Republicans: What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Liberal]

@Malodorous

That article is 40 years old. Do we know if Greenspan still agrees with it?

That’s just the most well known. Here are some more recent comments from him. For example, this exchange with Ron Paul at a Congressional hearing in 1998:

Mr. GREENSPAN. I think you have to define what you mean by a ‘‘free market.’’ If you have a fiat currency, which is what everyone has in the world–

Dr. PAUL. That is not free market.

Mr. GREENSPAN. That is not free market. Central banks, of necessity, determine what the money supply is. If you are on a gold standard or other mechanism in which the central banks do not have discretion, then the system works automatically.

The reason there is very little support for the gold standard is the consequences of those types of market adjustments are not considered to be appropriate in the 20th and 21st century. I am one of the rare people who have still some nostalgic view about the old gold standard, as you know, but I must tell you, I am in a very small minority among my colleagues on that issue.So, he admits to being one of the few who support the idea, but that alone has never invalidated any argument.

As recently as 2004, he has also commented:

Mr. GREENSPAN. Well, Congressman, you are raising the more fundamental question as to being on a commodity standard or another standard. And this issue has been debated, as you know as well as I, extensively for a significant period of time.

Once you decide that a commodity standard such as the gold standard is, for whatever reasons, not acceptable in a society and you go to a fiat currency, then the question is automatically, unless you have Government endeavoring to determine the supply of the currency, it is very difficult to create what effectively the gold standard did.

I think you will find, as I have indicated to you before, that most effective central banks in this fiat money period tend to be successful largely because we tend to replicate which would probably have occurred under a commodity standard in general.And in pretty much every case, his defense of a central bank is that it functions to emulate a gold standard.

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

So, he admits to being one of the few who support the idea, but that alone has never invalidated any argument.

But the charge that initiated this little side discussion was that it wasn’t in the mainstream, not whether it was right or wrong. So, Greenspan admitted that he wasn’t in the mainstream.

[Weirddave]

@What Exit?

Weirddave: Curiosity, what are Paul’s racial policies?

From his website:

@Ron Paul

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Now, that’s not so much a concrete “policy” per say, but I agree with the thinking behind it. Every person I know who has overcome prejudices has done so by getting to know members of the group that they were prejudiced against and realizing that, whattayano, these are just a bunch of people like me as opposed to a homogenized group: “blacks” or “whites” or “women” or whatever.

[BrainGlutton]

Right now, the key issues dividing the nativist-populist-paleoconservative Republicans from the business-interest and neocon Republicans are (1) the Iraq War and (2) immigration. I know where Paul stands on the war, but what about immigration? What’s more important to him – the “sovereignty” of America or the “freedom” of open borders? (I’ve heard the LP favors a constitutional amendment to the effect that “There shall be open borders.” But Paul is not LP any more.)

[Weirddave]

@BrainGlutton

Right now, the key issues dividing the nativist-populist-paleoconservative Republicans from the business-interest and neocon Republicans are (1) the Iraq War and (2) immigration. I know where Paul stands on the war, but what about immigration? What’s more important to him – the “sovereignty” of America or the “freedom” of open borders? (I’ve heard the LP favors a constitutional amendment to the effect that “There shall be open borders.” But Paul is not LP any more.)

Well, since I’m already on his website to answer the previous question…

@Ron Paul

This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules.  Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.  This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty.  Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens.  Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules.  But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship.  As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. 
* Pass true immigration reform.  The current system is incoherent and unfair.  But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation.  This is insanity.  Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

That’s pretty clear I would think. I agree with every bit of it. The hard one is #5, that would involve amending the Constitution, the (IIRC) 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

[Liberal]

He never was LP really. He’s been a Republican his whole life. That brief stint was just a diversion.

[ArizonaTeach]

@smiling bandit

Yes. That’s pretty much what we would call him. In fact, that is exactly what we’ve called him.

Hugh Hewitt is convinced that he’ll siphon away more votes from the Democratic candidate than the Republican, since if he goes third party his focus will be savagely anti-war. Don’t agree entirely, but there you go.

[Liberal]

He won’t go third party.

