The Hawkeye Cauci happens this Tuesday, and, as I write this, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is polling in second place, with 22%, just 2 percentage points behind “The Legacy” Willard Mitt Romney.
Dr. Paul’s election strategy is as mystifying to the rational mind as is his popularity:
With polls giving Paul a chance to win Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, the mercurial congressman has once again dismissed the conventional political playbook. He spent the last weekend before the 2012 voting begins at home in warm Lake Jackson rather than campaigning in the cold of Iowa.
It’s the latest in a long list of “He did what?” decisions that detractors point to when arguing Paul will be unable to build on a successful showing in Iowa and eventually capture the GOP nomination.
Supporters note his two decades of electoral invincibility in Texas’ 14th Congressional District. But some who live in Paul’s home district and know him best still question the viability of an approach and a political orthodoxy that would doom the average incumbent.
“His ideas are wonderful, but you wonder if you can really run the United States in 2012 with strictly those ideas,” said John Grotte, a Paul supporter and retired engineer. “He really hasn’t changed that much with the flow of the times. So you wish you could take about 60 percent of him, take another 20 percent of something, just a pure politician and stick them together, and you’d have a pretty jim-dandy guy.”
Paul has remained loyal to his brand of libertarianism while representing his coastal Texas district. When Hurricane Ike pummeled the Gulf Coast city of Galveston in 2008, Paul voted against money to help his imperiled constituents.
Officials at the district’s shipping ports try other members of the Texas congressional delegation when seeking money for dredging. Even neighbors who’ve carpooled with his children to swim practices and praise Paul’s principles say they wish he would have made some allies during all his years in Washington.
In his campaigns, Paul is true to his calls to shut down the Federal Reserve, return the country’s currency to the gold standard and halt all military interventions overseas.
Ron Paul is described as a “Libertarian”. What exactly is one of these critters? What does the modern Libertarian believe? Is it just another form of Conservatism?
Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.
Libertarian ideas are becoming increasingly influential. Philosopher Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia helped to revitalize political theory and to focus attention on the proper limits of state power. Classical liberal economists and social scientists have pioneered the understanding of processes of social coordination and change, many of them earning Nobel Prizes in the process. And the broad global trend toward economic deregulation, freer trade, limits on taxes, toleration of minorities, and greater personal freedom shows the influence of libertarian ideas and libertarian thinkers and activists.
Ronald Reagan defined Conservatism as being a three-legged stool, consisting of Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and National Defense.
Today’s Libertarians misidentify themselves as Conservatives. They discard two out of the three legs of the stool, identifying themselves as “Fiscal Conservatives”.
If you’re having a discussion with someone and they call themselves a “Fiscal Conservative”, 9 times out of ten, you’re talking to a Libertarian.
Dr. Paul is a Libertarian. Among other arrows in his quiver, he wants to legalize marijuana. That’s why the self-proclaimed “intellectual” college-age young folks, with their heads full of mush, want to vote for him.
That’s personal responsibility thingy is a pain, isn’t it, boys and girls?
I found myself in a discussion with one of these young followers the other day, who was posting his Paulian Praises on the Facebook Page of Conservative Pundit Michelle Malkin. Needless to say, the young man got very frustrated with my insistence on remaining faithful to Reagan Conservatism and with my refusal to believe in the brilliance that is Dr. Ron Paul. That young man called me ignorant and wound up his less-than-cogent argument by saying that my parents had never married, in a very crude manner.
Being a 53 year old Son of the South, I must confess, I snapped and I proceeded to tell the young Paulnut the way the cow ate the cabbage:
Reality Check: Ron Paul is a old man, who has run for President several times. He is this generation’s Pat Paulsen (look him up). He is anti-semitic, pro-Iranian, and is a cranky, old isolationist nutjob, whom one would expect to find in a corner somewhere, with his underwear on top of his head, babbling , “I like cheese!” If he was the genius you idiots claim that he is, he would have won the presidency by now. Loosen up your tin foil hat, boy. It’s shaping your head into a point.
Now is not the time to redefine Conservatism. Now is the time to vote for it.
Kingsjester's Blog 
I REALLY don’t understand how he is getting so much attention. For any conservative, he should not even be on the ballot. Thx, Kj
LikeLike
guess what I meant to say was that Paul is further left than O.
