I’m sure Reagan was grateful for Goldwater’s symbolic victory.

I think Reagan was more grateful to his excellent campaign staff, speechwriters, and wealth of leadership experience. Pundits like to romanticize how Goldwater’s defeat led to Reagan’s victory and there’s probably some small influence that had on things in a butterfly in chaos theory sort of way, but realistically it wasn’t much. The GOP’s reaction to Goldwater’s loss was to nominate Richard Nixon…twice. And give lukewarm support to Gerald Ford (who was actually a pretty decent president). After all, it wasn’t Barry Goldwater’s picture Reagan stuck up in the Oval Office as one of his role models…it was Calvin Coolidge.

That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen

I’m sure Reagan was grateful for Goldwater’s symbolic victory.

See your email for more.

It’s unlikely, but what if Paul’s unorthodox Plan B (in an unorthodox election) manages to notch some wins and scrape together a respectable number of delegates. Would that not disprove most of your assertions about his leadership? I realize how improbable it is, but it’s still possible.

I would be willing to admit that he had learned from some of his mistakes if that happened. But I simply don’t see it happening. He still hasn’t removed Rockwell from his campaign, he’s still not going after bigger states like Florida and as far as I can tell his approach to media coverage is the same as it was a year ago. Douglas MacArthur once said that the worst thing any leader can do is be “too late”. And keeping in mind that Paul’s won zero primaries so far and it isn’t looking like that’s going to change with Super Tuesday it’s just too little too late…even if those changes are substantial.

It still probably won’t be enough, but he’s been so thoroughly written off that even a few wins would represent a huge moral victory and testify to his leadership skills.

A moral victory would be fighting in each and every state for votes from here on out. Paul isn’t doing that, he’s fighting for states he thinks he might have a shot at winning in based on some godawful campaign strategy apparently cooked up by him and his underwhelming staff. And political campaigns aren’t the place for moral victories…they’re a place for candidates who intend to win. If Ron Paul wasn’t making a serious effort to win from the start he did a disservice to the people who donated their time and money to him. Good leaders go for real victories, not symbolic ones…symbolic victories are for gadflies and cranks.

You could very well be right about all of your assumptions, but you could also be very wrong.

Look, they were counting on IA and NH to legitimize their campaign, like it did for Huckabee. They came up short and they have largely themselves to blame for it. That is basically undisputed by any rational person.

What we don’t know is how they responded to that. I have first hand knowledge of enough things to know that they’ve been making changes and trying implement plan B. Are they serious changes or are they shuffling deck chairs? Only time will tell.

Just remember the core of intellectual honesty is the ability and willingness to acknowledge your assumptions, to admit the things that you don’t actually know for certain.

It’s unlikely, but what if Paul’s unorthodox Plan B (in an unorthodox election) manages to notch some wins and scrape together a respectable number of delegates. Would that not disprove most of your assertions about his leadership? I realize how improbable it is, but it’s still possible.

I’m not sure if you’re on Paul’s mailing list or not, but he’s basically laid out his strategy to us and it’s not crazy. It still probably won’t be enough, but he’s been so thoroughly written off that even a few wins would represent a huge moral victory and testify to his leadership skills.

You’re summarily concluding that all previous red flags were actually flaws.

The red flags before were flaws back then too. I considered them less important because I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I believed Ron Paul to be somebody who lived up to the pro-liberty standards that he preached. Retaining advisors who put out racist policy arguments is not living up to what you preach if you’re a pro-liberty candidate.

Perhaps you’re right, but Ron Paul’s hardly given me a lot of ammunition to believe otherwise. Plenty of politicians talk a good game about freedom and what they’d do if they were elected but their actions are what really define them. And Ron Paul’s actions have, to me, defined him as someone who’s:

a) automatically distrusting of anyone outside of his inner circle,
b) unwilling to accept advice from people outside of his inner circle,
c) a terrible communicator who is unwilling to build alliances that involve any compromise,
d) a terrible judge of character of the people he hires,
e) unwilling to cut loose people who don’t perform or who undercut his message, and
f) unwilling to exert leadership authority to quash crises even when it threatens to bring down his work.

