Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Dropped the Ball Paul's commitment to a GOP that hates him - and abandoning a movement that loved him - makes him the most disappointing election run in recent history.by Lojiko
(Libertarian)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Although the campaign is not technically over, it is more than likely that Ron Paul's GOP run for president will go down in history as the most disappointing run since Ross Perot dropped out only to drop back in again. But don't take my word for it, this statement is based on science!
Dr. Eric Cooper, professor of psychology at Iowa State University, once said, "Happiness equals outcome divided by expectation." In other words, finding a dollar bill while strolling along expecting nothing leads to instant, if temporary, happiness. On the other hand, spending the whole day walking around, looking for money - expecting to get at least $50, but only getting $10 - would lead to disappointment. Even though the outcome in the second scenario is ten times greater than the outcome in the first, the expectation in the second scenario was proportionally greater than that in the first scenario.
In the same respect, Ron Paul's campaign was the most dissatisfying in that we had the highest hopes for a victory, we believed this was nothing short of a revolution, but instead of carrying our battle standard to the steps of the White House, Ron Paul decided to set his campaign on auto-pilot and leave our movement with no discernable head.
My hunch is that Ron Paul was elated by this campaign in that his expectation was that nothing much would happen, but the outcome was enormous. In fact, perhaps the outcome was a little more than he was willing to take on.
Although Ron Paul correctly warned us against our cult of personality culture, in that we must unite behind the ideal rather than the man, leaving the campaign without any direction at all was wholly irresponsible. He could have at least encouraged people to explore the Libertarian Party or stumped for some liberty-minded candidates. Instead, he gave a final heart-to-heart via YouTube, as if to say, "I'm tired and don't want to deal with this anymore. Just do whatever you want to from now on. I don't care."
This was not about his seat in Congress - he locked up the primary 2 votes to 1. This was not about winning the election in November - there is a better than not chance we would have lost anyway. No, this was about something much greater than the campaign itself. It was about planting a seed. This was about standing toe-to-toe against the powers to be and spitting. This had the potential to lay the foundations of a Liberty movement in this country that would rock the American political landscape for elections to come. Perhaps it did and we just do not realize it yet. If it did, however, it will be a while before we know, because instead of drawing that line in the sand and announcing to the world that there is a Liberty movement in America on the rise and willing to take on the system Ron Paul just walked away.
The oddest thing of all is that Ron Paul sticks to the GOP so fervently. Rasmussen had him polling as much as twice as high in the polls if he ran as a Libertarian. Yet in spite of nothing but resentment from his own party - no matter how little the Republican Liberty Caucus has accomplished by working inside the GOP since 1990 Paul's commitment to the Republican Party was perhaps the most difficult pill to swallow. The Paul campaign recently gained second place in the Pennsylvania primaries with 16% of the vote and a candidate in reclusion. Imagine how much more we could have done had he stayed in the race as a Libertarian!
Perhaps there's something more to this. Perhaps he was threatened by the GOP. Ross Perot claimed the GOP blackmailed him into dropping out due to compromising photos they claimed they had of his daughter and as ridiculous as that seems I won't go so far as to call Mr. Perot a liar. One has to wonder if perhaps there is not some method to this madness of Ron Paul dropping out. Perhaps there are skeletons in his closet we will never be aware of, but powerful GOP operatives were.
I would like to believe that there was some outside force, stronger than Paul's commitment to liberty, that forced his hand, but with no indications from Paul himself, the rest is only conjecture.
No matter the reason, the abandonment of Ron Paul's campaign is very disappointing. For a time it seemed we were closer to Liberty in our lifetimes than ever before, only to have our own champion give up on the contest. We can only hope that enough people were turned on by the concept of Liberty that the ranks of organizations that promote individual and economic liberty such as the Libertarian Party will reap more benefit from a failed campaign than they would have had he taken the run all the way.
Post Script:
Some readers have responded by making the excuse for Paul that he is not allowed to change parties, the so-called "sore loser laws". Without addressing the blatant disregard of individual rights these laws present, allow me to say two words against this argument:
John Anderson. In 1980 US Represntative John Anderson (R-IL) ran in 2/3 of the GOP primaries before launching an independent run. Also, Mike Gravel has jumped ship and is now in the running for the LP nomination; if Gravel can change parties, so can Ron Paul.
