Why has Ron Paul failed?

20Cent

It is now clear that Ron Paul has failed to gather enough votes to become the republican nominee for president. He is third behind two divisive weak candidates. Online one would think there was great support for him but in reality this support is not turned into votes. A US senator seems to be the highest office a libertarian can reach and without a serious replacement for Paul is this the end of libertarianism in the US?

My opinion is that his ideas and policies make him unelectable in a democracy.

Denerick

He hasn't 'failed', I doubt he ever thought he had a great chance of becoming president. Rather his campaign is about getting maximum publicity for his ideology. Despite a concerted campaign by the media, both left and right, Paul has tapped into a significant chunk of the American electorate (One fifth of the Republican party) If his intention was to publicise libertarianism and convert as many people as possible, then he is the opposite of failure.

Cavehill Red

Ron Paul's polling marginally behind the two front runners despite receiving zero coverage on mainstream media. His performance, far from a failure, has been exceptional.

steelcityblues

In 2008, he finished a clear 4th in the Republican race, and yet you deem him a failure this time around? As others have said, given he is not a media favourite, he is performed admirably this time around.

Stop before your bias gets the best of you.

old_aussie

Obviously Ron Paul didn't kiss enough babies.

Overheal

South Carolina hasn't even gone to the polls yet. Try this thread again on Monday maybe?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

After the first two voting contests Ron Paul has the second largest vote count. That would suggest that everybody bar Mitt Romney has failed thus far. As Overheal said it is too early to start talking about this seen as the South Carolina primary hasn't even been held yet and Super Tuesday is still a long way away yet.

Who says that Ron Paul candidacy can be judged a success on whether or not he gets the nomination? Maybe his goals are to get a message out and change the terms of discussion. How many people are talking about the Federal Reserve now as opposed to four years ago? In the last few weeks there have been a great deal of leading Republican figures saying that they need to pay more attention to Ron Paul's ideas.

Maybe his goal is to inspire a younger generation of voters to think about libertarian ideas. Maybe he his trying to pave a path for his son to become the president.

Personally Ron Paul reminds me of Barry Goldwater, from whom Republican issues about smaller government and a hawkish foreign policy stem. As somebody once said "Barry Goldwater won in 1964. It just took 16 years to count the votes." There is plenty of reason to believe Ron Paul might not secure the nomination but still be a roaring success.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most people are against stamping on kittens. Doesn't mean they support PETA though.

20Cent

Any links to Ron Paul saying his run was just to increase knowledge of libertarianism?

c_man

He's done far better than I expected. With his increasing age it may be his last attempt at nomination, he's certainly showed there's an audience for his viewpoints.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Any links to Ron Paul saying his run was just to increase knowledge of libertarianism?

If he said that he'd get zero coverage and zero votes.

super_furry

Not sure his supporters have helped. There's the constant cry of a conspiracy against Paul from many of those within his camp and when the likes of Alex Jones are backing you so vocally, it's easy for people to dismiss you as a crank.

20Cent

Anyone any stats on the popularity of Ron Pauls other policies

Such as revoking the Civil Rights Act.
Legalising hard drugs and prostitution?
Leaving major disaster relief to the state instead of sending federal help.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because the trends that you illustrate belong to any number of political movements in addition to Libertarianism.

SO claiming libertarian values are surging because people want weed legalised is not accurate. most of the hippies in portland wouldnt know libertarianism from a sock puppet.

And gun control? thats been a republican issue for ever.

You should instead pick some libertarian positions that are unique to libertarianism.

For instance deregulating the various safety agencies. The FDA, The EPA, how americans feel about those programs would be a far more acurate guage of the popularity of libertarianism wouldnt it?

InTheTrees

Ron Paul is failing because in all his years in congress, and running for president, He is still the only libertarian politician congress.

Can anyone name any other libertarians politicians?

Its not much of a political movement when there's only one member of congress? In all this time they havent managed to get a second member of congress elected?

I'm not sure that there can be any more accurate definition of Failure in a political movement.

Even Screaming Lord Sutch and the Raving Loonies got more members elected than the libertarians.

