Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been mulling this over lately and doing some research on it. I know that Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean much; the Christian reconstructionists call themselves that too and far too many of them are supporting Paul's candidacy to make me comfortable. I haven't found any direct evidence that Paul is among them, but here's some indirect evidence.
Michael Peroutka, the former Constitution Party candidate for president and a genuine theocrat, has endorsed Paul. In doing so, he uses exactly the kind of language that the fake "Christian libertarians" often use:
Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.
Now that, by itself, is not evidence of anything. There are genuine Christian libertarians, like my friend Jim Babka, who would make similar statements. It's a statement that real Christian libertarians and theocrats posing as libertarians would make so it doesn't really help us understand which of those things Paul would be.
More telling, possibly, are his close ties to the latter group. Gary North, one of the most dogmatic and barbaric of the Christian reconstructionists, was on Paul's Congressional staff at one point and North is supporting his candidacy as well. This is quite disturbing to me. It's not as though North's views could possibly have been a mystery to Paul. This is the man who has declared:
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
And yes, I have the original of the article and the quote is absolutely accurate and in context. North is an enthusiastic advocate of public stoning for everything from homosexuality to blasphemy. He has no place anywhere near political power and to put him on one's staff sends up a huge red flag to me.
It's also a bit disturbing to see Paul make statements like this:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
Exactly the sort of rhetoric we hear constantly from the religious right (though, ironically, it completely disagrees with Gary North, who argues the opposite of most reconstructionists and says that the Constitution was a satanic plot to destroy Christian government). The fact that he completely ignores the 14th amendment isn't exactly comforting either. He is also stridently anti-abortion and opposes gay marriage.
But again, not necessarily conclusive. The statement, in context, is also consistent with a moderate, reasonable accommodationist position of the Washington/Adams variety. So my conclusion at this point is maybe. I'd be curious to hear other's opinions on that and any other evidence anyone has seen either way.
Politics
Comments
Ed, your thoughts echo my own. Paul's libertarian ideals & positions were initially interesting to me, however after hearing his ignorant repetition of the "no separation of church and state" nonsense, I've sidelined him to the "crank" category. And that's regardless of whether or not he's a dominionist.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | October 18, 2007 9:49 AM
The question that someone needs to ask Ron Paul is whether he supports the complete elimination of medicare, and all government health care programs for the elderly. As an experienced politician, I have no doubt he would find some way to give a middling answer to some different question.
But that is the kind of question to put to any politician who claims to be libertarian. The only libertarian answer is to eliminate such programs. Elderly folks who can't afford insurance because of past or developing conditions, or who can't pay for treatment from private funds, would be tended by charity or would go untreated.
Of course, no politician can get elected today who makes the complete elimination of such programs part of their political platform. The doctrinaire libertarian would do well to think about why that is.
Posted by: Russell | October 18, 2007 9:59 AM
I know that Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean much...
Coming from anyone who is at all close to today's Republican party, that means nothing at all. Anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" and supports the party that gave us creationism, the Iraq war, the Patriot act, and "you're either with us or with the terrorists," is nothing but a bum-boy or crack-whore for the worst enemies of liberty.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 18, 2007 10:06 AM
Really? Last time I checked, the US Constitution contains none of the words 'God' 'creator' 'Yahweh' 'Jesus' 'Christ' or 'deity.'
Even the concept of religion is only in there twice: the Article VI prohibition against religious tests for public office, and the First Amendment prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion or free exercise thereof.
You'd think a presidential candidate with strong views about the role of government in religion would learn what the constitution actually says.
Posted by: qetzal | October 18, 2007 10:11 AM
I wonder. I mean, at the debate in SC he did say he would balance the budget by eliminating lots of big stuff people like - "Well, I would start with the Departments. The Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security..."
Interesting post though Ed. Ever since I heard the quote above, I've wanted to vote for Paul in the primary, but don't know if I can stomach voting for anyone pro-life. Now that I know he used to have Gary North working for him I am about a thousand times more disturbed. No, none of this is conclusive, but it is a bit suspect and at least a reason for concern.
Posted by: nicole | October 18, 2007 10:23 AM
I read that Ron Paul quote a few days ago and was puzzled by it too. The only mention of God that I can see in the Constitution is the "in the Year of our Lord" at the end. Does that really count as "replete"?
