Ron Paul’s Flaws as Seen by One Die-Hard Supporter
By Daniel Miessler on September 15th, 2007: Tagged as 2008 | Activism | America | Government | Libertarianism | Ron Paul
First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.
It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.
In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.
Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.
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. — Ron PaulA “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson
He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.
Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans
He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.
Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.
He’s Not For National Health Care
Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.
He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA
You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.
The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.
No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them
He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.
He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech
He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.Conclusion
The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.
His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.
I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.
Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:
--
I consider all of the above positives. Your problem is that you are a liberal supporting a conservative. Its akin to a conservative Republican saying he likes Kucinich apart from his “flawed views” on socialized medicine, gay marriage and welfare. Well…. duh. These issues don’t need to be “worked out” and Dr. Paul doesn’t need to “wake up.” YOU need to work out why YOU are a liberal supporting a conservative, and then whining about his conservative stances.
But a quick rebuttal to some of your points: 1. Church/State - he would never legislate Christianity so who cares? 2. Federal Education/Federal Loans - states tax and can do their own funding of education. Who decides the “standard”? Why are you scared of diversity in thought? Your statist sensibility that the fed knows/does best makes me surprised you are a Paul supporter to begin with. 3. National Health Care - please! Save yourself the trouble and go support Hillary. If you can’t get the concept that an efficient/NON-corporatist/free market will serve people quicker, better and cheaper than a federal monolith, then you REALLY are going to struggle supporting Paul. 4. FDA - talk about someone in bed with GiantChemCorps you lament. Everything they sanction is great for us, right? Thalidomide? Recently what exactly did they do about the pet food contamination that a consumer group wouldn’t have? Did they stop it BEFORE anything happened, or - as any consumer group would have - afterwards? 5. Sue them - dunno what you are talking about: civil litigation has cost big companies more than government lawsuits. Do you think that under Paul, trial lawyers won’t want the $$$ any more?! 6. Roe v Wade - standard conservative position. States controlling this is more constitutional and more ethical. Also, it is not simply a case of abortion vs. no abortion. Perfectly rational and progressive individuals might want some limit to abortion… e.g. no abortions late in the third trimester. Your federal solution means that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE gets the same standard. Why not let states have nuanced stances on this? WORST case scenario, you move to a state whose policies you like, or go get your abortion elsewhere. (And, yah, abortion fanatics will gladly support the cost and transportation) 7. Overblown - why, yes, it is. He is against all hyperbolic discourse in public intended to spread fear and grab federal funds. Whether it is the War on Terror or War on Drugs or the End is Nigh because of Global Warming - he displays a health skepticism of all of it. BTW, there is warming on Mars now. Man made or not? Besides, there are benefits to global warming, which you won’t hear about from the doom and gloom crowd. But, again, you are better suited to supporting Gore than Paul if you refuse to take a pragmatic and sceptical look at this issue.
Bottom line: Paul isn’t going to be the square peg for the liberal square hole. All of the “flaws” you have “discovered” are from you trying to make him something he is not. Please reassess why you actually support Paul.
Comment by coldfact — 9/15/2007 @ 9:26 pm
coldfact: Excellent rebuttal. Couldn’t have put it better.
Comment by Desert Rat — 9/16/2007 @ 6:47 am
I agree that he takes most of the positions you state. However, I disagree that he needs to reevaluate them. Still, it is good that you recognize the state our nation is in, just as I do. Were the tables turned, I might be just as inclined to support a Russ Feingold who I disagree with on most issues, simply to return to sanity and freedom.
However, I do take issue with your first point. Dr. Paul does NOT advocate a merger of church and state. The fact that he personally believes that a more Christian America would be a better and more moral America does not mean that he would, in any way, reduce freedom of religion. His comment only suggested that institutionalized antagonism toward religion is also not appropriate. Our government should not endorse NOR OPPOSE any individual religion.
I could try to refute one by one each of your other points where I believe Paul is right and you are wrong, but I suspect it would be largely fruitless. Let me make mention of one, though, that has been in the news lately. Thinking about the FDA, do you really think that governments are best able to handle the inspection of all foods and drugs that enter our nation? Instead of holding government accountable for something they have no incentive to do well, why not go back to the basics and hold the companies themselves accountable? In fact, in many of the recent cases where Chinese imports have been substandard, might we not be better off allowing market forces and product liability to force the companies to take responsibility, instead of allowing them to cop out by saying, “hey, the government approved it, so how were we to know?” Well, they should know, because in a truly free market, it’s their responsibility. (Same response to environmental protection…under Paul, it’s not like it wouldn’t exist, it would just be handled differently).
Anyway, thanks for a mostly thoughtful post, but please study his position on separation, as I think you misunderstand that one.
