I am an unrepentant Ron Paul fan. One of the great appeals of his philosophy is the idea that individuals should be skeptical. With that in mind, here are some concerns I have about Ron Paul and his movement.
1) His support from anti-American conspiracy theorists, truthers, and other radicals.
Paul has said that he will take votes and money from anyone, but he won't espouse ideas he doesn't agree with. I accept this principle in theory. The idea is he'll pocket donations from the most outlandish of groups and people, but then turnaround and continue to promote his own agenda, which is not bigoted or psychotic. The problem I have with this is that while I understand the concept in an abstract sense, it is very difficult to accept even being even associated with some of these odious groups.
Having said that, I can do so for two reasons.
For one, every candidate has supporters who are less than attractive. I recall volunteering on Bob Dole's 1996 campaign for president, and meeting some supporters in Pittsburgh who subtly condoned violence against doctors who performed abortions. Dole would never have supported such ideas, but these campaign contributors were silently permitted to donate money and cheer him on. And this is Bob Dole we're talking about here. Plain, boring, formerly considered conservative but in today's GOP liberal Bob Dole. If he had radical supporters, than is it any shock Ron Paul does? Granted, Paul engenders more than an average number of alternative thinkers, but he's not alone in this.
Secondly I can without much effort accept Paul's reasoning here. If idiots want to contribute to a candidate under the false belief that he's going to help them, it's not his problem to correct them.
Maybe what I'd like to see is him being just a bit more aggressive in criticizing the message of these people. If someone thinks the USG blew up the WTC or the financial crisis was a jewish plot, he should vigorously point out how foolish these people are. I suspect part of this is that he has other things on his mind, and such views are so ridiculous he doesn't want to waste time on them. But as a top tier candidate now, these things will come up and it would make him a more palatable choice were he to categorically and regularly state the difference between his view and these preposterous ideas that the media sometimes tries to slap on him and the vast majority of his supporters.
2) Broad criticism of USG and other governmental employees.
Sure the USG is bloated and fat and overstaffed, but employees, from soldiers to park rangers to bureaucrats, are market actors too. If you want to blame someone for the size of government, blame the Congress, the system, or the voters, but it's hardly fair to blame some clerk at the Department of Education who is collecting a check each week.
By all means critique the people who make laws, but don't slam the people carrying them out.
I also reject the idea that the USG should run at a profit, which leads into my next point.
3) Failing to outline the difference between anarchy and libertarianism.
Anarchists loathe the state, feeling it is inherently oppressive and inimical to any societal progress, and want to get rid of it. Statists love the state, believing it's the proper and most effective way toward progress, and want to enlarge it. Libertarians understand the state has an important role in societal organization, but are very cautious of the possibility of tyranny.
I've attended a fair number of Ron Paul events; conventions, straw polls, conferences, rallies, etc. I occasionally run into some tin foil hat types who are a bit out there and think there's a conspiracy to unite DC with Rome, or something equally entertaining. Less commonly I'll find someone who holds some hateful views that I find deeply objectionable. But far more often, in the area of people I don't agree with at these events, are the (probably unknown to them) anarchists who think government has no role. For the record, these are usually decent folks, we just have a philosophical difference (I can't say this about the people with hateful views, who are just idiots).
We need an efficient and effective government to thwart fraud, provide courts for redress, and a host of other, appropriate federal actions. In fact, I'd argue in many ways the national government is underfunded. That's right- underfunded. The problem is the USG is so wasteful in areas it shouldn't be acting in, that in areas where the USG should be quite active, it does a terrible job. How's the USG doing borrowing money, for example?
Keep in mind, the USG's action needn't be profitable. Often I hear liberty minded folks claiming the US Post Office is a failure because it's losing money. Well, government's not supposed to make money. It's supposed to carry out the few, limited monopolies we have granted to the feds. The Post Office, per the Constitution, is certainly one of them. Maybe if the USG weren't engaged in so many unconstitutional pursuits though, they could run the Post Office without a need for it to be profitable.
The problem isn't that government runs at a loss, that's to be expected. The problem isn't that the USG is involved in some areas of our lives. The problem is that it's involved in too many and so the places it should be working in, are too often carried out poorly.
So I wish that Ron Paul supporters, when decrying government, would be conscious of the importance of valuing the areas government should be involved in, while criticizing the areas it has no business in.
4) Underestimating the strengths of the US.
I am a goldbug. I am aware of the impending doom of our $75 trillion in debt and inflationary policies. But I cannot accept the idea that the US is on par with Greece or Italy in terms of our government's systemic fortitude. Our situation is not analogous with the USSR in 1989 because the underlying system of civics in the US is sound.
Oftentimes Ron Paul supporters assume if the dollar collapses the USG goes with it.
I don't see such an overnight catastrophe occurring. Instead I predict a slow bleed, not unlike the British Empire's loss of power and influence. Even when the UK was in the doldrums of the 1950s and early 80s though, it had a strong legal system, infrastructure, and traditions which prevented true collapse.
Too often Paulistas (and I'm proud to consider myself one as I make this critique) discount the value of, for example, our system of commercial law, which is quite effective. Or the unique geography of the United States. We have two great oceans and two great neighbors (yes, I'm concerned about the southern border, but as a friend once told me as we were standing on the Uzbek and Afghan border "say what you will about Mexico, but we don't have to worry about them attacking us.").
5) Their timeline.
Paul's a longterm thinker-- just look at his investment portfolio. I agree in the longterm many of the nightmare scenarios he outlines in the US and the world are possible. But I find that he and his supporters often ignore the can kicking abilities of the USG.
When someone has a cause, they're often myopic about mitigating circumstances. I recall as a child hearing, in the mid-80s, that AIDS was a global pandemic which, by the time I finished high school, would have killed one out of every ten Americans. That never happened. I also remember hearing that by the time I finished college the ozone layer would make using sunscreen mandatory in most of the US. Never happened. Or the killer bees that were going to attack Texas and then the midwest and then the rest of the country..... never happened.
I don't know the specifics of what thwarted the AIDS numbers-- meds, education, who knows. Or what fixed the ozone layer. Maybe it was legislation, maybe it was the introduction of Starbucks coffee. And I have no idea what stopped the killer bees. The point is, I've been hearing these sort of apocalyptic scenarios my entire life and while they're often grounded in decent reasoning, the risk and timeframe is often exaggerated.
I find it amusing that global warming (which I think falls into this group) is often dismissed by goldbugs as crank science, and yet they employ the same sort of "if we don't act tomorrow the world ends" approach to promote their own agenda.
To sum up, Ron Paul's right on the threat to the US economy. But I think we might have more time than he and his followers believe. Yes, the can kicking will make it worse, but for investing purposes at least, it's worth nothing.
Okay, I'm gonna post this now. I have some reservations about it, because I am shooting from the hip here. But I think the fact that, the night before such an important election I am willing to criticize the candidate I favor, indicates the special type of supporters he attracts.
I like Ron Paul because, among other things, he allows you to think. So thanks for indulging me in my thoughts.
And bet of luck to Ron Paul, liberty, and America tomorrow!
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.