20Cent

Not too successful as a senator either he's sponsored 620 measures, only 4 have made it to a vote on the House floor, only one has been signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

matthew8

According to Charles Krauthammer Ron Paul hasn't failed (and he would not be the sort of guy who would support Ron Paul at all):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-achievement/2012/01/12/gIQABS7duP_story.html

As someone else said, his run has a similar aim to Goldwater's run. Goldwater may have been thrashed in 1964, but he is a far more influential person than Kennedy.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

According to Charles Krauthammer Ron Paul hasn't failed (and he would not be the sort of guy who would support Ron Paul at all):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-achievement/2012/01/12/gIQABS7duP_story.html

As someone else said, his run has a similar aim to Goldwater's run. Goldwater may have been thrashed in 1964, but he is a far more influential person than Kennedy.

Career as a Senator
11 terms in office he sponsored 640 bills 4 made it to the house floor 1 passed (a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston). A very low success rate by any standard.

Presidential bids
All failures as well. Biggest success is the current bid where he is behind two of the least popular candidates in living memory. When wealth inequality is the big issue a vulture capitalist is beating Paul!

Increasing the popularity of libertarianism
He is very unpopular in the republican party even Fox news mock him. He has no allies, no coalitions, no other libertarians and no obvious successor. Rand seems more like a liability to me. His supporters are noisy and committed but have failed to make his ideology capture the public imagination. Once he retires there is no one to take up the mantle. Libertarianism is non existent in Europe.

No many accomplishments for a 3 decades. Pretty much a failure.

matthew8

Career as a Senator
11 terms in office he sponsored 640 bills 4 made it to the house floor 1 passed (a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston). A very low success rate by any standard.

What about the standard of how many times the people elected him? He did pretty well there, better than Newt and Santorum and Romney.

Presidential bids
All failures as well. Biggest success is the current bid where he is behind two of the least popular candidates in living memory. When wealth inequality is the big issue a vulture capitalist is beating Paul!

Wealth inequality isn't the big issue. But now that you mention it, Paul is the most popular republican among the lower classes.

Increasing the popularity of libertarianism
He is very unpopular in the republican party even Fox news mock him. He has no allies, no coalitions, no other libertarians and no obvious successor.

He's third in the primary polls, not what I'd call very unpopular. He's promoting his ideas in the republican party. Just the other day, Jim DeMint (senator from SC, big time tea party leader) said that due to the deficit situation that he may soon have no choice but to side with Ron Paul on foreign affairs. Gingrich was recently talking about gold. Auditing the fed has become popular. Thanks to Ron Paul, republicans now (or at least pretend to) care about the constitution, some even claiming they carry it around in their pocket.

Rand seems more like a liability to me. His supporters are noisy and committed but have failed to make his ideology capture the public imagination. Once he retires there is no one to take up the mantle.

Gary Johnson. Y'know, the 2 term governor of NM. Seems pretty libertarian to me.

Libertarianism is non existent in Europe.

No it's not, it's just supported by few people.

No many accomplishments for a 3 decades. Pretty much a failure.

If you can be a prominent politician for 3 decades that instantly means you are not a failure as a politician.

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

Career as a Senator
11 terms in office he sponsored 640 bills 4 made it to the house floor 1 passed (a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston). A very low success rate by any standard.

It's clear you're only contriving a definition of failure so that you can have a go at Paul. Many of the reasons you claim him to be a failure can equally be applied to the hard Left in Ireland. How much legislation has the ULA managed to pass so far? And the ULA have 5 representatives in 166; Paul is alone (by your reckoning) in 435 representatives. That means the ULA have 13 times as much representation.

(Don't try to pull the Irish Executive dominance argument - Paul also has to deal with a strong Senate and a veto-holding Executive.)

We can apply the same criticisms to the Occupy movement. In terms of law-making or office holding they have achieved nothing. Is the Occupy movement a failure? No - it has raised awareness of an alternative point of view. This is what Paul has done. He has provided principled opposition to the status quo in his country and raised awareness of an alternative perspective.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's clear you're only contriving a definition of failure so that you can have a go at Paul. Many of the reasons you claim him to be a failure can equally be applied to the hard Left in Ireland. How much legislation has the ULA managed to pass so far? And the ULA have 5 representatives in 166; Paul is alone (by your reckoning) in 435 representatives. That means the ULA have 13 times as much representation.

(Don't try to pull the Irish Executive dominance argument - Paul also has to deal with a strong Senate and a veto-holding Executive.)

We can apply the same criticisms to the Occupy movement. In terms of law-making or office holding they have achieved nothing. Is the Occupy movement a failure? No - it has raised awareness of an alternative point of view. This is what Paul has done. He has provided principled opposition to the status quo in his country and raised awareness of an alternative perspective.

