think it would make clear the alternatives to abortion: the many kinds of contraception, including emergency contraception, and it would make clear the hypocrites that Republicans actually are just as it would remove an enormous barrier to Democrats.

I'm going to heat up some top ramen, enjoy Christmas with your family.

[jerry]

"With such folly the gods themselves do contend in vain. I'm certainly not the woman to take Jerry "concern troll" I'm a democrat who...cares deeply about women on. If he cared deeply about women's rights he wouldn't be blathering on about state's rights in this political environment."

You brought up the EPA yourself Kate G. I hope you enjoy the increased pollution brought to you courtesy of the Bush Administration, who apparently agree with you that states rights is just a bullshit red herring.

I am a bit surprised to hear you roll out "concern troll". Please feel free to point out any posts of mine that make you think I am not a liberal progressive Democrat.

Basically, as I've said at TPM Cafe, "concern troll" once had meaning, and they do exist, but the call of concern troll is used to shut down dialogue, not increase communication. It is a dehumanizing tactic, and it is often the refuge of people that have no longer no how to make a good argument.

Don't label me concern troll, that of course reveals more about your inabilities than mine. Label me as a Democrat, interested in the issues, studied on many of then, that happens to disagree with you.

Sorry for happening to disagree with you, and I am equally sorry for speaking out about that. Apparently all of that seems to effect you deeply, and I am not certain why.

[Kate G.]

Jerry,

Sorry you are divorced, broke, and angry with your ex-wife and the legal system. Pretty much nothing I can say or do politically is going to affect that. You might want to read "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi for a very good exploration of the economic issues surrounding your personal situation. Bully for you if you haven't fallen for the blandishments of the right wing MRA types who blame not only the specific women in their lives but all women for their marital and economic woes.

On State's rights you make my point exactly. That is, that "state's rights" is a red herring, a tool used by authoritarians in the Bush administration, republicans and southern sympathizers generally and libertarians promiscuosly and captiously. The libertarians/republicans support state's rights only when it suits the rabid base whose attention is directed to race/immigration/abortion/gay/gun issues and away from serious issues like medical care/right to die/environmental issues.

Kate G.

[andrew]

I consider myself poorly informed about who Paul really is and what he stands for, so I have nothing to say on the main topic as such. On the other hand I consider myself well informed about argumentation, and can tell the difference between coherence, care, nuance on the one hand, and rhetoric, generalization, error on the other.

What Jerry's saying above looks measured, careful, and coherent to me. The stuff from Klein, by contrast, stinks of a hack job. (Without having the least idea what Paul's position on abortion is, I am quite certain that "whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing" is not seriously being called into question by him or any other candidate.)

But rhetoric of this kind is run-of-the-mill stuff; it's the deep error, rather, that makes me stop to comment here.

When Klein says: "Paul's candidacy is an indictment of the system, not an argument for who would best administer it," I would guess that's right on the face of it; but that's not the point. The point is that we are not looking for the best administrator of the system; we are looking for the least bad administrator of the system. With the "forced to be a vessel for childbearing" bit Klein's already made plain that he doesn't understand the difference between "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you"; but the difference is fundamental to any kind of right thinking about political power.

If life and society were static, atomic, dead and unchanging, you could individuate all the issues that will be faced by all the candidates, demand exhaustive policies, pick the best set of these, and have your president right there. But life and society are not obliging in this respect. Positive policies are not appropriately seen as "better or worse policies" in an absolute sense but as "better or worse compromises"; they are necessary evils, not consummations devoutly to be wished. They are necessary because the cost of *not* having government do something may be very high in a particular case; they are evils because the cost of having government do something is in any case nonzero, and may also be very high. It is a matter of contingency and judgment, a flick of the reins on Goethe's chariot here and there, to navigate between costs and keep to the road of lesser evil.

If Paul is seriously one of the lunatic objectivists or libertarian true-believers we all knew in school, then that's one thing. But his anti-government stance could be nothing more than the kind of principled negativism I've outlined above. Negative is a different thing entirely from "tonal" and "aesthetic," by which Klein means to say "positive but deliberately amorphous." Again, I don't know if Paul is this or not (I'll do my due diligence if the guy makes it to the general election, which as a non-Republican is where my civic obligation begins). But I do know that Klein is himself a true-believer in right policies, and that he's trying to buffalo me into his corner with remarks that are not frank and direct, and those are two reasons for me to discount what is being alleged here.

