This post was originally published on the fast growing site, Rebuild the Party, which you can join since it’s a social network for activists interested in GOP reform. I thought I’d feature one from the national stage. By Jason Taylor. There are over 100 responses over on that site already!
The Ron Paul supporters are certainly their own breed. They have many qualities that would certainly make them valuable teammates. They are unapologetically conservative, fiercely loyal and patently activist.
On the other hand, their highly idealistic nature leads many to believe that they are too inflexible to accept any platform which requires even their most lofty aspirations to be put on hold.
Where exactly do they stand on the issues? Can we find success by embracing them into our new plan for the Republican party, as many have voted for on rebuildtheparty.com?
One thing’s for sure: We had better figure this whole mess out quickly, figure out just exactly who is going to be on our side in this, and start laying the foundation for success. Unfortunately, it seems like a “hot potato” issue that nobody really wants to take head-on.
I’d like to invite you to explore this topic with me. I have created the group “Committee on the Campaign for Liberty”, and if you’re interested in seeing exactly where they stand on the issues compared with us, please join. I believe that it is important for us to make every reasonable effort to understand these folks, and to include them in what we’re doing here – if possible, to build a bridge between these obvious factions of our party. I hope that you think so too.
I’ve tried to herd that cat before. If they can’t get perfect, then they don’t want it at all. You can hand them 99.99% of what they want and if they don’t get that extra .01… They are friendly, but beware the brownies.
It’s not necessarily going to be the GOP reaching out to get Ron Paul supporters. It may be the Ron Paul supporters reaching out to get the GOP.
And a lot of GOP members are going to be unhappy with the GOP if they do.
You like law and order? Dr. Paul’s supporters think that most drug laws should be repealed, and that people who are in prison for drug-related offenses – which happens to be the biggest category – should be set free. Selling to kids might still be a crime, but as far as adults go, they figure that drug abuse ends drug use in the same way that cancer cures smoking.
You like faith-based initiatives? Dr. Paul’s supporters want an end to them. They’d also eliminate the ban on preachers offering political talk from the pulpit, at the same time that they’d end churchs’ tax-exempt status.
You want to end abortion? Dr. Paul’s supporters think that a woman’s health is a matter for her and her doctor, and not the government. If a baby can live after being evicted from her womb, then it lives; if it can’t, too bad.
You like fishing at Loogootee? Dr. Paul’s supporters would put all federally-owned parks and recreational lands up for sale to the highest bidder.
The thing is, they’ve tried to organize as the Libertarian Party, but the laws in most (all?) states don’t just favor a two-party system, but specifically these two parties. It’s almost impossible for them to become a major party unless one of the existing parties dies – but they can take over an existing party, and redefine the philosophy of the party.
In fact, that’s exactly what the religious right and the neo-cons did in the 1980s, taking over the GOP from the true conservatives. That, too, happened because of an invitation extended from within the GOP – Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which got the remnants of the old “Dixiecrat Party” to join the GOP.
Those of us who were Republicans before 1968 wouldn’t feel too dispossessed if the Ron Paul element were to join en masse. They’re closer to the old-style Republican party than the current party is.
This is really one of the points in the post on coalitions that I posted earlier today. The primary idea of making a coalition is expressed as:
“I can’t get what I want alone and neither can you. Let’s make a deal: I’ll support you for what you want and you support me for what I want.”
So what do “Ron Paul supporters” want? What is central to their message–not the full platform, but the list of two or three highest priority items?
The followup question will end up being the conservatives expressing the same thing and then we can find out if we can work together.
Harl, your assumptions are bogus! I support Ron Paul, but I do not support all the measures that you have attributed to ALL Ron Paul supporters. The Paul supporters that I know are entirely pro-life and they do not wish to remove the tax exempt status from churches. We are also not advocating drug use. Ron Paul is a Republican, and there are many of us out there who support his viewpoints of limited government and personal freedom. Put down your broad brush and play fair. Most Ron Paul people are very easy to get along with. If anyone deserves that label, it’s the GOP party hacks who will drink the Kool-Aid no matter what!