I agree with a lot of what you say. If his aim though is to raise awareness of libertarianism a 30 odd year career and only one senatorship and one piece of legislation passed is not very successful. And yes by that standard the "hard left" in Ireland is also a failure.
If one picks and chooses his policies hell even I like some of them its the whole package that is not very popular. A person for legalising weed I can imagine a lot of them. Legalising weed, crack and repealing the civil rights act not so much.

This thread was in part a response to a libertarinas thread about Occupy Dame Street being a failure and I made the same arguments you are making, awareness and its not over yet.

Difference is though I can see where ODS and occupy is going but what happens when Ron Paul retires? Occupy don't intend being around forever. There is no successor in the wings he hasn't made alliances and his policies aren't making any inroads will all his work be lost?

irishh_bob

20Cent wrote: »

Career as a Senator
11 terms in office he sponsored 640 bills 4 made it to the house floor 1 passed (a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston). A very low success rate by any standard.

Presidential bids
All failures as well. Biggest success is the current bid where he is behind two of the least popular candidates in living memory. When wealth inequality is the big issue a vulture capitalist is beating Paul!

Increasing the popularity of libertarianism
He is very unpopular in the republican party even Fox news mock him. He has no allies, no coalitions, no other libertarians and no obvious successor. Rand seems more like a liability to me. His supporters are noisy and committed but have failed to make his ideology capture the public imagination. Once he retires there is no one to take up the mantle. Libertarianism is non existent in Europe.

No many accomplishments for a 3 decades. Pretty much a failure.

fox news dont like him because he is an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say. If his aim though is to raise awareness of libertarianism a 30 odd year career and only one senatorship and one piece of legislation passed is not very successful. And yes by that standard the "hard left" in Ireland is also a failure.

I don't see how legislative success correlates with awareness success. But I do see how Paul's better results this time around indicate that he has been successful in promoting his point of view and convincing other people to share it. There has been an increase in the number of his supporters.

20Cent wrote: »

Difference is though I can see where ODS and occupy is going but what happens when Ron Paul retires? Occupy don't intend being around forever. There is no successor in the wings he hasn't made alliances and his policies aren't making any inroads will all his work be lost?

I'm don't know what will happen Paul supporters when he retires as I don't have enough knowledge of the American libertarian political scene. I think the same thing applies to Occupy Ireland. You claim that Occupy Ireland will continue after the tents come down. And it will, because Occupy Ireland has always been around, except in the past under the different title ULA, PBP, WSP etc. The Irish hard-Left movement will continue; it always has.

The only question is to do with those people who were not members of the ULA etc. before Occupy, and those supporters of Paul's campaign who were not libertarians before he came to prominence.

Looked at this way, it's clear that Occupy is no "better" than Paul's campaign in terms of long term survival. The best that's going to happen is that all the Occupiers will join the Irish hard Left and the fundamentally non-parliamentary politics they operate within. Old Occupiers are not going to start running for parliament. If a successor to Paul fails to materialize, the same will just happen: the "new libertarians" will not run for parliament but will merely now form a larger section of civil society.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't see how legislative success correlates with awareness success. But I do see how Paul's better results this time around indicate that he has been successful in promoting his point of view and convincing other people to share it. There has been an increase in the number of his supporters.

He hasn't succeeded in convincing others to sponsor or pass his bills has he?
Increas in number of supporters great but not much use if he can't even get anyone to pass his bills.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm don't know what will happen Paul supporters when he retires as I don't have enough knowledge of the American libertarian political scene. I think the same thing applies to Occupy Ireland. You claim that Occupy Ireland will continue after the tents come down. And it will, because Occupy Ireland has always been around, except in the past under the different title ULA, PBP, WSP etc. The Irish hard-Left movement will continue; it always has.

The only question is to do with those people who were not members of the ULA etc. before Occupy, and those supporters of Paul's campaign who were not libertarians before he came to prominence.

Looked at this way, it's clear that Occupy is no "better" than Paul's campaign in terms of long term survival. The best that's going to happen is that all the Occupiers will join the Irish hard Left and the fundamentally non-parliamentary politics they operate within. Old Occupiers are not going to start running for parliament. If a successor to Paul fails to materialize, the same will just happen: the "new libertarians" will not run for parliament but will merely now form a larger section of civil society.

Occupy is not "hard left".

InTheTrees

matthew8 wrote: »

some even claiming they carry it around in their pocket.