Posted by: jpf | October 18, 2007 10:36 AM
Ron Paul knows the many factions of the liberty movement extremely well having courted support from them all for several decades. In particular I support his efforts to attract Christian libertarians and religious rightists because they are numerous and highly likely to vote. (Besides that, he and his family are practicing Christians and do not seem to be phonies in that regards.)
If he is successful, Paul would drastically reduce the role of the federal government in religious matters. That is a little scary for me since I live in Texas which is pretty darn religious for the most part and meanwhile I am best described as religiphobic. However in this scenario I would be more than happy to either move somewhere more accepting of secularism or else fight the good fight against religious intrusion into state and local politics here in Texas.
Freedom can be scary to minorities like the non-religious, but without freedom minorities tend to be even worse off. I support liberty and therefore I support Ron Paul who is managing to galvanize the liberty movement much more capably than I could ever have imagined.
Posted by: Rock Howard | October 18, 2007 10:39 AM
That alone is enough to question his rationality and intellect.
I don't think he has a great chance of being elected in any event. He has a large local following here in Texas.
Posted by: GH | October 18, 2007 10:46 AM
What's his record of activity or rhetoric on local governmental level?
I've picked up on numerous people wanting to get the federal government out of the way so that they can establish local theocracies. They oppose a federal 'state-church', but a state or municipal church is another matter.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 18, 2007 10:51 AM
I don't know about Paul being a Dominionist, but David Neiwert (and co-blogger Sara Robinson), who has been tracking and reporting on far right militia and hate groups for several years, has documented Paul's ties to such groups on his blog. Paul also advances their talking points regarding those far-right conspiracy theories about black helicopters and the "New World Order," watered down for mainstream consumption.
See these posts on Neiwert's blog:
Posted by: Big C | October 18, 2007 10:51 AM
In response to a previous comment, Ron Paul, as a practicing OB-GYN refused to accept Medicare or Medicaid. Instead he made other arrangements with patients who were enrolled on those programs.
Among the candidates for President, both Dem and Rep, Paul has one of the most extensive legislative histories as he submits more bills for consideration that the average person in Congress. Does an expert on Paul know if any of these bills attempted to establish a Dominion?
Frankly, due to the paucity of evidence presented that Paul is a Dominionist, this seems more like a hit piece.
Posted by: Mike | October 18, 2007 10:53 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul against gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples? How is that a libertarian position?
Posted by: Mathew Wilder | October 18, 2007 10:54 AM
Orcinus has done a series of posts about Paul's dalliances with extremists and his trafficing in conspiracy theory (the same conspiracy theory which motivated Timothy McVeigh). I helped contribute a small amount of research (in a post that's conclusion is a bit more over the top than I would have gone with)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-ron-paul-surfaces.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html
In that last link it starts off with a picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with the founder of the South Carolina Constitution Party at the banquet they threw in Paul's honor. If you go to their website (also linked) you can see how insane they are. Crazier than the John Birch Society insane.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 18, 2007 11:19 AM
Damn, I did it again. Forgot to mention that one of the most disturbing things about Paul is the survivalist newsletter that he was putting out in the early/mid 90s. He will not release them to the public and we only have one copy. That one copy we have because a neo-nazi liked it so much that he put it on his website and Nizkor archived it (this is all in the Orcinus links - the last one if I recall correctly.)
The letter is racism filtered through Paul's libertarian ideology ... it is Orwellian in that it claims to be arguing against the racism of "collectivism" but contains sentences like this: "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin". This letter was about the LA Riots and how when black people can't get white people's money from the gov't they take it violently.
It also said something like 'if you've ever been robbed by a black youth you know how fleet footed they can be'.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 18, 2007 11:25 AM
This article misses one of the essential positions of the candidate, that being of the essential recognition that instituting government intervention in a matter generally causes more trouble than it solves.
It also relies on cherry picking elements of rhetoric that make a reasonable point, that being: The founders did not intend to erect a "...rigid separation..." that being the act of instituting laws that bar people from wearing personal religious symbols, freely indicating their own theological positions, and engaging in other things that should be protected first ammendment activities.
You're misjudging here in my opinion, though it is a well written (if flawed) assessment of the candidate.
Personally I don't want government to require a fundamentalist dogmatic Atheism in its policies any more than I want a fundamentalist dogmatic Judaism. I support Ron Paul's right to believe theologically, and believe that he maintains the proper attitude of separating that belief to a degree required by the constitution that he follows so diligently.