Or maybe he's sincere, and really believes his premise, that we all agree that the best positive policies are what is wanted here. In which case I would say that that cognitive failure accounts for his being at a loss to explain Paul's appeal, or rather the appeal of his superficial image.

[Oskar Shapley]

What if 90-95% of criminals in D.C. are black?

[jerry]

"You might want to read "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi for a very good exploration of the economic issues surrounding your personal situation."

Kate, I invite you to read Glenn Sacks (http://glennsacks.com/blog) for a very good exploration of the cultural and legal issues surrounding a lot of this. And while you didn't say it, I just want to say that observing legal discrimination against fathers in our courts that is aided and abetted by NOW doesn't make a person a right wing nut. (It also doesn't make a person an anti-feminist or a misogynist.)

To think otherwise is truly a mistaken perception. If you do think that, I invite you once again to read Glenn Sacks, he and the majority of his commenters are progressives and his posts are very informative, very insightful, and very fair.

[jerry]

"which as a non-Republican is where my civic obligation begins"

Very interesting comments andrew, and thanks for putting into words, why at this point I haven't felt too guilty about not paying more attention to the Republican field.

[andrew]

"why at this point I haven't felt too guilty about not paying more attention to the Republican field"

You can't know about or keep up with everything, of course. That's one of the major reasons I read Brad's blog (along with the economic history sketches and the liberal doses of fun stuff) ... he keeps tabs on the crimes of the Bush administration, and on the failures of other responsible parties (members of the press corps etc.) with an incisiveness and tenacity that I could not possibly afford on my own.

Note that that's a fundamentally negative stance as well ... I'm not here because of any allegiance to a party or a label, I'm just outraged by the actions of this administration, their Republican thugs, their lackeys in print and on the airwaves, etc., and rely on Brad to help keep indictment at my fingertips. It's precisely for this reason that it's disappointing to see him forgo an opportunity to educate me on Paul in favor of a couple of off-the-cuff flourishes that I would never take if they came, say, from one of the Bush minions. That's not snark or a backhanded defense of Paul --- I don't give a damn about Paul. I'm here to be educated, to be convinced by an argument that lays it out carefully without resorting to shibboleths, generalizations, drama, whatever.

[jerry]

Exactly. For instance even on the gold standard issue. Kevin Drum and others think it's a total crackpot idea, but the truth seems to be that apart from WWI and WWII we we're mainly on the gold standard and only ended it in 1971. So I don't understand why it's a completely crackpot idea.

There's a lot of stuff from 1971 that we're moving back to. Apollo for one. Asian wars for another.

How about a report card on how well the Federal Reserve system has worked and some speculation on what would have happened in the past 10 years (Asia crisis forward) if we had been on the gold standard.

I don't mind, that is, I enjoy the shrillblog, but that's because shrill as it is, it's fact based and factually informed, and therefore not shrill at all. But just linking to name calling.... I can hear that from the downstairs neighbor.

[andres]

I enjoy Kate G.'s comments and also wholeheartedly with her description of libertarians. I don't want to go into the issue of Ron Paul because I hardly know anything about him; suffice to say that if he's still a Republican who hasn't left the party out of shame he's not getting my vote or sympathy in this lifetime or the next. A quarter century of Republican rhetoric since Ronald Reagan has totally sapped my open-mindedness to the point where I switch channels whenever any Republican politician comes on, not just Bush.

jerry, when looking into any position on economic policy, it is necessary to do your research carefully so you don't commit any substantial mistakes. The U.S. did _not_ have a gold standard between 1933 and 1971. A true gold standard is when any individual, not just central banks, can exchange money for gold at the official standard exchange rate, and where consequently the Fed and other central banks have to be a lot more careful to have sufficient gold reserves relative to money in order to meet potential demand.

When the US did have a gold standard before 1933, the need to keep the money supply aligned with gold reserves led to serious financial dislocations before 1929 and to catastrophe between 1929-1933 (as in the Fed allowing real interest rates to increase and deposits to be written off like dominoes in the middle of an accelerating recession, just in order to prevent gold outflows).