Robert byrd was famous for carrying a copy of the constitution around with him all the time.

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone any stats on the popularity of Ron Pauls other policies

Such as revoking the Civil Rights Act.

You are by far one of the biggest troll posters in politics at the moment. Ron Paul did not say he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act, he said that he would not have voted for it if it came up again. He actually has a very legitimate point:

Ron Paul wrote:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Clearly this is not a pro-racism stance or pro-segregation stance, it is merely an observation that the Act is ultra vires Congressional powers and is unconstitutional on its face.

What he did call for was a repeal of Jim Crow laws.

Legalising hard drugs

Ron Paul wrote:

"Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem: "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general.

and prostitution?

Paul affirmed his belief that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do "controversial things" as long as they do not hurt or defame other people and that the federal government should not infringe on those rights.

I don't necessarily see a problem with that tbh.

Leaving major disaster relief to the state instead of sending federal help.

FEMA is a disaster prepared only a small amount for various disasters that could happen in various parts and geographic areas/climates of the country. New Orleans really showed just how poor FEMA is. It makes much more sense to leave this to each individual state. Allocate that money elsewhere or simply stop taxing for federal disaster relief on a federal level. Seriously, what could your issue with this be?

Ellis Dee

I'm always wary about "-isms" and am still not clear what libertarianism is all about. I might muster the energy to Google it soon, but in the meantime I assume a libertarian is pro-choice when it comes to abortion, advocates legalisation of the weed and other "soft drugs", champions freedom of speech, opposes wars to impose Western ideology and Christian values on peoples in other parts of the world, totally rejects all forms of censorship, believes in equal opportunities for people of all races ---:):)

In other words, is pretty well unelectable in a country like the USA and will not, I suspect, do well in tomorrow's poll in South Redneckia*, either. Pity!:rolleyes:

* A place where Newt's long history of marital infidelity and being mean to his wives seems to matter little in Bubba's perception, because the fact that all of his wives have not been close blood relations makes him, by local standards, a paragon of virtue.

20Cent

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You are by far one of the biggest troll posters in politics at the moment. Ron Paul did not say he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act, he said that he would not have voted for it if it came up again. He actually has a very legitimate point:

I stand corrected but he wouldn't have voted for it or anything like it. In Ron Paul world white only bars would be ok. Now what you or I think of that is a different issue but do you ever see much support for it? Reported the troll comment btw.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Paul affirmed his belief that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do "controversial things" as long as they do not hurt or defame other people and that the federal government should not infringe on those rights.

I don't necessarily see a problem with that tbh.

Again though the question isn't what you or libertarians think of it its would it fly with your average voter? Legal heroin and crack? I think not.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FEMA is a disaster prepared only a small amount for various disasters that could happen in various parts and geographic areas/climates of the country. New Orleans really showed just how poor FEMA is. It makes much more sense to leave this to each individual state. Allocate that money elsewhere or simply stop taxing for federal disaster relief on a federal level. Seriously, what could your issue with this be?

New Orleans was a major f up. Mostly due to Bush and his crownie "Brownie". Still do you think that people would vote for a situation where they were told that in the event of a major disaster the state is on its own work it out lads!.

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

I stand corrected but he wouldn't have voted for it or anything like it. In Ron Paul world white only bars would be ok. Now what you or I think of that is a different issue but do you ever see much support for it?

No, you're clearly confused here. He is against the aspects of the bill that are for forced quotas. He is also stating that the bill is outside the scope of the powers of the Federal Government. It may not be outside the scope of the powers of the State Government. Why should private contractual relations be interfered with by the scope of federal or state regulations though? The US Courts have upheld men's and women's only clubs.
Certainly state desegregation of public spaces is constitutional... in fact it would be arguably unconstitutional to pass laws segregating... the Act may be unnecessary in the modern USA.

Again though the question isn't what you or libertarians think of it its would it fly with your average voter? Legal heroin and crack? I think not.

I take it you don't know about the various versions of legal heroin and cocaine used every day?

New Orleans was a major f up. Mostly due to Bush and his crownie "Brownie". Still do you think that people would vote for a situation where they were told that in the event of a major disaster the state is on its own work it out lads!.

Brownie, director of FEMA at the time.

You're really missing the point entirely... THAT is not the job of the federal government, it is the job of the state government. There would be a NYEMA (New York Emergency Management Agency) and a FEMA (Florida Emergency Management Agency) and so on... Either you're missing the point, purposely misrepresenting the ideas or you don't understand the structure of the United States. Which is it?