Personally I am an agnostic, Ron is a practicing Christian. I don't agree with Ron on everything, I don't have to to elect a president that respects his constitutional role. I don't see why this issue should become (with great effort on the part of the people raising it it seems) any reason for my support to waver.
Posted by: Michael S Costello | October 18, 2007 11:38 AM
I doubt Paul is a Dominionist, but his ultra-libertarianism, combined with his fundamentalist Christian faith, brings him much closer to the Dominionist position than any other candidate (even Alan Keyes) and so it's not surprising that Dominionists seek to ally themselves with him.
If Paul was elected and was somehow able to institute the wholesale dismantling of the federal government, then the Dominionists' vision for America would be a fair bit closer than it is today, since they share Paul's vision of a land where local life and local control is much more important than national and international.
But during the Values Voters debate a few weeks ago, Paul spoke out against positions which would have been taken by Dominionists, such as the Terri Schiavo case and others questions involving the government intervening in personal morality (e.g. he's against any marriage amendment). I don't believe Paul is for the recriminalizing of homosexual behavior, for example, which is a Dominionist position but not a Libertarian one.
In the end, any support from Dominionists is simply because they share Paul's dream of dismantling most of the federal government. I am pretty sure that if you ask him whether he supported the institution of Biblical law as the law of the land, Ron Paul would say absolutely not.
If anything, this is just Ron Paul being the politician he is.
Posted by: tacitus | October 18, 2007 11:53 AM
"Thus"? The Bible is infallible and THEREFORE government shouldn't feed the poor? Does anybody happen to know what the connection is that's being claimed here?
Posted by: JuliaL | October 18, 2007 12:00 PM
Ron Paul never struck me as a Big Jesus type. It seems like he might just have been inducted into the Dominionism order in the same way that he got collected by the 9/11 truth movement.
Posted by: nedlum | October 18, 2007 12:04 PM
If you look hard enough, you'll be able to find crackpots who support any candidate. The fact that a candidate is supported by crackpots is therefore not, in my view, a good reason to avoid supporting them yourself. A good reason to support them yourself is whether they actually align with your views (which, it goes without saying, does not mean that you are also a crackpot).
Likewise, I don't think it's the best idea to accept the testimony of someone other than Ron Paul concerning what Ron Paul believes-- unless, of course, they can provide attribution on the matter. And for that matter, even if he does believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, I haven't seen any evidence that he intends to translate that into some kind of plan for the presidency. If such evidence exists, I'd like to see it.
The statement about the 1st Amendment is more disturbing. Of course a presidential candidate should know the Bill of Rights. I would suggest, however, that Paul is not the only one whose grasp is shaky...nor have I seen evidence that he intends to act on it and bring the church into government.
Mathew said:
He supports leaving it up to the states-- he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. I don't happen to agree with this justification (likewise on abortion, which he treats the same way), but he views it as minimizing federal power by handing the power over to the states to decide on their own.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 18, 2007 12:08 PM
I don't think that the support of someone who believes in theocracy means anything in particular about Ron Paul himself. After all, his greatest support is from young people on the internet- does that mean that Ron Paul is really into the internet? Not really.
Posted by: Renee | October 18, 2007 12:23 PM
I also found a quote from Paul which appears to be authentic (but I haven't sourced it) in which he says how great the John Birch Society has been in defending the Constitution and what not. At any rate, he scores 100% from them.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 18, 2007 12:25 PM
As I said in my post, I don't think any of these single lines of evidence is proof that he is a dominionist. I agree that the support he gets from dominionists is not proof that he is one, but it isn't simply a case of people associating with him that he would not associate with. He has close ties to the openly theocratic Constitution party, having spoken to lots of their chapters. And bear in mind that he put Gary North, as extremist a theocrat as you can possibly get, on his staff. That is like putting Lyndon LaRouche or Ward Churchill on your staff and that decision is entirely up to you. You put an utter whacko like that on your payroll and you're clearly sending a signal far stronger than just getting the support of a few extremists.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 18, 2007 12:37 PM
I had a recent post at Liberal Values on Paul's ties to right wing organizations (including being endorsed by Stormfront) and his views on separation of church and state. Besides not believing in separation of church and state, he has effectively worked to overthrow this portion of the First Amendment in supporting policies such as a school prayer amendment.
Paul's supporters can generally be divided into two types--those who like him because of his views on issues like Iraq but are unaware of his other views, and those on the right wing fringe who go along with his ideas.
