Ron Paul: impractical, relevant
Jack Collens
Issue date: 1/16/08 Section: Opinion
This year's Republican presidential race has already produced numerous surprises: John McCain's resurgence, Mike Huckabee's emergence as a viable political force, Rudy Giuliani's decline and Mitt Romney's inability to win any of the primaries thus far. Each exemplifies the volatility within the Republican party. None of these, however, are as surprising as the relative success of Ron Paul's campaign.
The surprising thing about Paul, is not that he came out of nowhere, it's that a large portion of his policies do not jibe with the Republican party's policies. Paul is a libertarian. That is, most of his policies revolve around the quasi Lockean principle that government exists simply to protect individuals' liberties.
Many readers may recognize the term "libertarian." Indeed, it seems this particular philosophy has begun taking root among college students. This past semester, my colleague Michael Schouest wrote in these pages that he had, in fact, converted to libertarianism. Several of my close friends sympathize with Paul's policies.
The problem is that not all of his biggest proposals and pet issues are practical or feasible. Others are just conspiracy theories.
Prior to the loyal base of Paul supporters bombard me with e-mails and criticisms directed at the above assertion, I must clarify. I do not intend to claim that his ideas are absurd. No, in many contexts I would wholeheartedly support Paul's ideas.
Take, for instance, his stance on monetary policy. Paul argued in a Feb. 15, 2006 statement, before the House of Representatives that Richard Nixon's abandonment of a gold standard on Aug. 15, 1971, gave the government the power to work with the Federal Reserve to control and expand the money supply.
In a Sep. 17, 2007, debate Paul said, "This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax and license to borrow and politicians will always do it."
The surprising thing about Paul, is not that he came out of nowhere, it's that a large portion of his policies do not jibe with the Republican party's policies. Paul is a libertarian. That is, most of his policies revolve around the quasi Lockean principle that government exists simply to protect individuals' liberties.
Many readers may recognize the term "libertarian." Indeed, it seems this particular philosophy has begun taking root among college students. This past semester, my colleague Michael Schouest wrote in these pages that he had, in fact, converted to libertarianism. Several of my close friends sympathize with Paul's policies.
The problem is that not all of his biggest proposals and pet issues are practical or feasible. Others are just conspiracy theories.
Prior to the loyal base of Paul supporters bombard me with e-mails and criticisms directed at the above assertion, I must clarify. I do not intend to claim that his ideas are absurd. No, in many contexts I would wholeheartedly support Paul's ideas.
Take, for instance, his stance on monetary policy. Paul argued in a Feb. 15, 2006 statement, before the House of Representatives that Richard Nixon's abandonment of a gold standard on Aug. 15, 1971, gave the government the power to work with the Federal Reserve to control and expand the money supply.
In a Sep. 17, 2007, debate Paul said, "This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax and license to borrow and politicians will always do it."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 16
Andy
posted 1/16/08 @ 1:08 AM CST
Dumb.
Torqued
posted 1/16/08 @ 1:13 AM CST
Ya, your right we will just have Paul endorse another canidate. Oh wait, which one, they are all the same.
That is just the stupidest idea ever. (Continued…)
Billy Budd
posted 1/16/08 @ 2:20 AM CST
Jack, I think you're missing some critical elements. 1) Paul would never sell out his views for the good of the party. He is unable to. 2) If he did his supporters would be outraged 3) much of the Ron Paul movement is a protest against neo-conservatism, the War and big government. (Continued…)
outsource-victim
posted 1/16/08 @ 2:21 AM CST
Hi, This article makes little reference to Doctor Paul whom has done very well in MI, beating Rudy Gulliani and Ron Thompson, (the chosen ones).
I am not going to preach. (Continued…)
Billy Budd
Billy Budd
posted 1/16/08 @ 2:25 AM CST
Jack, I think you're missing some critical elements. 1) Paul would never sell out his views for the good of the party. He is unable to. 2) If he did his supporters would be outraged 3) much of the Ron Paul movement is a protest against neo-conservatism, the War and big government. (Continued…)
Greg
posted 1/16/08 @ 6:58 AM CST
Dear Jack,
Concerning the gold standard and the Great Depression, I urge you to read the following article (you might find it very useful in forming your opinions):
http://www. (Continued…)
Rampaige
posted 1/16/08 @ 9:38 AM CST
Romney's won 2 so far, you dummy! He's got more delegates than anyone...boy does this article make you look the asshat!
Dan Warner
posted 1/16/08 @ 10:30 AM CST
The highway project has been underway for a long time. Yes this 'corridor' is comprised of existing highways, but you fail to dig deeper to see that the expansion will result in loads of private property being seized under eminent domain. (Continued…)
David
posted 1/16/08 @ 11:07 AM CST
Jack, the two most important issues we face today are the war and the economy. Both are tied to the Federal Reserve, and Ron Paul sees this as THE threat to American prosperity. (Continued…)
Politico2
posted 1/16/08 @ 11:14 AM CST
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is well versed in monetary policy and as such would get my vote on that point. I find your suggestion that Ron Paul drop out in favor of such candidates as "Giluliani" rather perplexing. (Continued…)
Post a Comment