Thanks for your comment Diana. Once again, what was central to your support of Ron Paul? What is the one or two ideas that are the most motivating for you in your support of Paul?
Sorry, but I see the Paulistas as an embarassment to the rest of us and ideologically as much the enemy as the liberals. They imagine plots everywhere (the non-existent NAU comes to mind), and their foreign policy is right out of Barack Obama’s playbook.
Moreover, although they delude themselves otherwise, they are far too few in number to matter. The GOP needs to get as far away from Ron Paul and his supporters as possible.
I support Ron Paul, but I do not support all the measures that you have attributed to ALL Ron Paul supporters. The Paul supporters that I know are entirely pro-life and they do not wish to remove the tax exempt status from churches. We are also not advocating drug use.
Sorry. I was referring to Ron Paul supporters who actually have a clue as to just what Ron Paul supports.
Ron Paul is a Republican, and there are many of us out there who support his viewpoints of limited government and personal freedom.
Ron Paul is a Republican when it’s convenient; philosophically, he’s the same Libertarian he was when he ran as their candidate for president in 1988.
And yes, unlike the neo-cons and theocrats currently controlling the GOP, he’s in favor of drastically limiting government, and dramatically restoring personal freedoms.
The libertarian platform says “In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State.”
It calls to Repeal all drug laws creating “crimes” without victims
It says Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion… Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
It says Military should defend against aggression; not world police… Reduce defense spending by half; just defend the US… Eliminate nuclear weapons & bring all U.S. troops home
It says Eliminate all restrictions on immigration
It says Allow drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, and suicide… Strengthen, not reduce, the rights of the accused
These aren’t positions that all GOP members will feel entirely comfortable with; in fact, I suspect a majority of all GOP members will feel very uncomfortable with many of these positions. On the other hand, they are logical and consistant with the idea of limiting government and expanding personal liberties.
Harl and John are good examples of why the Republicans are no longer in power. They like to insult and belittle people who generally agree with them, and it turns people off. My impression of them is that they are pompus and it’s too bad, because people like them are poor represenatives for the GOP when they speak out against other conservatives. Ron Paul is a Republican Senator. The fact that many Libertarians support him is not a legitimate reason to belittle the man or his supporters. I am a libertarian minded conservative Republican. I do not agree with Paul on a few issues, including his position on the war; however, he was the candidate who stood for real conservative principles moreso than any other in the Republican primary. Ron Paul is also ardently pro-life, and he understands the economy like no other I’ve seen running for President. I especially like his Constitutional approach to every issue, and he applies it to his vote. He supports our right to keep and bear arms, and does more than just pay lip service to it. He’s not afraid to stand for principle, even though it usually puts him in the minority. He has inspired more people in the last few years than any of the so-called leadership in the GOP. He’s brought many people to the party because of it, and that’s a very good thing as far as I’m concerned. Any time you can get a former couch potato off the couch and inspire them into action, it’s commendable. He’s a modern day American patriot, and I’m proud to be a supporter. The GOP doesn’t belong to people like you. It’s not an exclusive club; it’s a big tent, so move over and welcome our new friends.
Diana, thanks again. I’m not sure how much you read the comments here, but just so you are aware, Harl will claim to be a Republican, but he strongly supported Obama and once or twice claimed that Obama was conservative. So please don’t attach him or his attitudes towards the rest of us.
You are right that one of the things that Rep. Paul did is that he energized a group of people who were previously not energized. But it was some of those who were energized that, quite frankly, scared some who were engaged before. (e.g. there was a vocal group of “truthers” who were supporting Rep. Paul, even though he rejected the idea himself).
To press you just a bit more, why did Rep. Paul energize you where, say, Fred Thompson did not–particularly since you disagreed with Paul on the war? Was it a matter of position AND personality? Or just that you thought he was more of a conservative than anyone else in the campaign?