Between 1944 and 1971 by contrast, only central banks were allowed to exchange gold at official exchange rates. Individuals had to take their chances in the private, floating rate gold market. So the Fed at that time was not constrained in practice to keep the US money supply tied to gold reserves. This meant that the 1944-71 system eventually fell apart, but it also prevented the US from suffering another monetary-policy induced economic disaster. At least 95% of economists (including right-wingers such as the late Milton Friedman) are convinced that a return to the gold standard is a bad idea, and looking at US economic history gives a good indication why that is.

[jerry]

Andres, I am not the economist to take you on, but "most" people as determined by google and the wikipedia popularity contest consider Nixon to have taken us off the gold standard.

My notion of a gold standard is a dollar pegged to gold, regardless of whether people could exchange the dollar directly to gold.

I don't know if that's what Brad DeLong considers it, but it "seems to be" what the wikipedia 14 year old administrators and their newspaper columnist peers seem to say.

Either way, though we either had a gold standard or a semi-gold standard up until 1971, so I still fail to see why returning to one is de facto a crackpot idea. This is not to say I favor it, I just don't see why the proposal is to be declared a crackpot idea.

[Nathan O'Sullivan]

"[I]t's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing."

Libertarians don't support a right to kill; if one believes fetuses are people, there is nothing contradictory about holding both libertarian philosophy and opposing abortion.

[Neil B.]

Yes, Nathan, it is just too presumptive in most traditional liberal circles that a fetus should be assumed not to be. I think that the "common sense" natural insight as purported, that at a late stage we have "a human being" but not as a stem cell, with various kludges in between, is the best we can and should do.

[A.B. Prosper]

While I am strongly pro choice I don't see a physician being anti choice as disqualifying him from status as a libertarian. His views on life and when it begins at least have some medical basis.

Nathan summed it up rather well 2 posts above

"Libertarians don't support a right to kill; if one believes fetuses are people, there is nothing contradictory about holding both libertarian philosophy and opposing abortion."

My biggest objection to the man is his affection for the US of the very early 20th century. 1913 or so.

That was a particularly horrid time to live and Dr. Paul's policy seems want to drag us back there.

I just wish other candidates would deal with the issues of the Iraq War, War on Crime, Drug war and Terror War as sensibly and forthrightly as he does.

Those issues make him a tempting candidate for a lot of people and frankly with his views thats not a good feeling.

[Chris]

"If Paul is seriously one of the lunatic objectivists or libertarian true-believers we all knew in school, then that's one thing."

Let me help you out here, he is. I was interested in him at first until I heard what he had to say in his own words. He's a toon.

"that cognitive failure accounts for his being at a loss to explain Paul's appeal"

What appeal? Last I checked Ron Paul had yet to break 4%.

"States rights..."

Historically, the state is just as likely to take away your individual rights. The Federal government is as likely or more likely to grant them or protect them. States' rights often means fewer individual rights.

"1971"

We and the rest of the world got off it officially in the 30's, it just took that long to phase it out.

"I still fail to see why returning to one [a gold standard] is de facto a crackpot idea"

It's a de facto crackpot idea for a number of reasons, I'll try to cover just a few real quick. First off the Constitution in plain English does not require it of the Federal government, so Paul's fundamental argument is just completely, obviously wrong. Second off it purports to make economies more stable but actually does the opposite (depending the basic unit of currency in your economy on a **single** commodity is obviously not a good idea) Third off it's a pre-industrial anachronism... gold is now useful as an industrial resource, so we can't afford to horde it in banks. And oil or uranium would be a more relevant basis in the post-industrial world at any rate.
4th there's not enough gold on Earth to account for even a small fraction of the money that exists today in the world, even at a dramatically high rate of exchange. We're talking total, instantaneous global economic melt-down here.

Reasons 4 through 100 all involve the justifications that the Gold Standard people present for why they want to return to it. Mostly they are conspiracy theories involving Jews, the Federal Reserve, wealthy bankers, the Illuminati...you get the idea.

[Ron Lawl]

Hey, that picture is classic. Did you take that yourself? I'm going to put this on my anti-Ron Paul blog, "The Ron Paul Survival Report."