Comment by Scott — 9/16/2007 @ 10:50 am
I have to agree with the first comment, sounds to me like you shouldn’t be a Dr. Paul supporter in the first place. A lot of your concern is over the time frame he intends to change things, as if rolling back decades of big government growth could happen overnight. You seem like you are saying that we can’t make any changes because those changes might hurt, well damn right they are going to hurt! What will hurt even more is if we refuse to make any changes at all.
Comment by Ericson — 9/23/2007 @ 6:09 pm
Looks like the reddit herd is finally paying attention to these issues…
Top post right now with 609 votes: http://reddit.com/info/2yp1a/comments
Comment by craig — 10/10/2007 @ 7:20 pm
The reason we should help the ‘poor’ is because we are not all born equal. Some are born beautiful, smart, wilful. Or inherit great genetics, wealth or opportunities
The free market is not a fair race. It’s like putting genetically gifted athletes against children and cripples and cheering those who win.
But until we develop some kind of genuine social empathy, government can be there to even things out.
Property rights can be as much a theft against society as socialism a theft against freedom.
Ron Paul has many ideological flaws. But he recognises the danger of government. He knows that government is simply organised violence. A truth many liberals just don’t want to see.
I support Paul because he is an honest man who trust the we people more than government.
Comment by Keith — 12/31/2007 @ 12:27 pm
I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and I share a lot of your concerns.
For food, I think the FDA has been the source of more adulterants in the food supply than anyone really gives them credit for: hormones and antibiotics in dairy and meat (all unlabeled as being adulterated), as well as genetically modified foods (again unlabeled). Private certification bodies generally have stricter criteria than you could ever get by the FDA: organic foods were certified forty years before the federal government got into the game. Kosher food is again a private solution which is much more rigorous than government. And in France, the AOC approach is incredibly rigorous. All these private initiatives require is clear labeling regulations; any violations of this are simple fraud.
As far as education goes, the current system is insanely wasteful, and statist: it’s almost gotten to the point where you need a degree just to have a chance of a good professional career. For those jobs that do require an expensive formal education (such as doctors or lawyers), what’s the problem with people striking a deal with a town or city or state or hospital, and offering their services for a few years in exchange for financial support?
In primary and secondary education, many countries don’t have anything comparable to the DOE: in Canada, for instance, it’s strictly a provincial and municipal matter.
I’m also a big believer in socialized medicine (as well as socialized police and firefighters). Probably the only way this could really happen is if the federal government was gutted, and the states were given the liberty to try out their own approaches.
But the most important thing about Ron Paul for me is his obvious, genuine and deep respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law. He might not be infallible on this, but I think that the kind of points he makes, the debates he raises, are really the lifeblood of a republic. After four or eight years of President Ron Paul, I’m sure that millions of Americans will have a deep understanding of their rights, and the great legacy that has been left to them.
And this will make it all but impossible for criminal regimes like today’s to ever rise up again.
Comment by Duane Pye — 12/31/2007 @ 1:35 pm
When he becomes president I know 3 things will happen.
1) He will bring the troops home. Saving billions if not trillions. 2) Veto any tax or unconstitutional bill presented before him 3) Restore my liberties.
Now what happens after that is up to the other 2/3 of the power. If they work with him then we can get amazing things done. If they don’t then 2 years after he takes office we get to elect new officials to represent us.
Comment by Tim Hibbard — 12/31/2007 @ 4:40 pm
How much did you donate to Ron Paul Mr. Daniel Miessler?
Comment by Bryan — 12/31/2007 @ 7:32 pm
Most of these are selling points for me. I could do without the Christianity view ( and I am a christian: notice the small “c”). But that’s not enough of a conflict to mention because he doesn’t support the power of the Federal government to enforce any of this.
But don’t mind me. I also think the people have the final say over their own life, and that a government should not exist if it is a government of force against it’s own people.
Comment by Michael Christenson II — 12/31/2007 @ 8:48 pm
President is not a King. Paul is all for constitutional balance of power. He can not change laws all on his own- all he can do is sign them or veto them if there is no super majority in congress. All of you hysterical people need to look through your notes from the Civics class. Need I remind you that Bush is pro life? As of 7 years into his presidency abortions are legal. Don’t expect drastic changes in the way of live just because he’s elected. Paul would turn this country’s policies back where they need to be and surround himself with a Cabinet that is as honest and principled as he. No more Brownies, Chertoffs and Gonzalez’s. Paul would insist on honest money. He would press for repeal of the Fed, but that doesn’t mean Congress would go along. Federal loans for education would not necessarily be ended, and if they were, states would quickly step up to fill the need. As to global warming, the answer is not a UN or other unelected global authority taxing us and doing who knows what with the money. Paul is for sovereignty and dealing with our problems by ourselves. There is no perfect system or leader, but we need someone like Paul to stop the insane march toward totalitarianism and globalism. No other candidates in the race offer anything of substance in this area.