Overature

IMO Ron Paul would make the best Rep candidate for president, I just dont think that his ideas are very "American" and thus wont be excepted by the general american public who might not have the greatest internet knoledge

20Cent

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you're clearly confused here. He is against the aspects of the bill that are for forced quotas. He is also stating that the bill is outside the scope of the powers of the Federal Government. It may not be outside the scope of the powers of the State Government. Why should private contractual relations be interfered with by the scope of federal or state regulations though? The US Courts have upheld men's and women's only clubs.
Certainly state desegregation of public spaces is constitutional... in fact it would be arguably unconstitutional to pass laws segregating... the Act may be unnecessary in the modern USA.

So if a state wanted white only bars then it would be ok with Ron.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I take it you don't know about the various versions of legal heroin and cocaine used every day?

Not the question, would you see legalising the use of heroin and crack to everyone as something that a majority of Americans would vote for?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Brownie, director of FEMA at the time.

You're really missing the point entirely... THAT is not the job of the federal government, it is the job of the state government. There would be a NYEMA (New York Emergency Management Agency) and a FEMA (Florida Emergency Management Agency) and so on... Either you're missing the point, purposely misrepresenting the ideas or you don't understand the structure of the United States. Which is it?

Again would you see the majority of Americans voting for a position where there would be no federal help in the case of a major disaster?

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

So if a state wanted white only bars then it would be ok with Ron.

No. That's not the point in any event.

If a state did introduce legislation that allowed "white only" bars, it could be challenged as unconstitutional as against the individual state's constitution and if it passed that challenge, then as unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

There is no need to legislation which imposes positive discrimination. You see?

Not the question, would you see legalising the use of heroin and crack to everyone as something that a majority of Americans would vote for?

But they already have. Various forms of legal heroin and cocaine exist already. Would the average voter vote to make heroin and crack cocaine completely legal tomorrow, no. But the voter trend is veering sharply away from prohibition being the answer to the problem. That is the point.

Again would you see the majority of Americans voting for a position where there would be no federal help in the case of a major disaster?

Yes, why not? The states are perfectly, if not more, capable of collecting these funds and allocating them themselves. You're acting as if no federal help means no help. A state run version of FEMA would still exist and the areas in need would likely get better bang for their buck. It doesn't even preclude federal funding grants for areas which are more disaster prone - it just removes the logistics from the Department of Homeland Security.

Overheal

On the issue of Disasters, the States are plenty capable of arranging their own efforts. When a firestorm erupts in California, or Florida, it's not the Federal Government or FEMA that is coordinating the mass migration of emergency services from Coast to Coast to handle the problem, it's often left to the States, and individual counties, and Fire Departments.

Also, if you look at the private sector, here is a great example where AT&T is essentially ready to restore communication service even in the event of a nuclear attack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC_FRABertA

Point being, what is it that FEMA really needs to do at the federal level that nobody else can?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you're clearly confused here. He is against the aspects of the bill that are for forced quotas. He is also stating that the bill is outside the scope of the powers of the Federal Government. It may not be outside the scope of the powers of the State Government. Why should private contractual relations be interfered with by the scope of federal or state regulations though? The US Courts have upheld men's and women's only clubs.
Certainly state desegregation of public spaces is constitutional... in fact it would be arguably unconstitutional to pass laws segregating... the Act may be unnecessary in the modern USA.

The problem that I, and I suspect a lot of people, who took issue with Paul's position on the civil rights legislation is that his rationale is presented ahistorically. The situation with southern states and rule of law (or lack thereof) was simply untenable, and there was little reason to think that this situation would change without massive levels of coercion from the federal government, given the intransigent leadership and political culture that had existed for decades.

Also, having worked for an American law firm specifically in the area of federal labor and employment law, the way that affirmative action 'quotas' actually work are completely misunderstood by 95% of the public. If you do business with the federal government (or with a federal contractor), your only obligation as an employer is to show that you have made a good faith effort to recruit and hire from the available market pool and that your workforce is generally representative of the workforce for that specific industry in your specific geographic area. Companies are not 'forced' to hire 'unqualified' people, and on the contrary, having been on the employer side of the business on this, it is really only the most absolutely egregious cases that ever come to the attention of the federal government. The whole process is very straightforward, and not an onerous requirement for companies that have even halfway decent HR record keeping. If companies think these requirements are too much of a pain in the ass, or are an infringement on their liberty, then they don't need to sign federal contracts. Simples.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're really missing the point entirely... THAT is not the job of the federal government, it is the job of the state government. There would be a NYEMA (New York Emergency Management Agency) and a FEMA (Florida Emergency Management Agency) and so on... Either you're missing the point, purposely misrepresenting the ideas or you don't understand the structure of the United States. Which is it?