Point being, SORE LOSER LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES! If times have changed, then this is Ron Paul's opportunity to take these unconsitutional laws to court. That action alone would do more for liberty than being the single no vote on numerous bills through Congress. [link edited for length]
Let's face it. Ron Paul is going to go down as a Congressional Representative who accomplished less than nothing to change his party from the inside (the GOP actually got LESS libertarian the longer he was in Congress) and whose best chance at leading a true challenge to the powers that be, was squandered, then abandoned.
I have nothing but respect for Dr. Paul's principles, but too often principled people leave pragmatism at home. He had the base, he had the funding, he had us all charged up, and like a trick he left us hanging just as the movement was beginning to climax.
There's already a party that has the same values as Dr. Paul only it hasn't abandoned its followers since its inception in 1972: the Libertarian Party. The welfare-warfare state GOP will NOT allow Dr. Paul to be their nominee. It's time to work from outside the party. Perhaps that's the biggest favor Dr. Paul could have done for us ... pushing us toward other parties by abandoning his GOP run.
That is the really weird thing about Paul's campaign ... that he would turn his back on the party that loves him (the LP) to run for the nomination of the party that hates him (the GOP) - especially when Rasmussen had him polling twice as high as a Libertarian candidate! Now how is that not disappointing?
Lastly, the most bizarre reaction I've read in the replies are from the people who don't seem to realize that I WANT RON PAUL TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. He can do it (or, at least, he COULD have) and he has every bit as much of a chance as Ross Perot did, who, btw, happened to out-poll BOTH George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton before he dropped out of the race in 1992. Mike Gravel left the DEM to join the LP, Bob Barr (former GOP Congressman from GA) left the GOP to join the LP - when are people going to recognize that the LP is the new political center with the winning message?
Given the aforementioned facts, it should be obvious to anyone who wanted Paul to win why the campaign has become a huge disappointment.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16 thumbs so far
2008 Lojiko, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, April 27, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lojiko only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lojiko is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Libertarianism is ahead of its time. It relies on a rational society that does not believe in god in order for it to work. The Ron Paul Campaign is just showing how unpopular libertarianism is when the guy running it does not effectively distance himself from total nut job lunatics. I am amazed that he got so many votes withou the support of Neal Boortz. He could have done better with a more populist message, just look at McCain.
He got 16%, not 14% in Pennsylvania and had some GOP party types not brought an injunction so his sample ballots showing which delegates to vote for were seized and destroyed before another judge could overturn the injuntion, he'd likely have done better.
He doesn't have to drop out or endorse anyone today.
I still want him to win.
I still hope he might go a different, non GOP route.
I am CERTAIN that if even if he doesn't run in November his waking people up will invigorate Third Parties, whether through his endorsement or merely through his spreading the message.
I know this because I voted for Bush as the 'lesser of two evils' and am never going that route again, having found a politician with integrity. In the future, that will be baseline to my vote.
You suggest Paul would have more success as a Libertarian. How? Do you have any details to support such a claim?
All I found while lightly researching the topic is that in 1988 as the Libertarian nominee, Paul got 400,000 votes in the general election. However this time, as a Republican during the primaries, he has amassed, what, 900,000 votes?
To me it looks like Paul has done better in the GOP than the LP.
"it looks like Paul has done better in the GOP than the LP. "
Yes, his success now was better then. But how many people knew who he was in 1988? I'm not suggesting he should run (ballot access in "poor loser" states preclude that anyway), but with an army of informed grass-roots people and far more name recognition on his side, he WOULD do better than that. He got 900,000 votes just in the primaries, which has a far lower turn-out than the general election, where he can field voters from every party, not just the GOP.
>>You suggest Paul would have more success as a Libertarian. How? Do you have any details to support such a claim?<<
Yes. Back in January, when Paul was polling about 6% in the GOP primaries, Rasmussen conducted a poll examining the outcome of Paul running in a four-way race with himself, Obama, McCain, and Bloomberg.
According to the report, "In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%." [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_michael_bloomberg_ron_paul_run_third_party_campaigns_in_2008]
Paul was polling nearly twice as high as an independent than as a GOP candidate.