Thanks for the heads up on Harl. Anyone who voted for Obama is NOT a Republican, that’s for sure. I’ve been a suppporter of Ron Paul for years, long before the Libertarians latched onto him. I did like Fred Thompson, and I jumped on his bandwagon for a while, and even sent a small donation his way. (I still have the membership card.) He would have been great, but unfortunately he didn’t have the energy to sustain a viable campaign. The Ron Paul movement (for lack of a better term) never lost its steam, and it’s still gaining momentum.
One of my observations about those who are “scared” of the “Paulistas” is that, if they were honest, they might admit that they feel threatened by the involvement of the newcomers. It’s kind of like when a new kid comes to school in the 8th grade. If she’s a girl, the other girls feel threatened by her, because she might get more attention from the boys. I imagine it might be the same when a new boy comes to school. The other boys might feel threatened by the new competition. Rather than try to get to know the new kid, the natural tendency is to demonstrate a hostile attitude.
I agree that some of the “Paulistas” can be a bit overzealous, but that’s true in any movement or party. I guess it’s the way we deal with those people that I have a disagreement with. I’d prefer to get to know them, REALLY listen to them, validate the ideas that I agree with, and then get to know them on a personal level so that I can influence them and possibly get them to see the benefit of compromising when practical without giving up one’s convictions. Immediate hostility is not a good way to get someone to consider your way of thinking. I’ve been involved in party politics for over 20 years. In Tippecanoe County, the hostility between conservatives versus moderates nearly destroyed the party. The end result was that Democrats starting taking over the county offices. We’ve learned our lessons the hard way, and I don’t want to see this type of destructive attitude take place on a larger playing field. It may take four years of an Obama administration to bring us to our senses, or at least back to the ideals of Ronald Reagan (God rest his soul). That’s my two cents worth for what it’s worth.
Highly idealistic? Are you kidding me? This is the way Americans used to think and act until they became down-downed and decadent thanks largely in part to the jewish dominated media in this country.
Most of us over 35 can still remember when a lofty idealism and a certain righteousness towards one another was commonplace throughout society.
I’ve been a suppporter of Ron Paul for years, long before the Libertarians latched onto him.
Yes? And when did that start?
In 1974 when Bob Casey defeated him?
In 1976 when Bob Gammage defeated him?
He started the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) in 1976 to publish “Dr. Ron Paul’s Freedom Report”. If you check back issues, it’s pretty consistant in philosophy over the past 30 years. Dr. Paul didn’t change his positions to become acceptable to the Libertarian party; he’s been there all along.
One of my observations about those who are “scared” of the “Paulistas” is that, if they were honest, they might admit that they feel threatened by the involvement of the newcomers.
I’m not scared of Libertarian ideas. It’s people like Dick Cheney who scare me, people who think that once you’re elected to office, you’re allowed to loot the federal treasury for your own benefit and the benefit of your buddies at Halliburton. It’s people like Pat Robertson who scare me, people who think that laws should enforce their own religious doctrine.
Libertarians believe in the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd amendment, like so many neo-cons do, and not everything except the 2nd amendment, like so many liberals do.
People like Tim McVeigh, ought to scare us, but there are loons of every political persuasion. We’re not going to see the Libertarian agenda passed in its entirety, because there are so many entrenched interests that will fight to prevent that – but it wouldn’t be a bad idea if people who fervently support the constitution were to wrest control of a major political party.
Since the GOP was the party of conservatism before the late 1960s, it seems like a better choice – to me. The neo-cons like Dubya, who talk about smaller government, but expand it like crazy when they get a chance, those are the ones who won’t be happy with the Ron Paul brigade.
jewish dominated media in this country
Perhaps it’s different for you, Up in Canada, but in the US, that’s not the case.
