Tipsy linked to an opinion column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post entitled Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln which Tipsy describes as a libel.
What I’ve noticed in Ron Paul lately is less about him and more about those observing him. He’s like a Rorschach test; people projecting upon him what they want to see and minimizing those things they don’t. I suppose candidates are generally like that, but for whatever reason, I’ve noticed it more with Paul. Supporters see the principled advocate of small government and individual liberty. Detractors see a crank with simplistic notions of the economy, no apparent concern for rights of individuals abused by more powerful institutions in the absence of government regulation, and a history of publishing newsletters with racist items – even if he’s to be believed that he didn’t write the offensive material himself.
More so than other candidates, it seems like he generates stronger emotions – both positive and negative – that prompt a more dramatic confirmation bias than the candidates with more nuanced (or weaselly, if you prefer) positions.
Paul’s views are so all over the place that lots on non-Republicans can find things that they like, and lots of Republicans can find things that they don’t like.
I haven’t really seen anything with him that I would call racist, but you certainly can read into his hatred of Israel and the Fed as anti-semitic.
FWIW, I have finished “End the Fed”, and found it wanting. I never really understood what his alternative to the Fed is. I guess it would be whatever existed before the Fed existed, but I still don’t understand exactly how that all worked.
The Ron Paul Newsletter on Twitter is gathering some of the more troublesome quotes from his newsletter.
I actually described the particular quote as a libel, substituting an ellipsis for Gerson’s momentary lapse back into reality. It was a libel because Gerson had picked up everything he thought unsavory about Paul over his career and described them as his “platform.”
I cheerfully acknowledge that parts of the hatchet job of a column were more or less true.
And, yeah, Paul is sort of a Rohrschach test. If you simply say you like him, it can be seen as sinister and racist or as serious about cutting the federal government back to the size the Constitution specifies.
The problem with Paulbots is they think Ron is some great mind. He’s not. He’s for what benefits him personally. His arguments generally ignore anything that’s intellectually inconvenient. His platform of limited government power, especially executive power, is inconsistent with his goal of ending The Fed, Social Security, Medicare, education, and 98% of everything else the government does. If you are a powerless executive, how do you accomplish any of that?
Through the legislature, of course.
Then he’s already in the proper position, so he doesn’t really need to run for President. Once again, Ron Paul doing whatever is best for him, lying about why he’s doing it, and expecting us to be stupid enough to believe it. Unfortunately, some people are stupid enough. I’m guessing the Paulbots ancestors purchased large amounts of snake oil.
But, Chris, please give some insight on this: I always hear the lament about people not voting in their own best interest, but you are criticising Ron Paul is doing what’s best for him. Is the answer that because Ron Paul is in a public position, he should be thinking of the common good from that perspective and not a personal one? I’m not a fan of his, so I’m only asking for your take on it, not trying to argue.