People are fed up with the two-party system. They want real change. Why would Paul waste his time campainging for a party he know won't accept him, instead of accepting the nomination of the party that will (The LP)?
In that sense, Dr. Paul has dropped the ball. He had the potential to do so much, but left us hanging before half-time.
Have to agreee with you spinnikerca... I'll never hold my nose again when I vote. I was conned (that's the right word) into voting for G.W. Bush. I also wasted votes on the Libertarian Party... a by-pass to nowhere. The Republican Party can be returned to its first principles. Yes, Paul can well lose, but better to let the G.O.P. know that they are not going to win as easily, if at all, by hanging onto the neocon agenda. I don't really care who else is in the running or who wins. I'll vote for Paul. The real losers will vote for losers -- Obama, Hillary or McSame.
I personally think that Dr. Paul did not drop the ball on anything, but he did exactly what was necessary to get the message of Liberty out to the broadest spectrum of people in this country in the shortest period of time.
Had he not run as a Republican he and the message would have basically been totally and absolutely silenced. By running as a Republican in this Presidential race he was able to share the stage with those who are ideologically so far removed from the message of Liberty and rational politics that it naturally drew attention to a reality that this country has not questioned in decades.
Had he not run as a Republican, but say he ran as a Libertarian, for instance, he would have had virtually no platform, nor would he have been able to reach as many people as he has thus far. Additionally, I doubt if we would even be having such a broad range of discussions on the subject had he run as anything other than a Republican during this campaign.
If the future, as more people, from both sides of the political spectrum begin to wake to the reality that their respective party entrenchment candidates can not only not deliver on their party's empty party promises, but that they have no answers in light of the growing problems faced by this country, particularly economic problems, then more people will remember that there was one man, Dr. Paul, who had spoken a very different message. It will be the message they heard in the debates, it will be the questions Dr. Paul raised during those Republican debates that will make a difference in the hearts and minds of the people of this country in the future when are confronted with issues that their Party Nominees, and whoever ends up being the next President, will simply don't have answers to those problems.
I dare say that we would not see the massive number of RP Meetup groups around the world, we would not see the numerous websites devoted to Dr. Paul and the Revolution, in fact, we would probably not see a Revolution in the form that we do had Dr. Paul not run under the Republican banner.
People are fed up, yes, but they will do nothing that requires them to think an extra bit. In a society that demands instant gratification of itself and others, voting for the winner has sadly become the prime means of satisfying someone rather than voting for the real issues.
Of course, this isn't to say that they had voted for the issues in the past. That's why there is a vote in the electoral college separate from the popular vote. But the division between the two is ever-shrinking.
Once you remove any affections you might have for the man from the picture, perhaps you will conclude that Paul, in fact, was a weak judge of character. And that one trait's presence could have helped him as much as its absence hurt him.
In retrospect, while he may not have tapped into the apathetic population as anticipated, it's certainly worth considering the Revolution somewhat of a success in starting to lay the foundation. I do not validate claims that say he amassed less people than were potential cross-overs, but I do feel as though in essence, he was once again preaching to the choir, that is, the disaffected and fringe instead of expanding the ideology of liberty.
These are precisely the reasons that the Media fed off during the prelude and early primaries: "Oh, this Ron Paul. He's a kook. Look at his supporters. They still believe the Earth is flat!" It just goes on and on and on...
Remember that as any leader in an organization, you are responsible, whether you like it or not, for those you associate with, or those who zealously defend your name. One need look no further than Obama's past dealings becoming transparent. It's a harsh fact.
Then again, to accept that humans are rational beings is perhaps the most irrational mistake one can make.
Ron Paul cured my apathy as well as the apathy of hundreds of thousands--possibly millions--of others. Regardless of whether he manages to become President in 2008, the fact that he has brought this message forward, opened many eyes, and inspired many to get involved and run for local and state-level offices on constitutional platforms has made his bid for the presidency more than worthwhile.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-27 20:15:06
What a bunch of whiny nonsense. The role of president in a Constitutional Republic is not the same as in a non-Constitutional, modern one. You are assuming that the president should have the power to change things by nature of his/her leadership, but forget that the real change is in the legislative branches.