Does that sound like another Texas politician you might know who once ran for president on a libertarian-friendly platform? Everything matters, Jeff, even stuff that might by itself seem somewhat trivial or old news. When you put Ron Paul into a bigger context and consider what he’s actually done rather than just what he writes on his issues page or says in his speeches he comes off a lot more like those politicians he claims to oppose than we’d like to believe.

And if he’s willing to be less than honest about something like that…where objectionable material was clearly published under his name…why shouldn’t we start re-evaluating just how honest he’s been about everything else that raised red flags?

You should. You definitely should. I don’t have a single problem with that. My problem is that you didn’t go from “supporter” to “doubter”; you went from “supporter” to “outspoken opponent”.

You’re not reexamining the red flags that you previously overlooked; You’re summarily concluding that all previous red flags were actually flaws.

No, taxation is theft. Earmarks are just one way of allocating funds. “How?” doesn’t make much difference; I only care about “How much?”

How do you think our nation gets into debt? It’s not usually one big event, it’s incrementally increased spending over a long period of time. Earmarks create economic obligations and those economic obligations eventually lead to more taxes or higher inflation because we eventually have to pay what we owe. It’s disingenous of Ron Paul to say that he opposes increased government spending while doing it himself and allowing others to get away with it under the rationalization that each earmark isn’t really that much. He has a choice between taking a principled stand or cushioning his job security and he chose his job security by giving pork back to his district (and by not opposing other Congressmen’s earmarks so they won’t oppose his)…that’s not the action of someone fighting for smaller government. The small stuff matters too, Jeff.

I have yet to meet a mainstream person that disagreed with his immigration platform.

I’ve yet to meet a fat person who hadn’t at some point tried to find a way to lose weight that didn’t involve a good diet and exercise. I don’t care if “mainstream” people are on the wrong side of the issue…Ron Paul’s on the wrong side of the issue. His policy is fundamentally wrong and he uses another fundamentally wrong policy (the welfare state) to justify it. He claims to be a student of Austrian economics so he should realize how important open immigration is to free markets, but he takes the opposite tack. Why? To get elected? If that’s the case then why shouldn’t we treat him just like every other hack out there with who panders?

The Alex Jones stuff? Remember that Paul is a guy that will take every single opportunity to spread the message. C’mon, he gave an interview in a guy’s dorm room. He didn’t pander to the extremists; he just said his piece like he does to everyone else that’ll listen.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that before I found out that Lew Rockwell edited the racist newsletters, that Rockwell denied it to save face (even though it hurt his chosen candidate), that Ron Paul claimed to “not remember” who edited his newsletters (highly unlikely considering the amount of money Rockwell and Paul were paid for his work) and that Ron Paul still keeps him around as an advisor despite the fact he’s an albatross. Whether Ron Paul has some sympathy for Alex Jones’ b.s. (because he showed up there more than once) or whether he’s just a goddamned fool who can’t tell good publicity from bad publicity, he’s not getting the benefit of the doubt from me anymore…he’s thoroughly squandered that.

I think it is proper to refer to his views as either a “Constitutionalist Republican” or the more common terminology a “libertarian-leaning Republican” and it may be appropriate to emphasize one portion or the other in certain contexts.

I understand why you feel this way, Jeff, but sorry, it’s bullshit rationalization. Ron Paul tried to distance himself from libertarianism when he felt it was an anchor and he embraced it when he felt it would help him. He’s a fence rider. And Doug was right on one point…libertarians don’t go stirring race hatred, which is what Paul allowed to happen with his newsletters under his name. And even if it was unintentional on his part he still allows the people who were responsible for those newsletters to help run his campaign. Allowing someone who makes racist policy arguments to be a key part of your advisory group is not what a responsible libertarian does. It’s what a hack does. Or it’s what someone who’s a shitty judge of character does. I don’t know which description applies to Ron Paul but it doesn’t really matter…either should disqualify him from any consideration for the Presidency.

You may be right that he was changing the emphasis purely out of opportunism, but you’d have to peer inside his head to know that. It seems like you’re just filling in all of the blanks with your general displeasure at this point.