Comment by Vladimir B — 1/1/2008 @ 12:42 am
From a recent Ron Paul interview:
http://dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2007/DR121807.html
Comment by Hanuman — 1/1/2008 @ 3:15 am
I’ve been concerned about Paul’s stance on global warming as well. I felt better about it when he said in an interview: “If it is true, then the best thing we can do is what I want to do anyway: stop subsidizing the oil companies, stop using the military to protect our supplies, stop keeping the price of oil artificially low so that alternative fuels can compete.”
In addition, he is the only candidate who wants to stop agricultural subsidies. Doing that would open the way for the only currently-practical plan to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, as explained here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn3.html
He’s also the only candidate who wants to change our monetary system away from a debt-based one that requires exponential economic growth to avoid disaster (google the Money As Debt documentary for an eye-opening account about how our money system really works, and why we will never turn away from our disastrous environmental course until we change our money).
A recent news report said that the countries that signed Kyoto haven’t come close to meeting their targets. More regulations won’t fix things if people can’t even follow the ones we’ve got. We need fundamental changes to the system, and Ron Paul is the only one proposing those changes. Maybe Kucinich.
In any case, if we stop being a free country, our little debates about these sorts of things won’t even matter. That’s the biggest reason to vote for Paul or Kucinich, and unfortunately, the Democrats seem to have dropped the ball on Kucinich.
Comment by joe — 1/1/2008 @ 6:26 pm
@Bryan
About $300 or so.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 1/2/2008 @ 9:19 pm
The election of Dr. Paul will send a strong message across the world, a message of repentance for the mislead actions suffered these last 100 years. America promised the world a brighter tomorrow, yet all we have is an invasion of the developing world.
The people of this planet are suffering, as is the planet itself. A deduction in the number of troops worldwide would allow for a restrengthening of America’s borders; it would also allow the American dollar to show its true value. The free market would fill in where bases once occupied, and business men/women would trade and talk with global neighbours.
The common politician, those ‘front-runners’ that are thrown at you across the tube, have nothing but different paths for taking us to the same watering hole. A world to the wise though, carry the same bucket to the hole everyday and one day the bottom will fall out. Dr. Paul has a vision, towards a balanced budget and a renewed America. You cannot capture the minds of the world in 100 years, yet these tired politicians backed by Council of Foreign Relation money, have taken their land and rights in so few.
Dr. Paul’s steady retreat of forces would reduce military pollution, opening up billions of dollars to the economy. It would also reduce global tensions, which America has tightened with force and bomb since 1945. Many of today’s precipitated problems can and will be solved by taking a different stance on American Foreign Relations. With so few victims overseas, too few would have reason exist to seek revenge against the US flag and its icons [i.e. the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon].
Constitutionally, the president is limited in powers, however the next president will be walking into with a beefed up tool-kit. Unprecedented powers have been seized by current President Bush Jr. and only Dr. Paul is brave enough to restore these Constitutional Rights back to the American people. Many of whom have been offered only Terror, the seizure of Rights and Privacy, as well a War that will be fought by your grandchildren. Supposing the population isn’t drafted and loses itself along the way.
Environmentally, only awareness of our impact upon the environment, along with a a free market, can resolve the solution to carbon output. Alternative solutions exist, but we cannot rely upon government subsidies [taxed on you] to provide them. Only the consumer can choose which solution is best, a decision based on price and efficiency. So take responsibility for this, Dr. Paul will restore your right to so.
Strategically, the visions of an improved tomorrow will be decided by those who invest their capital -not current debts, into the efforts of tomorrow. Ingenious and resourceful America, with war off the table and sound economic and humanitarian policies in mind will reinvent itself, setting the example for the world to follow.
Realistically, these ambitions will not be solved in a months or years, but Earnest leadership and integrity will lead American to a stabilized borders and a strengthened economy. Considering Dr. Paul for Presidency is the demand of American to reconsider themselves and their policies, especially those that claim to represent the common man in a morally bankrupt Washington. An elected President of strong virtue is a cry for virtuous politicians across the political spectrum. So, if Congress and the Senate representatives wish to win their next election, the precedent is set for a revised initiative.
Comment by gobo — 2/5/2008 @ 7:43 pm
[...] is the fact that Ron Paul supports this group. But looking back at Ron Paul’s flaws, which I’ve written about before and have always scared the crap out of me, this is precisely the type of outfit you’d expect [...]
Pingback by The Constitution Party is Scary | dmiessler.com — 10/10/2008 @ 8:42 am