By switching into the Libertarian party to please silly people like the writer of this peice, Ron Paul would have guaranteed a loss for the presidential spot, and been forced out of his Representative position as well.
The goal should be a net gain in Constitutional government, not the presidency.
TIme to stop whining and get to work getting Constitutionalists elected to House and Senate seats nationwide...
Though I don't totally agree (statist-corporatist media had a LOT to do with it), I appreciate your well-written piece (and your tempered responses to my rather heated replies to your other post, btw). Stick around, Lojiko; you're certainly not alone in having unique perspectives around here.
As a libertarian for more than three decades I found the Paul campaign disappointing on so many levels. Paul's view on immigration, abortion and trade are deeply offensive to me. His aluminum-foil-hat support of NAU conspiracy theories and wildly ahistorical views of the Civil War didn't help either. And then there are the newsletters which bore his name...
All this being said, his opposition to wars abroad and government shredding of our basic rights at home won my support. It is unfortunate that his conservative handlers apparently convinced him to downplay his opposition to the war during much of his campaign. I think that alone helped damped the fire of Paul revolution.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-28 11:47:18
This was never about Ron Paul it was about awakening the masses to the abuse of their LIBERTY.
Rick,
How can free trade be offensive to you, without free trade you cannot have Democracy, once trade becomes managed you have socialism, fascism or communisim. Dr. Paul's stance on abortion is as constituional as they come, no where in the US Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to dictate the practice of Medicine. Constitutionally it is reserved to the states (10th ammend). Learn social economic policy first, then you can make intelligent comments on them.
The NAU Conspiracy? Google it and you tell me.
Ahistorical view of the War for Southern Independance? You must be a Yankee fed the ignorant lies of your benevolent masters.
This is a prime example of why FREEDOM is so hard to grasp for some. it is up to you to educate yourself BEFORE you make decisions so you dont screw it up for the rest of us. Remember your government wants unarmed, ignorant peasants
It is Dr. Paul's telling of the truth that makes him the cult of personality (honest politician, no oxymoron here). Those that are angry at him, are so short sided it is sick. Talk about instant gratification. Changing his message would make him as disgusting as all the others.
If you all are not willing to fight for your FREEDOM, go complain elswhere.
Until we change our voting and election process, it wouldn't have mattered if Ron Paul had decided to run on the Aliens from Mars platform. I wish everyone would just shut up about the third party Libertarians. There's a certain small-minded segment of these calling themselves such that seem determined to denigrate and smear Ron Paul at every turn.
Dropped the ball? Sticking to the GOP? He's in Congress as a Republican and he's not allowed to just switch parties around. It's not what political party he's running in but the man and his message of following the Constitution, or can't you get that through your skull?
Do you have some sort of monetary motive to fuel the Libertarian party? It certainly seems like it. And why is the head cheerleader of this neo-Libertarianism and obviously anti-Ron Paul troll "Lloyd Kempson" always the first to comment on these articles?
Even Ron Paul himself has acknowledged massive vote count fraud going on, and it has nothing to do with which party he's in. He said the issue of vote fraud is a “major, major problem” and that he had lost elections in the past due to vote fraud. In fact, he and his staff are “pretty certain” that that was the case in New Orleans and “possibly some other states” in the recent primaries.
Shows how little you know or care about Ron Paul if you can't even get the percent right he supposedly "won" in Pennsylvania. (I'd say triple that amount and it'd be a lot closer to what the voting machines and the media reported)Nobody dropped the ball here. And if anyone did, it wasn't Ron Paul. It was people like you who have tried to divide his supporters from the very beginning, bitching about which party he's in and why he can't win as a Republican.
Until you can find a man as principled, honest and uncorruptable as Ron Paul to run your precious Libertarian Party (good luck with that), then just stick to what you know. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be voting for Ron Paul, no matter what party he's in.
Let’s take a look at what you view as disappointing in Dr. Paul’s campaign starting with what you call his a-historical view of the “civil war”. If you read Lincoln’s own letters you will find that what Dr. Paul said concerning the buyout of slavery was exactly what was proposed by many of the period, including Lincoln. Unfortunately, Lincoln had a highly political and economic agenda other than the issue of slavery itself because there were several things that could have been done to solve the slavery problem but none were effectively employed by either side.