I’m filling in the blanks because Ron Paul has refused to fill them in himself. When Paul was questioned about it his response was to say “It doesn’t matter it was a long time ago” and suggest that we take his word for it. Considering that any responsible libertarian will never take a politician’s word on it for something that shady I find Paul’s response disingenous if not flat-out dishonest. I believe the worst because he’s given us plenty of reason to believe the worst and very few reasons not to. This isn’t nitpicking like Doug was doing about Stormfront donations (where I still think Doug was wrong and Ron Paul was right)…this is tangible proof that Ron Paul has been less than honest with his supporters about his positions and way of doing business.

I don’t care that you hate the guy, but I meant that you ceased being honest in your analysis. You decided that he’s unfit to be a prominent member of the movement and now you’re spewing venom about everything he’s ever done.

Whoa…I don’t actually hate Ron Paul. I’m angry with him, I’m extremely disappointed in him, I think he’s a terrible presidential candidate and should withdraw from the race, but I do not hate him, nor do I even think he should leave Congress. I think he’s hit the limit of his usefulness in this race and it’s time for him to go because he’s now doing more harm than good. I also haven’t claimed that you’re an irrational or unfair person for still supporting him like you seem to have insinuated about me with that last comment. As for my changing analysis, I changed my opinion about a lot of his past mistakes because his handling of the newsletter situation gave me plenty of reason to. He put out a newsletter under his name with racist positions. He made about $100,000 per year from it and benefited from the publicity of it. He is apparently keeping the editor of it (who was completely responsible for content) as one of his key advisors. It’s been a political issue for him for at least the last 11 years, and yet he still can’t come up with an explanation for it that isn’t highly implausible. Seriously, Jeff…why should any of us take his word for it? And if he’s willing to be less than honest about something like that…where objectionable material was clearly published under his name…why shouldn’t we start re-evaluating just how honest he’s been about everything else that raised red flags?

That’s the tricky thing about integrity…once you throw it away on one issue in your life it has a funny way of bleeding over into everything else. If Ron Paul doesn’t realize that, then he deserves all the criticism he gets.

And yes, I realize that I’m harping the newsletter scandal, but it’s because how he handled it was the tipping point for me because it’s a prime example of how the man does business. Lots of talk about grand ideas but quite a few inconsistencies in living up to them and extremely questionable judgment in how he tries to carry them out.

If he isn’t openly opposing earmarks he’s simply not a proponent of limited government. Earmarks are straight theft

No, taxation is theft. Earmarks are just one way of allocating funds. “How?” doesn’t make much difference; I only care about “How much?”

Repeated appearances on Alex Jones, the newsletters, his immigration platform.

I have yet to meet a mainstream person that disagreed with his immigration platform. It’s not libertarian, but it’s absolutely not extreme.

I won’t try to defend the newsletters. Whatever the real story is, it doesn’t reflect well on him.

The Alex Jones stuff? Remember that Paul is a guy that will take every single opportunity to spread the message. C’mon, he gave an interview in a guy’s dorm room. He didn’t pander to the extremists; he just said his piece like he does to everyone else that’ll listen.

Paul admitted to being libertarian after repeated prodding from Blitzer but kept emphasizing that he was a Republican

I hear what you’re saying, but I think it’s basically just a muddle because of the two party system. In practical terms, we don’t have concise ideological groups; we have two big tents with encompassing various factions.

I think it is proper to refer to his views as either a “Constitutionalist Republican” or the more common terminology a “libertarian-leaning Republican” and it may be appropriate to emphasize one portion or the other in certain contexts.

You may be right that he was changing the emphasis purely out of opportunism, but you’d have to peer inside his head to know that. It seems like you’re just filling in all of the blanks with your general displeasure at this point. Just like Doug was always focusing on the negative aspects when he was clearly letting his biases impact his analysis.

(The combination of views also explains why he draws the ire of orthodox members of both ideologies.)

When I voice my support for a candidate and tell people I know that he’s a good person to vote for, then he turns out to be just another hack, I’m not particularly forgiving.

I don’t care that you hate the guy, but I meant that you ceased being honest in your analysis. You decided that he’s unfit to be a prominent member of the movement and now you’re spewing venom about everything he’s ever done.

That’s enough for now. Wrap up the discussion if you’d like. Let’s save the full autopsy (including the civil war) for December.