The ideas of the type of people who support him can also be seen in the comments to my post as Paul supporters came to defend him. Topic include their ideas that the CFA and UN represent conspiracies to set up a world government and take away their guns, denial of the idea of separation of church and state, and denial of the real consequences of the proposed school prayer amendments which Paul supports.
The post, along with my responses in the comments, provide links to more information on Paul's beliefs.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2250
Posted by: Ron Chusid | October 18, 2007 1:03 PM
In response to the comment above on Paul and the Birchers, I also had a post on that topic a while back:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1892
Posted by: Ron Chusid | October 18, 2007 1:05 PM
"Thus"? The Bible is infallible and THEREFORE government shouldn't feed the poor? Does anybody happen to know what the connection is that's being claimed here?
Well, whatever it's worth, many people would probably argue that unbridled capitalism is incompatible with the Bible--there are numerous condemnations by the Old-Testament prophets against social injustice in Israel which, if you take the Bible seriously, ought to apply to your own society just as well as--if not more than--verses about homosexuality.
In other words, the connection being claimed is not only not logical, it may even be contra-Biblical by the standards of most (I dare not say all!) decent Christian theologians.
Posted by: KKairos | October 18, 2007 1:15 PM
Rock Howard wrote:
Paul is:
1. Anti gay marriage;
2. Pro-life;
3. Anti free trade;
4. Anti separation of church and state.
Where's the liberty in that? Ron Paul thinks because he's opposed to taxes, business regulations, and gun laws, he's libertarian. But all that only makes him a garden variety Republican.
Tacitus wrote of Paul's "ultra-libertarianism." I am a moderate libertarian, and to me Paul seems less libertarian than I am, so I don't think "ultra" is an apropos adjective here. He's picking up funding from young people because they hear the word libertarian without actually analyzing his views. That's all standard voter heuristics. I've asked my libertarian-leaning students to look at Paul's website, and they've come away with a change of heart about him.
(And, yes, we should recognize that he was the Libertarian Party candidate once upon a time, but most of the devoutly active libertarians are also more concerned about guns and taxes than any of the other issues concerning individual liberty. They're kooks, who believe there were no economic crises in this country before the creation of the Federal Reserve!)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 18, 2007 1:21 PM
Ron Chusid said:
Actually, I support Ron Paul out of a quiet desperation. I absolutely agree with him about Iraq, but more importantly I want someone who can (or at least, will try) to keep the federal government in check. Who wants to end the drug war as soon as possible, and all of the 4th Amendment abuses that come with it. Who has a reputation of consistently voting down measures he views as unconstitutional. Who I feel like I can actually believe, even when I don't agree. Who gives a feeling of bringing a third party into things even when he's technically not. Maybe a gadfly wouldn't make the best president, but boy do we need them, and we need them to be heard.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 18, 2007 1:39 PM
James,
Just because someone is "anti-gay marriage" doesn't make them anti-liberty. It's their views on whether or not government should intervene that matters. For example, I think drug use is repugnant, but I am for legalizing all drugs (so is Ron Paul by the way).
Ron Paul is not "anti free trade." He is anti-Nafta and other so-called free trade agreements, but he has eloquently spoken on how he wants to have open trade will all nations.
Paul voted against the resolution to use force against Iraq. He has passionately called for immediate withdrawal from all foreign nations. He voted against the PATRIOT ACT and its renewal.
He has been very quiet about his religious beliefs, but the one time I heard him speak on this subject I believe he mentioned that he felt that religion was a private matter.
Overall, I think Paul is very libertarian. Like Ed, I will hold off my judgment until I hear more about his religious views.
One last thing. Paul has spoken in questionable venues. He granted an interview with someone who believes that Bush orchestrated the 9-11 terrorist attacks. But Paul definitely does not agree with these views because he has said on many occasions that it was our own interventionist foreign policies that provoked the attacks.
Posted by: Bill | October 18, 2007 1:47 PM
Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe, or educate anybody.
That's a non sequitur and a half!
Posted by: DMD | October 18, 2007 1:53 PM
Just because someone is "anti-gay marriage" doesn't make them anti-liberty. It's their views on whether or not government should intervene that matters.
But government already intervenes when it legitimizes hetero marriage. Basically, Paul is saying that he is pro-government intervention for hetero marriage but anti-government intervention for gay marriage. Or maybe he is against all marriage and I just missed it??? Maybe Libertarians should be out of the marriage business altogether?