Concerning immigration, I think Dr. Paul has made it extremely clear that legal immigration is perfectly fine, but as Dr. Paul quoted Milton Friedman on immigration : “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” The reasons should be obvious, but perhaps not. The fact is that the Libertarian Party’s first candidate for the presidency Mr. John Hospers’ position, who authored the Statement of Principles for the Libertarian Party is in agreement with Dr. Paul’s position. So, I am not sure exactly what issue you are referring to when you make such a statement as a Libertarian.
Concerning abortion, I think if, like myself, you delve into the most fundamental issue about abortion you will find that there are several layers of not only legal positions, but in many cases moral. I however, take a very libertarian view, but not what could, perhaps, be considered a traditional libertarian view. My view has been formed by both a Constitutional position and an ideological position. I have come to believe that a fetus is a DNA Specific Individual, as much so scientifically as the mother and father are DNA Specific Individuals and as such that fetus possesses a totally different life based upon that DNA Specification than the mother. On a Constitutional level therefore, as an Individual with very unique and specific DNA, that Individual is entitled to the principles, the natural laws and the unalienable rights as any other individual. If Libertarianism truly abides by the ideal that the initiation of force on any level is an abridgement of Liberty upon whom that violence is initiated then perhaps it is time that Libertarians revisit the issue. How can I state that I believe in such ideals when I support the aborting of a DNA Specific Individual.
I am not sure if Dr. Paul would agree with my assessment however, I think he probably would.
Concerning Trade, Dr. Paul takes probably the most Libertarian view on Trade that I have ever heard. He states why should we need governments to intervene in matters of trade when people, communities, industries can negotiate their own terms for free trade without the dangers of governments, government agencies and quasi-government organizations intervening with all sorts of protectionist measures. The most regulated and un-free Trade practices have come about through those agencies such as the WTO, most of the time these measures favor certain industries that are highly protected by their respective governments. As Dr. Paul stated: “ no free-trade agreement needs to be 20,000 pages long”. He stated that it could very easily be one sentence long if we took all government and quasi-government intervention out of the issue and really made free-trade Free.
I think it is way too early to call the election for any candidate. Who knows maybe McCain will have a flashback, snatch one of his body guards' side-arms and start shooting his way out of his office. One can only hope... I don't recall Ron Paul making a formal concession speech, so as far as I am concerned he is still running.
One thing I never hear anyone speculate on is the true nature of all of the "UNDECIDED" Democrat votes. For all we know Ron Paul got more Democrat votes than Hillary or Obama! One of the reasons there is such a scratch right now for every last delegate amongst the two remaining Dems is that MORE DEMS VOTED "UNDECIDED" THAN VOTED FOR EITHER CANDIDATE during the earlier primaries!!! Could it be possible that this is due to some states having closed primaries? Maybe they thought they were going to re-register as Republicans so they could vote for Ron Paul and just never got around to it? Either way the popular vote is still OPEN, as such Ron Paul should be mentioned every time they talk about the republican candidate"s" in the media.
As a Ron Paul supporter I am dissappointed. Not in RP, but in the American Public. You let the media decide your candidate for you! You let your friends and family tell you who to vote for! Even after all Ron Paul's supporters had collectively acheived, you nodded your head in obedience as his talking points were attributed to, or assimilated by the other candidates. But notice, Obama and Clinton don't talk about getting rid of the IRS anymore? Obama never mentions his checkered "prior drug use" anymore.
Let it be a lesson to you America, Ron Paul has never sung a song "you" like just, so you would vote for him. He has been singing the same song of personal responsibility, state and national sovergnty, and Constitutional principles for over 4 decades! Who do you want? Someone who will sing to you a lullaby while the ship is sinking, or someone who will hand you a bucket and suggest that you help bail out the water? You have a chance left...Vote Ron Paul!
PH, I support free trade. I wish Ron Paul gave it more than lip service. His NAU silliness and his opposition to freer trade pacts speak for themselves. Opposing incremental improvements in trade will only result in continued protectionism and trade barriers, something that the NAU conspiracy nuts no doubt are happy with.