As for Paul’s civil war comments, others more vigilant than I was broke them down back in December.

http://reasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-civil-war.html

I’ve got to get back to work too but I’ll just address a couple of your point…I think you’re right that a more thorough analysis should probably be done later.

4. Is he on record as opposing earmarks? I haven’t heard any such statements. If he’s contradicted himself on that, please cite.

If he isn’t openly opposing earmarks he’s simply not a proponent of limited government. Earmarks are straight theft. The government takes money from everyone by threat of force to give it to one politician’s district. You can’t claim to be any kind of limited government proponent if you’re not opposing them.

When has he “open[ly] court[ed] extremists”?

Repeated appearances on Alex Jones, the newsletters, his immigration platform.

Care to provide a quote?

No quotes but I’ll provide two instances. In a clip from Wolf Blitzer that Doug did a couple of months ago Paul admitted to being libertarian after repeated prodding from Blitzer but kept emphasizing that he was a Republican (he’s said this repeatedly). In his interview with Blitzer after the newsletter scandal broke his comment was along the lines of “It’s ridiculous that they’re calling me a racist…I’M A LIBERTARIAN” (paraphrased…I’m sure the interview is available on YouTube). Nary a mention of being a Republican first. Ron Paul has usually taken on the identity that gives him the most benefit…if people call him an outsider he claims to be Republican, if people call him a racist he claims to be libertarian. That doesn’t make him worst than most politicians but he also doesn’t get credit for being any kind of idealist because of it.

Damn, when you turn on someone, you don’t hold anything back.

When I voice my support for a candidate and tell people I know that he’s a good person to vote for, then he turns out to be just another hack, I’m not particularly forgiving. I suppose a lot of that is my fault for being willing to support a guy who’s track record was obviously pretty spotty, but there’s definitely a feeling of personal betrayal there. Ron Paul made libertarians look bad in a presidential election because he took a lot of personally convenient shortcuts over his career…I don’t really see any reason to be polite about pointing that out.

I think he might have had more of a long-term effect but I think he pretty clearly demonstrated himself to be something of a crackpot.

The long term effect has nothing to do with him or perceptions of him. A network of activists sprung up around him and it’s up to us to harness that for future use. I don’t know about other states, but we’re definitely taking advantage of it here. I’ll talk more about it off the record, if you’d like.

A lot of these people seem pretty naive about politics to the point where I recently read discussion threads where Ron Paul supporters talked about how great an idea it would be if Paul ran on a third party ticket with Dennis Kucinich as his running mate.

Agreed…I think a lot of these groups are going to fade away because they’re political diletantes. If Paul hadn’t done such an efficient job of sinking his own campaign I think he might have had more of a long-term effect but I think he pretty clearly demonstrated himself to be something of a crackpot.

Since you asked, here’s why I now consider Paul to be something of a hypocrite and why my opinion of him has done a 180.

1. Yup. He’s human. I won’t try to defend him on that.
2. I don’t think you’re right on this one. I see why you think so, but I think a thorough analysis would justify (most?) of his statements. I don’t have the time though, so let’s just agree to disagree for the time being.
3. He’s not an orthodox libertarian and I don’t think he ever claimed to be. He’s not just spinning when he says he’s a Constitutionalist Republican; that happens to align him with libertarians on most issues, but not all.
4. Is he on record as opposing earmarks? I haven’t heard any such statements. If he’s contradicted himself on that, please cite.

his open courting of extremists

Damn, when you turn on someone, you don’t hold anything back. When has he “open[ly] court[ed] extremists”?

the fact that he only start touting his libertarian ties once people started calling him a racist

Care to provide a quote?

I’d like to think you’ll turn out to be right about this, but I’m beginning to doubt it.

Clearly, there are statists among his supporters. There are also people that don’t comprehend his full message. But he has also opened the minds of many people. He has also given many of us the opportunity to talk about real freedom with friends and relatives who otherwise wouldn’t take the time to discuss political philosophy.

Some of the best people in our meetup group are high schoolers that have spent the past six months devouring info about the freedom movement. Trust me, it’s impressive.

It may not be enough, but it is a real accomplishment.