I would generally agree that states need to take the lion's share of the responsibility for emergency management. Florida is very good at this; Louisiana is not, and everyone in Louisiana knows it. I would also take it a step further and say that individuals need to be more prepared; I spent two years lin South Florida (and got hit or clipped by 5 major hurricanes during that time) and I was appalled by how unprepared most people are for disasters, especially considering the 24-7 news coverage and huge public awareness campaigns around preparedness.

That said, in a situation with a multi-state disaster (like Hurricane Katrina), it does make sense to have a federal agency involved. For example, one of the biggest issues for the southeast was the restoration of Interstate 10, which is a major transportation artery for the entire southern US. Getting I-10 back online again was a clear issue not just for individual states, but for the maintenance of interstate commerce.

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

It is now clear that Ron Paul has failed to gather enough votes to become the republican nominee for president. He is third behind two divisive weak candidates. Online one would think there was great support for him but in reality this support is not turned into votes. A US senator Congressman seems to be the highest office a libertarian can reach and without a serious replacement for Paul is this the end of libertarianism in the US?

My opinion is that his ideas and policies make him unelectable in a democracy.

To go back to Ron Pauls' 'failure', I think the problem is more down to US electoral institutions than his political philosophy. If the US had some kind of PR system which allowed for the development of multiple parties outside of the 'big two', then I would think that a Libertarian party, at a national level, could plausibly capture 8-10% of the vote. But because he gets subsumed within the Republican party, all he can really do is defend his corner of the broader GOP tent - the same way that environmentalists have to do with the Democrats (instead of organizing a Green Party, which might do pretty well in states like Oregon and California).

20Cent

Apologies congressman is the highest office reached by a libertarian not the senate. He is an even bigger failure than I thought.

InTheTrees

southsiderosie wrote: »

To go back to Ron Pauls' 'failure', I think the problem is more down to US electoral institutions than his political philosophy.

I'm not enough of a political historian to know why, but US politics is much more personality driven. There's no mention of political parties in the US constitution. Is there any mention in the federalist papers?

Every few election cycles there's some half hearted talk of a third party but they're never long term. Ralph Nader used to emerge from obscurity every four years to run for president, ross perot "spoiled" one election for the republicans, and the libertarians lurk in the fringes.

But apart from the Presidential elections every four years you dont really hear anything from the "3rd parties". I realize RP is a congressman but I'm a news junkie with the tv on most of the time and you never hear a squeak out of him. Thats a fault of the US media but still you dont get the impression anyone is making any concerted effort to establish a 3rd party.

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

Apologies congressman is the highest office reached by a libertarian not the senate. He is an even bigger failure than I thought.

Well his son is is in the Senate, so libertarians have been elected to a higher office than the House.

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm not enough of a political historian to know why, but US politics is much more personality driven. There's no mention of political parties in the US constitution. Is there any mention in the federalist papers?

As far as I am aware some, if not all of the founding fathers were against the concept of political parties. They thought this would lead to people voting along party lines instead of in the best interests of the nation.

John Adams had this to say:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Apologies congressman is the highest office reached by a libertarian not the senate. He is an even bigger failure than I thought.

enough trolling. banned for 5 days

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm not enough of a political historian to know why, but US politics is much more personality driven. There's no mention of political parties in the US constitution. Is there any mention in the federalist papers?

Every few election cycles there's some half hearted talk of a third party but they're never long term. Ralph Nader used to emerge from obscurity every four years to run for president, ross perot "spoiled" one election for the republicans, and the libertarians lurk in the fringes.

But apart from the Presidential elections every four years you dont really hear anything from the "3rd parties". I realize RP is a congressman but I'm a news junkie with the tv on most of the time and you never hear a squeak out of him. Thats a fault of the US media but still you dont get the impression anyone is making any concerted effort to establish a 3rd party.

Because they essentially can't win under voting laws the way they exist today. With a winner-takes-all, single representative district system, third parties usually just split the vote for whoever they are ideologically similar to. So for example, if a libertarian ran in a slightly right of center district, the final result would be something like 25% libertarian, 35% Republican, 40% Democrat - so the democrat would win (unless they required a runoff, but this varies by state). However, if the US had proportional representation and multi-member districts, then libertarians under that scenario would be represented in the state legislature (or the state delegation to the Congress).