I have little patience for the supporters of secession. They seem to not understand that supporting secession to preserve slavery is effectively no different in practical terms than supporting slavery. Their grasp of history also ranges from the distorted to the farcical.
To make the argument that Paul supports legal immigration is absurd as for most immigrants, there is no such thing. Also Paul's desire to stop birthright citizenship is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, an odd position for a "champion of the Constitution" but perhaps understandable for a supporter of secession who published under his name some very ugly newsletters.
Have you done any research on these so-called Free-Trade agreements, the background behind them and why they are crafted in the way they are? I think you will be very surprised by what you find I know I was. It is not free-trade, but highly managed trade that actually hurts a vast variety of people who would like to be able to enter into a larger market or a global market, but there are so many hurdles put in place by these “agreements” that it is almost impossible for many to enter such markets. There are also very distinct advantages given to certain industries over others…can this be considered free trade, I don’t see it at all.
Now, talking about the NAU, it is interesting when you consider some of the people who began the “free-trade agreements” and what they said about such agreements. First, these agreements mean an intense involvement of The State, no matter which government is behind it. A member of the Trilateral Commission, Toyoo Gyohten said: “ Regional trade arrangements should not be regarded as ends in themselves, but as supplements to global liberalization. Regional arrangements provide models or building blocks for increased or strengthened Globalism. Western Europe [the EU] represents regionalism in its truest form. The steps toward deepening [increasing the number of agreements] are dramatic and designed to be irreversible. A common currency, central bank, court and parliament will have expanded powers. After the Maastricht summit, an Economist editorial pronounced the verdict: “Call it what you will: by any other name it is federal government” In sum, the regional integration process in Europe can be seen as akin to an exercise in nation-building.”
Additionally, the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Richard Cooper, in the Carter Administration stated: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body. It is highly doubtful whether the American Public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes, should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States. For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values”
Now, I am not sure what you hear when you read that, but I get a very disturbing picture that seems to say that more government involvement not only in our money and the decisions on how it is used, but more involvement on issues of government sovereignties and how they are governed. Now, as a Libertarian that should be highly alarming because these so-called Free-Trade Agreements are apparently Trojan Horses hiding much more under the cloak of free-trade then delivering free-trade. If you want more and more government in your life then please reconsider your political label, perhaps Statist would serve you better.
Now, on the issue of slavery, you are factually incorrect about secessionist seeking to preserve slavery by seceding. Once again, read Lincoln. Why would Lincoln make a deal, even propose the 13th Amendment that would forever protect the institution of slavery as long as the Southern States stayed in the Union. So, slavery was not the real issue that caused the war, nor was it the reason for the secession otherwise the Southern States could have taken Lincoln’s deal, kept slavery and remained in the Union. You have been reading a very distorted history. Concerning secession itself, even Lincoln supported the idea that it was Constitutional and legal, that is until he realized that if the South seceded the North would be economically ruined. If there is no right of secession then why did every single Resolution to Ratify the Constitution by the Several States declare that Right when entering into the “Union”? If our government is not by our consent, as individuals, as communities, as States then perhaps I missed something in the Constitution. In Lincoln’s own words, that later proved his hypocrisy: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
Concerning the 14th Amendment, I suggest you read the Joint Resolution of the State of New Jersey when it rescinded its Resolution to support the 14th Amendment. You will be shocked and dismayed by what you read because it clearly states the real reasons behind the 14th Amendment and also states why it could no longer support such an Un-American and dangerous law.
Once you do your homework then perhaps you can actually pose a rebuttal that is worth its salt in both historical facts and libertarian ideals.
Now, concerning the use of Dr. Paul's name in newsletters written by racists, that fact does not negate the historical facts behind the Right of Secession or, for that matter an Amendment, such as the 14th, that was imposed upon this country during the period called the Reconstruction, that in itself is a study in Un-Constitutional actions by the government.
