Why has Ron Paul failed?

20Cent · 20-01-2012 10:24AM #1

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 · 20-01-2012 12:36PM

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 · 20-01-2012 12:38PM

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 · 20-01-2012 12:55PM

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 · 20-01-2012 12:59PM

Obviously Ron Paul didn't kiss enough babies.

Overheal · 20-01-2012 01:27PM

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

Permabear · 20-01-2012 02:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman · 20-01-2012 02:56PM

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 · 20-01-2012 04:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

20Cent · 20-01-2012 04:17PM

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

c_man · 20-01-2012 04:58PM

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 · 20-01-2012 05:02PM

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 · 20-01-2012 05:06PM

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 · 20-01-2012 06:37PM

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 · 20-01-2012 06:47PM

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 · 20-01-2012 06:58PM

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 · 20-01-2012 07:19PM

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 · 21-01-2012 02:38AM

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 · 21-01-2012 09:58AM

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 · 21-01-2012 10:36AM

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 · 21-01-2012 11:08AM

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 · 21-01-2012 12:52PM

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 · 21-01-2012 01:20PM

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 · 21-01-2012 02:37PM

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 · 21-01-2012 02:49PM

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 · 21-01-2012 03:23PM

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 · 21-01-2012 05:07PM

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 · 21-01-2012 05:22PM

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 · 21-01-2012 06:02PM

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 · 21-01-2012 06:18PM

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 · 21-01-2012 06:20PM

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

Why has Ron Paul failed?

Comments