All About Paul

Every once in a while, someone asks me “why doesn’t True North write more nice things about Ron Paul?”

I wrote their answer over at True North.  Go check it out if you’ve a mind to, as all those people in the Appalachian hollers to whom I’m not at all related would say.

For my part?  I’m a libertarian-conservative, and a former Libertarian conservative.  But Paul has always bothered me, for a variety of reasons; I’ve wished, fervently, for Libertarianism to have a better spokesman that Rep. Paul.  Still, he’s the farthest they’ve gotten; if Paul had happened when I was in my four-year stint as a Libertarian, I’d have no doubt been an enthusiastic supporter.

To a point.

Anyway – check the whole thing out at True North.

 

8 thoughts on “All About Paul

  1. Great post Mitch, I’ve pretty much been a small “l” libertarian most of my adult life. I am not a Ron Paul supporter largely because I’ve grown to value the demonstration of the skills to do the job of being a competent executive over the ability to deliver a speech to one’s political base and I think the current administration has proven me right.

  2. Your post at True North is spot-on, Mitch. The problem I have with a fair number of Paul supporters is this. I’ve read Hayek, but I’ve also read Eric Hoffer.

  3. Small-l libertarians are natural allies with conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, however). Big-L Libertarians are anti-conservative. They are revolutionary in the way that Marxists are revolutionary; both Marxists and Randian Objectivists believe that man has a True Nature that can be discerned by the rational mind and actualized by positive action. This is not a conservative belief.

  4. All well and good, but there is no Republican running now that I want anywhere near the Oval Office, except for Paul. I don’t find his foreign policy any scarier than the domestic policies of the other candidates. If that means a second Obama term then I guess we have it coming.

  5. Night there is no way the establishment would allow a Paul nominee. You’d really rather have Obama presiding over this economy until 2017 instead of Romney?

  6. Ben, I think that some of the bad stuff that has come out about Paul (accusations of relationships with racist and nativist groups) has its origins in the GOP and not the Democrat camps, despite the fact that is being disseminated via the left.
    Nevertheless I think Paul would be a terrible candidate and a worse president. If he was the nominee he would lose, and even if he won, he would have few allies in Congress, the courts, the media, or among the American people. It would be Uncle Kranky with a veto over all executive functions of the US government.
    Politicians like Paul are a good as legislators. Not as executives.
    Has anybody even talked about a possible pick as Paul’s VP? Who would be pure enough? Walter Williams?
    What, exactly, would Williams add to the ticket? An appeal to black Libertarian conservatives who otherwise wouldn’t vote for Paul?

  7. ” I think that some of the bad stuff that has come out about Paul (accusations of relationships with racist and nativist groups) has its origins in the GOP and not the Democrat camps, despite the fact that is being disseminated via the left.”

    Actually, it has its origins in Paul’s past relationship with racist and nativist groups. And if it didn’t come out now, should he get the nomination it will certainly come out during the general election. And come out with a vengeance.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.