I suppose that since you support such Amendment you realize just what it did, do you? It basically nationalized a system that was created a federal system. Now, what does that mean for those of us who espouse libertarianism? Think about it. It is, particularly in my mind, almost counterintuitive for someone to say that they support the ideals of Jefferson and on the other hand support the ideals of Lincoln or the Radical Republicans who supported his illegal actions…since the positions of Jefferson and those of Lincoln were diametrically opposed to each other. In my mind, there is no way to claim the mantle of libertarianism and support the actions of Lincoln.
Oh, I am sure there are those who will say that the ends justifies the means however, that is a highly dangerous position to take if you really do believe in Individual Liberty and the Law of the Land called the Constitution because it can open the door for any action as long as it can be justified in some manner by the government or politicians. We have seen a rash of such thinking recently during the Bush Administration.
Trade agreements are always incremental. Opposition to incremental trade agreements only guarantees continued tariffs and protectionism. An all or nothing approach to trade is both impractical and dishonest.
Rant about the NAU all you want. I am not afraid of Canada or Mexico, nor are they are they a threat to our Constitution. Funny that you rant so much about the Constitution, yet support secession, which is completely unconstitutional. The suppression of rebellion, on the other hand is clearly provided for in the document.
I have read Lincoln. Why don't you read the Documents of Secession, which clearly specifies that the Southern states seceded to protect slavery. Your misunderstanding of Lincoln's desire to save the union misses the point. The continuation of the union guaranteed the end of slavery, which is why the South seceded in the first place and refused to return even after being offered generous terms to do so. The South had lost it's control of the House and would soon lose control of the Senate. Rather than pursue Constitutional means, the South rose in illegal rebellion to protect slavery. They were not fighting for freedom but for continued oppression. They lost. Get over it.
Your attacks on the 14th Amendment are typical. Without the 14th the abolition of slavery would not have been complete, but then as you support secession to preserve slavery that is not surprising. It is actually very funny that you identify the 14th Amendment, which is obviously part of the Constitution, as "unconstitutional". It appears you would prefer the Constitution of 1860 where slavery was legal.
You think using Lieberman as an example is accurate to indicate that sore loser laws are an excuse? Think again.
Lieberman ran for Senate in one state, not President in 50, and that state has no sore loser law.
That by itself refutes that complaint.
As for the rest, have some cheese with your whine. The campaign was never about the man. The man is simply a face to the movement, similar to the mythos of Washington in his day. The movement far eclipses one man, and that's what this is all about.
"he did exactly what was necessary to get the message of Liberty out to the broadest spectrum of people in this country in the shortest period of time"
That is the truth. If he had run as libertarian from the beginning, the message would have reached a fraction of the amount of people it has so far, and he STILL wouldn't win the presidency.
Staying with the GOP, while painstaking, was the best opportunity to reach the most number of people.
RickSp...
So, even though Lincoln was perfectly willing to save slavery forever by offering the South a deal if they stayed in the Union and the South could have easily saved their country as well as slavery by accepting that deal then there must have been another cause for both the war and secession since the deal took slavery off the table as a real reason. Logically, it cannot be seen any other way.
I have not defended a position about either, logic and history defends that position. As far as the 14th Amendment, look at the Resolutions of New Jersey concerning the truth about that Amendment, it says it all. I need not try to defend a position against such a hedious law that nationalized this country under a central government outside of Constitutional Order. There are plenty historical documents that do that much better than I could.
I am short of time, but will continue this later.
Posted By: Adrian Salsgiver
Date: 2008-04-29 10:33:11
I don't have any idea what you are talking about here. I will be disappointed if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination in St. Paul this September.
"So, even though Lincoln was perfectly willing to save slavery forever by offering the South a deal if they stayed in the Union and the South could have easily saved their country as well as slavery by accepting that deal "
Provide a reference that documents Lincoln being willing to "save slavery forever". I doubt you can.
Obviously, you have not read Lincoln's papers, or the proposal he made for the 13th Amendment. As I thought, you garner your information from the revisionist history that was well-crafted during the latter part of the 1800s used to deify Lincoln. Also, read the Douglas-Lincoln debates for a real eye-opener. Additionally, I can suggest several sources that will totally change your outlook on the entire period, most of which were written during the period.
So what you are telling me, Republicae, is that you can't provide a reference whereby Lincoln proposed "saving slavery forever". I wasn't holding my breath. (And don't try quoting the famous Horace Greeley letter. That doesn't cut it.)