Ashkenazi jews are above-average in IQ tests, and they value education and literacy, so it is inevitable that they would be more common in publishing and communications than in, say, farming. However, they hardly “dominate” the media.
Ownership of the major media is mostly with public corporations, which are primarily owned by pension plans. Management includes both jewish and gentile leaders.
Steve Case, a gentile, put together the AOL/Time Warner merger and led the company.
Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, was founded by Walt Disney, well-known for his anti-semitic views.
Rupert Murdoch, an Australian gentile, put together the News Corp group, which owns Fox.
Katharine Graham, who built the Washington Post group, was a Lutheran.
Thomas F. X. Beusse, head of Westwood One, is Roman Catholic.
The Hearst family is Roman Catholic.
Ann Cox Chambers is United Brethren in Christ.
Charlie Ergen is gentile.
In an attempt to answer Joel’s question about what is central to the message of Ron Paul supporters – what are their highest priority items – I offer the following:
1) Individual Liberty
2) Constitutional Government
3) Sound Money
4) Free Markets
5) Noninterventionist Foreign Policy
(taken from the “Campaign For Liberty” website)
The last one is where I believe the most contentious difference between conservatives and libertarians lies.
Thanks Gregg.
Of course a lot goes into the details and those are very broad brushstroke items. For instance, while most Republicans (even most Democrats) want “Sound Money”, few apart from Mr. Paul were supporting returning to a gold standard (or even other similar standards).
I suspect we would have to get a bit more specific to harness that energy of the Paul voters. But we would also have to have some level of “compromise”. But the question remains if a Paul supporter would be assured of a xyz candidate working toward what they would consider Individual Liberty and Free Markets, could they be enthusiastic even if the candidate supported an “interventionist” foreign policy?
I don’t know. But we are going to have to figure out how to make our coalitions if we want to build a stronger party.
No matter who you run, there’s always going to be more enthusiasm for a candidate among some than among others.
A GOP candidate that looks just slightly more conservative than the Democratic candidate should be able to count on the support of all Republicans, and many of the independents. However, the support may be passive; you’ve got to give people a reason to crawl out of a toasty bed on a frosty November morning.
I’ve been saying all year that Obama appears to be a far more conservative candidate than many Democrats (or for that matter, many Republicans) wanted to believe. And now, they’re yelping over on Daily Kos and Huffington Post because it’s turning out that I was right about that.
The GOP needs to define itself, for sure, and the most important single thing they need to do is to demand honesty and integrity. Nobody wants to vote for a crook, no matter what his ideology.
Second, they need to define themselves as the party of small government, and mean it. If you keep spending under control, taxes will follow. If you don’t keep spending under control, we’ll pay the price, whether it’s in the form of taxes or inflation.
And they need to point out that a consequence of small government is freedom and responsibility, whether citizens want it or not.
If you keep it just that simple, then it’s simply a matter of finding honest and capable legislators and executives, who endorse those principles, who have common sense, and are pragmatic. Candidates don’t have to be perfect, because the opposition won’t have perfect candidates, either, but if you have a short list of requirements, then it’s a lot easier to focus on what really matters.
“A GOP candidate that looks just slightly more conservative than the Democratic candidate should be able to count on the support of all Republicans…”
I think this is where the difference truly lies.
If the Republican party supports those who LOOK just SLIGHTLY conservative, then the party doesn’t appear conservative at all – just a former shell of itself and full of RINOs.
How about we make a deal to support REAL Republicans who conform to at least 80% of our platform?
If the Republican party supports those who LOOK just SLIGHTLY conservative, then the party doesn’t appear conservative at all – just a former shell of itself and full of RINOs.
Barry Goldwater would say the party doesn’t appear conservative at all. It’s full of what he condemned as “me-too Republicans” who want “representation without taxation”.
How about we make a deal to support REAL Republicans who conform to at least 80% of our platform?
The only consistent Republican platform since Truman was in office has been support for Nixon, Dole and the Bushes.