Posted by: Bruce | October 18, 2007 2:03 PM
Some contra data points in your Christian Dominionist analysis:
Closing Statement at the Values Voters debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4
Seemed to go out of his way to piss off the Christian right.
ACLU ranking:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&location=H&page=congScorecard
Routinely in the top handful amongst Republicans, and well into the top half over all. Compare that to the known Christian dominionists in Congress.
I doubt there is a presidential candidate today that doesn't have some serious wackjobs supporting them, or even that worked for them in the past. Seems a bit cheap to paint him with the CD brush based upon this.
I count myself a reluctant supporter of his campaign, largely because of my support for split government combined with severe rejection of the neocon Right's foreign policies, seemingly absorbed by every other Rep candidate. Besides, RP has taken a postion against torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and other executive branch power grabs that is stronger than most of the Dems. Yes, RP has views I strongly disagree with. He has some nutty ideas. But RP can't, for the most part, implement his nutty ideas without Congressional support, whereas a candidate like Giuliani could cause unilateral disaster.
Yes, I would much rather we were in the postion where the Republicans controlled Congress and I could throw my support for Obama, but we ain't there, and the lesson I take from the last seven years: Don't give control of both houses and the executive branch to one party.
As for his specific non-libertarian views: I think RP is an ultra-federalist, not really a libertarian.
- I don't like his position on abortion, but I can sympathise with his reasoning on ConLaw grounds.
- I despise his support for some anti-gay legislation, such as DADT, but he tempers such views with public statements, in front of far right Christians, that we get our rights as individuals not as groups, and I understand his opposition to hate crime and speech laws from a libertarian or federalist standpoint.
And if nothing else, his presense in the Republican primary is entertaining as hell.
Posted by: Misanthrope | October 18, 2007 2:13 PM
I see that Ron has had to beat his head against the wall that is the "guilt by association" defense that I've seen appear every single time someone has brought up Paul's dalliances with extremists.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 18, 2007 2:16 PM
I can definitely relate to Gretchen's statement on why she's reluctantly supporting Ron Paul. That's why I voted for Badnarik even though he was a nut on a wide range of issues. But I'm seeing enough evidence of Paul's close ties with major nutball extremists - not just that they support him, but that he returns the favor - to give me serious pause. They include not just the openly theocratic Constitution Party but the openly racist CCC groups, and neo-confederate groups like the League of the South. There's enough smoke here that I think there's got to be fire.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 18, 2007 2:22 PM
I would not be able to consider voting for him until he made his Patriot survivalist letters public. Secrecy breeds suspicion.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 18, 2007 2:47 PM
The intersection between "dominionists" and libertarians is strong with respect to free market economics. They reach the opposite conclusions with respect to most social policies.
Those following this discussion might be interested in my book, Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left: A Thinking Christian's Guide to Politics and Public Policy.
Posted by: eric schansberg | October 18, 2007 3:01 PM
Bill, you didn't address Paul's anti-choice position. Is it freedom from government interference to deprive women of their rights to their own body? Even if it's left to the states and it's made illegal in most, that is about the most intrusive government inteference possible.
No thanks.
Posted by: Susan Krinard | October 18, 2007 5:46 PM
This is really all about an alliance of convenience between groups who believe nothing good can come from having a strong federal government. Common cause can make for some strange bedfellows if you choose to ignore one another's failings, and I suspect that is all Ron Paul is doing.
This is little different from moral majority types like James Dobson getting into bed with people like Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter in spite of their obvious moral shortcomings of which they remain wholly unrepentant.
Probably the only difference is that Ron Paul is a fringe political figure who prone to believing conspiracy theories and is thus limited in his appeal to those who share his whacked out views. As I said before, Paul is a politician, and like others is willing to overlook obvious flaws in those around him it his believes it helps him to prompt his candidacy. One only has to look at some of the names on Hillary's or Rudy's list of advisers to see that he's not the only one who does this. It's just a matter of degree.
BTW: Just to be clear. I wouldn't vote of Ron Paul even if he was the only candidate running. His brand of libertarianism would be a disaster for this country and runs counter to all the advances in Western nations we have seen over the past 50+ years. But I don't believe he personally subscribes to a Dominionist form of government even though some of his supporters and advisers may do so. He is simply behaving as most politicians behave, despite his reputation as a straight talker.
Posted by: tacitus | October 18, 2007 6:07 PM
Bill makes thoughtful responses to my critique of Ron Paul, but I still respectfully disagree.