[MilTan]

@Weirddave

I could see myself voting for Ron Paul in the primary, except I can’t because I’m a Democrat. I like a lot of what he says*, disagree violently with him about Iraq, and actually think there is a place in politics for wacky ideas that will never get past congress-getting them out there shakes up the status quo.
*He’s dead on on taxes, immigration, privacy, property rights and health care. He’s on the right track WRT education, social security and racial policies. His foreign policy ideas are a mess, in my opinion many of them are great in theory, but not practical in the real world.

I gotta say, you don’t sound like a Democrat in this post. You seem to agree with Paul on a lot of issues on which he follows Republican orthodoxy (except some privacy rights), and disagree with him most on his most heterodox position (the Iraq war).

[jayjay]

@Nuke

Don’t like him. Too much like Pat Buchanan.

That’s the nativist ideology they share. It’s really the major issue on which I disagree with classic populism.

[CurtC]

I voted for him for president in '88.

But not because it was him per se, but because I thought (and still think) that our government needs to steer a course that’s more in the libertarian direction than where it is now.

However, I wouldn’t want to see him actually elected. He’s kind of nutty. The description of “the Ralph Nader of the Republican Party” seems spot-on.

It’s also disturbing that the kooks have rallied behind him so much, but I guess that’s not a reason to not vote for him.

[John_Mace]

@jayjay

That’s the nativist ideology they share. It’s really the major issue on which I disagree with classic populism.

Yeah, I’m definitely a post-modern populist, myself. Classic populism is sooooo last year!!

[Kimstu]

@MilTan

I gotta say, you don’t sound like a Democrat in this post.

He never does. Weirddave is our token very conservative Blue-Dog-type Democrat, and most of us other Dems around here usually find him a somewhat startling bedfellow.* I do admire some of his views on penny-pinchers, though.

*Yeah, I know, Dave, all the women tell you that.

[mswas]

1 2

[BrainGlutton]

@Weirddave

Well, since I’m already on his website to answer the previous question…

That’s pretty clear I would think. I agree with every bit of it. The hard one is #5, that would involve amending the Constitution, the (IIRC) 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

So, he’s going to alienate half the Pub base with his stand on the war and the other (better-funded) half with his stand on immigration.

At this point, I’d say Dennis Kucinich has a better shot at the White House. So does Al Sharpton, for that matter, and he ain’t even running this year.

[OneCentStamp]

::

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

So, he’s going to alienate half the Pub base with his stand on the war and the other (better-funded) half with his stand on immigration.

Actually . . . no, on reflection, he’s aligning with the paleocons on both issues. Which is strange bedfellowship for a libertarian, large- or small-“l”, and at any rate it doesn’t leave him much to work with. The paleocons already have a recognized spokesthing in Pat Buchanan.

[control-z]

I’d vote for him.

The biggest thing he needs to work on is not sounding so shrill. But his ideas and views are a great breath of fresh air in this increasingly Nazi country. The Democrats have always been tax and spend, the Republicans have always been spend and spend. The Democrats want our guns, the Republicans want the rest of our freedoms like speech, illegal search and seizure, etc.

Maybe Paul’s ideas are too extreme, so what, the pendulum can swing the other way for a while. More freedom, less government.

[BrainGlutton]

@Renob

His campaign gives me the kind of unease I’ve always felt around Libertarians – they are people with good ideas but are just a little “off” in some way. It’s hard to describe, but if you’ve spent time in Libertarian circles you probably know what I’m talking about (and if you don’t, then you are probably one of the people who is a bit “off”).

I (a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist Party USA) have spent a lot of time hanging out with Libs and I know exactly what you mean. Still, a lot of them are a whole lot of fun and interesting!

(DSA and SP-USA members, in my experience, are almost none of them “off” in that sense – but Communists and Trotskyists definitely are. They’re the weirdest, geekiest creatures in America and they make the hardest-core Libertarians appear mainstream, rational and laid-back by comparison. If you live in a (really) big city, try going to a Socialist Labor Party or Socialist Workers Party meeting some time. It’s more fun than a day at the zoo.)

[mswas]

@BrainGlutton

Actually . . . no, on reflection, he’s aligning with the paleocons on both issues. Which is strange bedfellowship for a libertarian, large- or small-“l”, and at any rate it doesn’t leave him much to work with. The paleocons already have a recognized spokesthing in Pat Buchanan.

How is a Paleocon and a libertarian a strange bedfellow? Most paleocons are quite fiscally conservative. I think that we’re on a downswing of social conservatism right now and people care more about fiscal policy.