The official party platform is adopted at the national convention after the candidate has been chosen, and it pretty well conforms to what the candidate wants.
To Harl, Ron Paul is extremely Pro-Life, I don’t see where you get that he is pro-choice, he has said it in numerous speeches, and he is for the individual rights of the unborn and believes that life begins at conception.
As for the main platforms and why Paul supporters feel disaffected, I would like to elaborate on Gregg’s list.
1. Individual liberty
All parts of liberty, from the second amendment, to the freedom of speech are cherished.
The main difference comes in the form of sacrificing liberties for national defense. Ron Paul’s supporters believe that those freedoms should not be given up even during times of war. A platform built on defending all rights even in times of war would go a long way towards bringing Ron Paul supporters back into the fold.
2. Constitution
Ron Paul and his supporters wish to put an end to the current way the constitution is viewed. It is not a piece of paper but a set of rules laying down what the government CAN do, not what it CAN’T. The original intent of the constitution is believed to be the listing of ALL powers afforded the government, all else are given to the people. Currently that belief is backwards, with people only using the constitution to describe what the government can’t do.
3. Sound Money
The huge deficit spending perpetrated by the government is a very large problem to supporters because it goes against traditional conservative thought and will eventually cause a huge problem for our country (we already spend a large portion of government money paying off interest). In this regard many conservatives are FURIOUS with the Republican Party. Under the Republican congress and presidency government spending has grown faster than at any point in history. This is a party that ran on small government ideals. Ron Paul supporters want to see a dramatic cut in spending and curb the growth of our nation’s debt.
4. Free Markets
Paulites support free markets in every regard, deregulate all areas of business is how they feel. This is one area where they and many Republicans agree. Unfortunately during this current crisis that platform is under attack on all sides. Remaining strong and supporting free markets is important. Free markets also include free trade. We should not need special agreements to trade freely with other countries, it should be assumed and we should eliminate tariffs and other restrictions that support otherwise.
5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy
This is not isolationist foreign policy, arguing that it is will only anger Paulites. What it does mean is that we should trade with all nations freely, it is the best way to show them the power of freedom and free markets, and that we should respect other peoples’ rights to govern their own countries, even when their decisions fly in the face of what is best for the US. Only intervene militarily as an utterly last resort.
These five pillars of The Campaign for Liberty are the important parts of the overall platform. I think most Ron Paul supporters are sensible enough to see that the Republican Party’s ideals are far closer to their ideals than the Democrat’s and most with a few concessions would gladly help the Republican Party; that is how I feel anyway.
James, thanks for expanding on the pillars of the Campaign for Liberty. A couple of thoughts from a non-Ron Paul supporter and where we have some work to go to come together on these items:
1. Individual Liberty: I have some thought floating around on this, but haven’t figured out a way to communicate it yet. It would seem that all groups are in favor of liberty, but the flavor differs somewhat from group to group. The Democrats will say that they are for liberty at the same time that they are for wealth redistribution. A conservative sees that as an affront to liberty. The term is not particularly effective for communicating what the concerns are. Both groups need to work on the language here.
2. Constitution: I don’t think conservatives disagree with this. Where there may be a disagreement is how to get BACK to constitutional governance. And, of course, there may be some disagreement on what IS constitutional.
3. Sound Money: Once again, conservatives agree here. Where Ron Paul got into trouble with various Republican groups was his past support (and not backing away from it in his campaign) to return to the gold standard. The belief on the part of many economists is that would be a disaster.
4. Free markets: Once again, agreed. The only fix that I can see is major tax reform. I work in the oil industry and have been amazed at the amount of intervention that the government has in my industry.
5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy: “Paulites” did get angry when the rest of us called this “isolationist”. But WE got angry with Paulites calling their isolationist policies “noninterventionist”. This is a major sticking point issue and is probably the one that would require the most work to make Ron Paul supporters happy. I certainly think that Ron Paul supporters have some things to bring to the table here. But I think that Paul supporters also need to listen to a bit of thought from those who believe that it is better to fight some battles as an away game.
