3 ms·

(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008) I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel pri

(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008) I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views, but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on pure philosophy and not on pragmatism. I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not all good policy, but he's serious and consistent. The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully controlled by interest groups. I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid (seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views, but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.

thebigshane 15y ago
A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups and the media has just gotten too powerful.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  ...we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups... The collective power of interest groups is indeed the key. The horror of slavery wasn't abolished by President Lincoln's stand on principle. It was an alignment of the industrial North's economic/geopolitical interests with the principled stand of abolitionists. Lincoln merely walked to the front of the parade and raised his baton. The Emancipation Proclamation was pragmatic, not principled. Even Gandhi was doing this. He was able to align the interests of the average Indian villager with the principle of Indian independence, and get the population to understand it through clear material examples. (Cloth and salt.) "The collective power of interest groups" is the reality, the landscape of politics. Those who fight battles and wage campaigns on this landscape had better be aware of its shape and implications. Wars are not won by those who "want it" bad enough. The energy of fervor needs to be directed in the most effective fashion.
r00fus 15y ago
Philosophy/Ideals without practice/pragmatism/policy indicate he's merely a populist. When looking to who to vote for, identify where their money comes from. Then you can see how they might govern (e.g.: Obama got lots of money from the electorate-at-large, but a substantial amount from the financial sector - look where we are today).
- nickpinkston 15y ago
  Ideals sans Practice != Populist. There are plenty of populist revolutions and movements that have succeeded with the practice part - the French, Russian and most Communist roughly fit this mold initially - so "merely" is unfair to history. The sad truth though is that nearly all of these fall back into hierarchies with a ruling class in control of the masses - which is probably some type of innate state of humanity of any size - unless social collaboration costs decrease significantly.

thebigshane 15y ago

A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups and the media has just gotten too powerful.

stcredzero 15y ago
...we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups... The collective power of interest groups is indeed the key. The horror of slavery wasn't abolished by President Lincoln's stand on principle. It was an alignment of the industrial North's economic/geopolitical interests with the principled stand of abolitionists. Lincoln merely walked to the front of the parade and raised his baton. The Emancipation Proclamation was pragmatic, not principled. Even Gandhi was doing this. He was able to align the interests of the average Indian villager with the principle of Indian independence, and get the population to understand it through clear material examples. (Cloth and salt.) "The collective power of interest groups" is the reality, the landscape of politics. Those who fight battles and wage campaigns on this landscape had better be aware of its shape and implications. Wars are not won by those who "want it" bad enough. The energy of fervor needs to be directed in the most effective fashion.

r00fus 15y ago

Philosophy/Ideals without practice/pragmatism/policy indicate he's merely a populist. When looking to who to vote for, identify where their money comes from. Then you can see how they might govern (e.g.: Obama got lots of money from the electorate-at-large, but a substantial amount from the financial sector - look where we are today).

nickpinkston 15y ago
Ideals sans Practice != Populist. There are plenty of populist revolutions and movements that have succeeded with the practice part - the French, Russian and most Communist roughly fit this mold initially - so "merely" is unfair to history. The sad truth though is that nearly all of these fall back into hierarchies with a ruling class in control of the masses - which is probably some type of innate state of humanity of any size - unless social collaboration costs decrease significantly.