Everyone likes the idea of third parties in theory, but in practice the way that electoral districts are drawn and votes are counted, it's pretty much impossible because the way the numbers work out, third parties usually end up being spoilers for the 'side' you would rather see in office, and people feel as if they are throwing away their vote.

InTheTrees

southsiderosie wrote: »

However, if the US had proportional representation and multi-member districts, then libertarians under that scenario would be represented in the state legislature (or the state delegation to the Congress).

Oh yes, I'm in 100% agreement.

The problem is that Americans cant acknowledge that anything from outside the usa might be better.

And try telling them PR is more democratic... ow

:mad:

Hayte

This whole discussion depends on what you define as failure. This is probably his most successful run yet since I don't ever remember him polling in double digits before. Nevertheless he is politically divisive, as evidenced by the Paulbomb:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

FreudianSlippers

Hayte wrote: »

This whole discussion depends on what you define as failure. This is probably his most successful run yet since I don't ever remember him polling in double digits before. Nevertheless he is politically divisive, as evidenced by the Paulbomb:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception,

This is a slight red herring. It would remove the jurisdiction from Federal Courts to weigh in at all, saying "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." It does nothing but remove the concept of abortion from the guise of "privacy" and allocate that decision to state level. It does not prohibit bringing minors across state lines to procure abortion services.

build a fence along the US-Mexico border,

I would agree with this. Paul believes they spend too much money policing the borders of foreign countries and not enough protecting their own. He supported raising legal immigration and work visa quotas; this would reduce the number of illegals and raise taxable income.

prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced),

He believes, correctly, that this is not a Federal issue but rather a state issue and it is illogical to conclude that because the Federal Courts couldn't rule on these issues would mean that sodomy laws could be reintroduced on a state level.

pull out of the UN, disband NATO,

He follows the historical US view of isolationism. I find it hard to disagree that the US has done nothing but caused problems since they ended their history of isolationism outside of world wars.

end birthright citizenship,

Ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal parents. I can't disagree with that.

deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,,

First is not an issue within the competency of the US Federal Government; the others are examples of failed government spending on both a Federal level and state level.

and abolish the Federal Reserve

Another failed private company subsidized by the Federal government.

in order to put America back on the gold standard.

don't see a problem with that in theory.

He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Don't know much about this, will have to look.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

IDK about this either.

he's against gay marriage,

Against federal intervention as it is outside of their scope of competency.

is against the popular vote,

IDK again.

opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

I've covered this earlier in the thread.

wants the estate tax repealed,

Not sure I agree with this, but not entirely sure of his logic. Presumably he is against a federal estate tax with no opinion on state level (again outside of the scope of competency of the federal government)

Need to read about the rest.

Overheal

Hayte that seemed like a well constructed argument but I chose to click your last link which seemed a little far-fetched, and I can't find anywhere in your reference that regards the International Baccalaureate program as UN-inspired mind control, or mind control of any description. Here is the full relevant text, perhaps you can highlight it for me:

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in UNESCO, citing egregious financial mis-management, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO's general anti-freedom policies and programs. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America's interest, and he was correct in questioning why the U.S. should fund 25 percent of UNESCO's budget for that privilege.

Since the United States decided to re-join UNESCO in 2003, Congress has appropriated funds to cover some 25 percent of the organization's entire budget. But what are we getting for this money?

UNESCO has joined the ``International Network for Cultural Policy'' in seeking a UN ``global diversity initiative'' by this year that would restrict US export of some $70 billion worth of movies, television programs, music recordings, and other cultural products.

UNESCO sponsors the International Baccalaureate program, which seeks to indoctrinate US primary and secondary school students through its ``universal curriculum'' for teaching global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures. This program, started in Europe, is infiltrating the American school system.

UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations' Population Fund in its assistance to China's brutal coercive population control program.

UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation.

Continued membership in UNESCO is a blatant assault on our sovereignty and an inexcusable waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

[Page: E651] GPO's PDF

Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in calling for an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this legislation.

