Sunday Open Thread: Understanding The Bitterness
Mark at Publius Endures throws some questions to that sub-set of Ron Paul supporters who have reacted to any sign of disagreement as a personal afront — something we’ve seen here in comment threads like this one, this one, and this one:
As I and a number of other libertarian bloggers who question Ron Paul on some things have found out, there seems to be a mentality that if you don’t support every word that Ron Paul says, you are inherently anti-liberty and anti-freedom. Isn’t this exactly the kind of “you’re either with us or you’re against us” mentality that libertarianism seeks to avoid, and that would usually be defined as “collectivism”?
How does launching into ad hominems against any person who criticizes a Ron Paul position help the Ron Paul campaign? Shouldn’t your goal be to gain their support or at least encourage them to continue giving Ron Paul free publicity?
If your goal is to silence Ron Paul’s critics, then isn’t that quite the opposite of freedom? If your goal is to persuade them, then how does name-calling and baseless accusations about motive make a persuasive case?
I’ve often wondered the same thing myself. So, tell me, what do you think ?