We are not far apart, particularly as the Republicans (or rather the American electorate) seem to be purging the “moderate” part of the Party and leaving the conservatives. I think we will be able to accommodate each other.
1. Individual Liberty:
This is already a sticking point between traditional conservatives and the neo-cons that have been in control of the GOP – and I think it’s probably the biggest sticking point.
There’s a difference between something being wrong, and something being illegal. Abusing drugs is just plain stupid – but at this point, the drug laws are probably doing more harm than drug abuse would. It worked that way with alcohol prohibition.
If you’re committed to small government, you have to recognize that government probably shouldn’t even try to enforce morality. And that’s going to stick in the craw of a lot of otherwise good people like Huckabee, who seems to think the US Constitution needs to be amended to conform to the bible.
I like Huck – but I want him to keep his mitts off the Constitution.
The Democrats will say that they are for liberty at the same time that they are for wealth redistribution.
If you live in the boondocks, you are used to doing things for yourself. If you live in a big city, you realize that what one person does will have a BIG impact on many others. That’s the reason why urban areas are blue, and rural areas are red.
Most Democrats aren’t in favor of “income redistribution” as such, but they see a greater need for government services, and they believe – as Republicans have historically believed – that those who derive the most benefit from the government should pay the most for it.
3. Sound Money:
If we had sound money, the Paulists wouldn’t have any issue here. They see the gold standard as the means to an end.
Kevin Phillips was just on Book TV a day or three ago, talking about this, and he said the biggest reason you need a balanced budget is because legislators need a reason to say “No”.
Well, that’s part of it, but not all. Inflation is a really bad tax. It discourages saving and investment, which is where our wealth comes from.
Free markets: Once again, agreed. The only fix that I can see is major tax reform. I work in the oil industry and have been amazed at the amount of intervention that the government has in my industry.
There are no free markets at all. The major tax reform we need is replacing the income tax with VAT, and then saying “No” to finagling with VAT. There’s no real difference between taxing income and taxing outgo, except that taxing outgo is a lot simpler to do.
When we ship products overseas, they carry the burden of our income tax and their VAT. When they ship products here, the manufacturer gets a refund of VAT, and we don’t charge them income tax on their production. The result is that manufacturing flees the US.
5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy:
The folks of Fort Wayne don’t pay the salaries of cops in Gary, and the folks in Bloomington don’t pay the salaries of the cops in Terre Haute. Why should we pay to station military forces in Germany and Korea in order to defend foreign lands? If they want our troops there, let’s get paid for it.
Paul supporters also need to listen to a bit of thought from those who believe that it is better to fight some battles as an away game.
How about not fighting the battles at all? We constantly have incidents like those involving the Pueblo and the Cole. This doesn’t seem to happen to Andorra, Bolivia, Chad, or Latvia.
I am a RP supporter. I understand Ron Paul from reading his articles and watching his videos. I also joined C4L.
One of the biggest problems this movement has is getting some to take it seriously.
The message of freedom and liberty is powerful, but the message needs more cohesion. Whether many of you believe it or not, Ron’s 2012 run started before the 2008 election was over. I have met some of the most enthusiastic and passionate people who are campaigning for him, including myself. His personal stance on most issues resonates with most Americans, whether they are democrats or republicans.
I think the campaignforliberty website needs a platform for RP and campaignforliberty to discuss the issues. I can’t tell you how many people online think RP is cool because they think they can do pot without consequences. That’s not what this is about. These people hurt the cause and turn RP into a Nader type candidate with the same old Nader message.
RP is about educating the masses to ensure survival of our liberties and our country in the most truest sense of the Jeffersonian spirit.
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
“Resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to always be kept alive” – Thomas Jefferson
Click for more info
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Recent Posts