I think you may have over-sensationalized the term "Indoctrination" with "Mind Control". Are you aware of the large difference in meaning? You might as well say the Pledge of Allegiance was Mind Control, and they used it to coerce children into eating Cheerios. Mr. Paul's comment is a far cry from a HAARP conspiracy.

c_man

Hayte wrote: »

is STILL making racist remarks

The antiwar, pro-gold, libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul tells me he would rather be riding his bicycle than speaking to another reporter on a Thursday afternoon. “My vice is that I’m obsessed with exercise,” says the Republican congressman from Texas.

???

Did you even read the links before copying and pasting that post here?

Hayte

The Paulbomb has existed for a fairly long time and has has been disseminated on numerous internet forums. It is not my own work. A pastebin exists of this text in multiple formats. Some of the titles are sensationalist but most of the links are from first sources - either legislation sponsored by Ron Paul or written transcripts from speeches by Ron Paul.

The substantive part of the text are the links themselves which give you a partial legislative history of social and economic policy supported by Ron Paul.

An argument revolving around the difference between "mind control" and "indoctrination" is the actual red herring referred to by FreudianSlippers because it avoids the important issue: the reason why the US should withdraw from UNESCO. One of the reasons is claimed to be the structure of the International Baccalaureate (IB) programme. In what way does the IB seek to indoctrinate US Primary and Secondary school students?

You have correctly identified the part of the speech referred to by the title link and you have even prepared a pre-emptive (semantic) rebuttal. Unfortunately, it is also irrelevant to the reason why the US should withdraw (again) from UNESCO. The first time, Hans Weiler referred to it as a "decision in search of an argument" and wrote about the reasons for same in Comparitive Education Review #132.

The UNESCO issue is somewhat fraught with international power politics and strongarming. In this case, it is impossible to talk about UNESCO without taking about the admission of the Palestinian Territories, which is about as divisive as it gets.

Edit: Some links may have changed or become broken.

Edit 2: The salon link is about the racist newsletters thing which he doesn't ever talk about on record. He recently halted a CNN interview when the reporter brought it up again. There isn't a first source on this issue as far as I am aware.

Overheal

he sums it up here:

Continued membership in UNESCO is a blatant assault on our sovereignty and an inexcusable waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The other points are a build-up. The IB program as I read the statement pushes international curriculum on our national education system? Yes? So our involvement in UNESCO if I'm reading this right costs us money so that this international body can designate 'biospheres' and course curriculum to us? And restricts $70bn worth of media exports? Seems like a pretty fair starting point for a political argument, without delving into the particulars.

Suryavarman

Hayte wrote: »

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception

A lot of people believe life begins at conception. I don't think they are right but the are fully entitled to their opinion. He believes abortion should be a states issue so his personal views on abortion do not need to be brought up.

build a fence along the US-Mexico border

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oan9m0dfD6Q

prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)

He thinks issues like these are better handled at a state level than at the federal level.

pull out of the UN

Why should they stay?

disband NATO

Why should they continue to be members of NATO? Just so they can continue to bomb third world countries?

This stance reminds me of somebody...

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none

end birthright citizenship

Why should a child born to illegal immigrants be entitled to citizenship?

deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,

So what if he denies funding for such a thing? If it were for funding that "presents heterosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle" I'm sure he'd vote against that to.

What elements of that bill would destroy public education or social security? I'm struggling to find those parts.

and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard.

Wow, really? That I didn't know :rolleyes:

He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

So he wants to allow private companies to do business with whomever they want. What a terrible thing.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas

Everyone gets something wrong every now and again.

he's against gay marriage

And yet he is fully in favour of allowing states handle that issue and wants to see the government out of marriage altogether. Sounds like another reason to vote for him.

is against the popular vote

Imagine that, a politician obeying the constitution. God forbid that happened more often. What is wrong with favouring the electoral college system of electing the president?

opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964

He respects private property and the right to freedom of association. So what?

wants the estate tax repealed

What's wrong with allowing parents leave money to their children? Why does the state deserve any of that money?

is STILL making racist remarks

There is no racist remarks in that article and when has he ever made racist remarks?

believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Why shouldn't it be?

and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories

Bush I publicly talked about a New World Order, it's not an entirely ridiculous conspiracy theory.

not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

From Wikipedia:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

I don't think there is anything controversial with saying that programme might indoctrinate children.

kev9100

Maybe I'm coming at this from the wrong angle as I don't support nor really understand why someone would support libertarianism/Ron Paul, but he doesn't really strike me as a libertarian as such. Rather, he seems to me to be an extreme States Rights kind of guy instead. Either way, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years