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that he chose the Republican party. That in of it’s self is disingenuous. He is a proud Libertarian, he should run as such. Knowing from the beginning that would get him nowhere, he sold out Libertarians the first time he ran. He has been selling out ever since.
LikeLike
I can’t support him and I won’t support him.
LikeLike
I may get bombed for this comment but here it goes.
I consider myself a Libertarian and I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I am a Libertarian in the Jeffersonian/anti-federalist sense. I believe that we (who made up a big portion of the country 200 years ago, in the south and in places like New York) were made certain “promises” via the Constitution which limited federal power and left issues to the States for the most part. Those promises have been broken.
Now, as far as Libertarians wanting things like marijuana legalized, I’m sure some do, Libertarians have their fair share of idiots like other groups do. But if anyone cares to listen to most of them, their position , (and mine) is that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to prohibit that substance or any other. That right lies with the states and the states alone.
Also, (ducking to avoid flying projectiles) it is my opinion that it is not the federal governments role to define something like marriage. If they want to try to pass a constitutional amendment, fine. But they have not done that.
As far as Dr. Paul goes, he is a screwball of the highest order and has given libertarians a bad name. Many of us feel this way and as a result we have traditionally backed the GOP, myself included. But as I have reminded people many many times, we have to be watchful, because conservatives can trample rights just as quickly as liberals if allowed.
Now, have at me, I have bared my chest for the slaughter. 🙂
LikeLike
johnnyalamo Says:
January 2, 2012 at 9:10 am | Reply
I am having second thoughts on Paul being the example of Libertarianism. I myself lean Libertarian. Whenever I look into to it the Libertarian Party I agree with most of their platform but they go to far for me. I totally agree on limited federal power and leaving issues to the States for the most part. I am even alright with States handling substances (drugs etc). I also believe the Fed. and State Gov. need to get their noses out of Marriage. If people want to sign a civil union contract with the State fine. I consider myself Conservative/Libertarian and I agree Conservatives have tried to regulate morality too much. I looked into Barr in 2008 and he was not too far from Dr. Paul is now on policies. Paul is a screwball of the highest order but you are the only Libertarian I have heard say that. I have tried more then once to go to the Libertarian side but it seems to me everyone they run just goes too far. Certain issues in their platform I just can not endorse.
About my comment, I would like to take it back and put it this way:
It is unfortunate that he chose the Republican party. Dr. Paul is a screwball of the highest order and has given Republican’s a bad name. I still think: he sold out Libertarians the first time he ran as his issues and policies line up much closer to the Libertarians platform then the Republican’s. As far as Libertarians wanting Dr. Paul running in their party, I have no idea. I might guess they like you would think he is a screwball of the highest order but I have not heard the Libertarian Party say that. This does not mean they have not, I just have not seen it.
LikeLike
Iowa Woman we are just about perfectly aligned with each other. I think you are right that Ron Paul has given both Republicans and serious Libertarians a bad name. I hope that after this election he will slip into obscurity and the Libertarian mantle can be picked up by someone with more common sense. Perhaps even his son.
BTW, I am also a Barr type Libertarian.
LikeLike
Paul has remained loyal to his brand of libertarianism while representing his coastal Texas district. When Hurricane Ike pummeled the Gulf Coast city of Galveston in 2008, Paul voted against money to help his imperiled constituents.
Frankly disingenuous– Ron Paul always votes against funding…after larding it up.
Honestly, that sort of thing is why I’m antagonistic about (shamelessly steals Vodka Pundit’s term) Ronulans: they make claims that are disingenuous even when technically true. The one above, the “more combat troops donated to RP” claim– I don’t know anyone who was willing to drop $200 (let alone over $400 on average) on a politician–and the total number of donors counted generally ends up being smaller than the female air division berthing I was in.
I did know one RP supporter that I believe gave some cash, though not high enough to need to report it…a very good man who also very sincerely believed that a Jewish conspiracy was running most everything.
He’s a libertarian. I think he’s a fairly good man, but the ideals he holds (example: bringing all military personnel back to the US) and the way he’d go about perusing them (by shutting down and pulling out as fast as we could pack) disqualify. I’m also rather biased against people who don’t share the Republican ideals running for the Republican nomination, even if they are, say, perfectly good, sane, reasonable Democrats. (I’m looking at you, Huck.)
LikeLike
“The Hawkeye Cauci”…
‘Bouts sums it up…
LikeLike