I also support removing government from the marriage biz, but the relevant question is what is the best achievable policy. Given that government already is in the marriage business, and we're not going to change that in the forseeable future, does a good libertarian tell gays to just wait until we achieve the unachievable? Or does a good libertarian insist that as long as the government remains in the marriage business it must not discriminate. Maybe the distinction's just between irrationally idealist libertarians and pragmatic ones, but when some people are being discriminated against, I'll take the pragmatism.
Now, from Ron Paul's website.
You can't have free trade without erasing the borders to some extent. NAFTA has eliminated a great deal of the tariffs and other trade barriers in North America, and that is what Paul objects to.
Finally,
Yes, and I should have given him credit for that in my prior post.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 18, 2007 7:01 PM
Paul has been so anti gay, religion is the only reason I can think of. I find him narrow minded and hateful.
What a fraud.
Posted by: Mike | October 18, 2007 7:17 PM
One group which seems to be really big on Ron Paul is Christian Exodus. I have written about that group a number of times on my blog. It is simply more evidence that only the fringe groups really like and support Ron Paul. If they do, then we have to wonder why...
See:
http://jeffperado.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-libertarianism-and-christian.html
Posted by: jeffperado | October 18, 2007 7:37 PM
Easy, the weaker the federal government is, the closer to their goal of instituting a Dominionist lifestyle they get, free from those interfering busybodies from Washington. Ron Paul is the candidate who most wants to see the federal government spayed and neutered. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: tacitus | October 18, 2007 11:37 PM
I am getting real tired of tired right-wingnut excuses for things that embarrass them: "the newsletter was written by someone else and I never approved it"; "no one on my staff ever said that", followed by:"the person on my staff who said that was acting without my authority"; "I never knew the convention I spoke sponsored by racists"; "I never knew that I was selling my book at a racist rally; I never noticed the people in the booth next to me was selling "White Power" tee shirts"; I never knew that the person I quoted as an authority was a fucking idiot." And the list goes on.
Posted by: wrpd | October 19, 2007 4:00 AM
But government already intervenes when it legitimizes hetero marriage. Basically, Paul is saying that he is pro-government intervention for hetero marriage but anti-government intervention for gay marriage. Or maybe he is against all marriage and I just missed it??? Maybe Libertarians should be out of the marriage business altogether?
Yes, you have that exactly right Bruce. A true libertarian will be for the government getting out of ALL marriages. We shouldn't even have marriage licenses! Think of that... asking permission to be married? Do you think that makes any sense?
Marriage licenses came about as a means of trying to prevent blacks and whites from intermarrying. And since marriage in many ways ties people down, governments such as ours that have a strong conservative constituency have incentive to promote marriage through tax benefits, legal protections and other special perks--none of which should exist.
Governments should be completely blind to the concept of marriage, with such obvious exceptions as contracts that can influence marital decisions (prenups, living wills, etc.) That's the libertarian position.
Posted by: Wayne | October 19, 2007 6:19 PM
Wayne wrote;
Agreed, but you still ignored the relevant argument. Given that govenrment is not going to get out of the marriage business anytime soon, isn't it a better policy move to allow gays the right to marriage as well, rather than continue to deny them the legal benefits just because we don't like the system as a whole?
Please answer that pragmatic question, as you convienently ignored it in your idealistic post.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 19, 2007 8:34 PM
I think of Ron Paul as more of a hyper-federalist than a libertarian. Libertarians see smaller government as worth having in principle. Paul isn't interested in smaller government across the board, just smaller government at the federal level. He's happy to have the government do all manner of things at the local level that libertarians loathe.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | October 25, 2007 9:28 PM
If one's belief in the value of liberty, it its quality as a system, is so weak that one cannot believe it capable of withstanding competition, let alone attack from a bunch of irrational illiterates, than perhaps that belief isn't quite as committed as one may assume, One must truly believe in both liberty as the best and most viable system, and in your own personal commitment to personally defend it, before one can assume to call oneself a libertarian. Anything less is to merely be an aesthete.
Posted by: TheSnarkmeister | January 18, 2008 11:18 PM
"Ron Paul is not "anti free trade." He is anti-Nafta and other so-called free trade agreements, but he has eloquently spoken on how he wants to have open trade will all nations."
I saw a guy begging for food the other day and considered giving him a dollar but decided that would compromise my support for giving every hungry person a dollar.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 19, 2008 2:08 AM