Re-read the post-script, Tannim. John Anderson ran as a Republican in the primaries in 1980 only to launch an independent campaign later in which he was on all 50 state ballots.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 13:52:36
Uhm the 13th abolished slavery not the 14th. Just because the ammendmant was made under force of arms or not ratified as the constitution states does that make it constitutional?
Read 439 Pacific Reporter 2d series pp 266-276 for more on the 14th.
Sorry RickSp...I was pressed for time when I wrote the last entry however, I now have plenty of time to devote to your request.
President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."
1858 Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Again, Lincoln expresses his support for Amending the Constitution for the perpetual protection of Slavery: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service…holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
If you read the writings of William Seward, you will find that it was Lincoln himself that proposed not only proposed the Amendment, but also sought to outlaw numerous “personal liberty laws” that existed in certain Northern States, those laws of course, were intended to oppose and circumvent the Fugitive Slave Laws. Part of this behind-the-scenes political acrobatics was to seek the support and approval from the Senate Committee of Thirteen, but without disclosing where the various proposals originated. Seward is rather clear about the origins of such proposals and the intrigues used to present them to Congress.
As recently as this past year a letter written by Lincoln to the Florida Legislature was found in a museum in Allentown, PA. In the letter Lincoln pleads with the Legislators of that State to garner support for the passage of that Amendment.
If Lincoln’s legacy is to be found in the Emancipation Proclamation then why did that document not immediately free those slaves directly under the authority of Lincoln and the Union Army? Oh yes, the Northern Abolitionist and eventually Lincoln railed against slavery and cried out for the freedom of those held in such horrible forced servitude, but they wanted them to be free as long as they didn’t enter the North. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing but provide Lincoln with a political expediency to garner support for a War that was unpopular in the North. It freed no slaves when it was so adeptly heralded and keep those under Union control in chains when those should have been the first to be freed under such proclamation.
Lincoln’s legacy is one of a political opportunist who craved power to such a degree that he usurped all Constitutional Authority to achieve that power. That is not the act of a man who has sworn to uphold the Constitution or one who values the cause of freedom, even the freedom of those held in slavery. Lincoln’s own words betray him and his opportunistic body politic. You say that Lincoln was indeed a man of compassion, perhaps he was, but that compassion took a backseat to his own political agenda and the goals he espoused.
Lincoln was not the only one who despised slavery, there were many in the South who shared such contempt of the institution. There was, if you read the writings of many in the South, many who could not reconcile their own moral beliefs with the institution of slavery even through they owned slaves. Slavery was an institution that preceded the creation of the colonies, and the government of the United States, it was a social and cultural institution that caused great moral dislocations in the hearts and minds of many in the South, even those few who owned slaves have shown that their moral principles were in conflict with the cultural institution of slavery.
I make absolutely no defense of slavery, I never have in any of my writings, but I also know that slavery was an issue that was extremely complex, so much so that the Founders effectively avoided the issue. That was a failure, I believe, on their part to secure the future Liberty of this country. The point is that we are affected daily by the actions of Lincoln, the form of government that resulted from his Administration and the policies of the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction play a very definite role in the fight we now find ourselves for our Liberty and Freedom. The point of these articles was not, in any way, in defense of slavery, but to elucidate the abuse of powers assumed by the federal government over the Constitutional Order.
The point of all this is that the education revolution should continue with Ron Paul running 3rd Party Libertarian. He's galvanized and recruited hundreds of thousands to the cause. He's sitting on $4-6 million or our donations. He easily has 50K-100K hard core volunteers in the field and has the undying devotion and support of thousands more. He has the lessons learned from his gop run. We saw the flash of brilliance finally in his CPac time-frame commercials. He's got his name recognition on the rise and a huge segment of the populace dis-enchanted with the 3-status-quo musketeer candidates of McBama and McClinton. His supporters could very well raise upwards of $100 million by the time all is said and done. Now that is some kind of liberty and freedom promotion I can live with. Lets face it, we are closer to being rounded up and herded into your local FEMA Camp than changing the Republican Party.
So come on everybody, lets take it to the streets now before the LP convention. Call Carol Paul and ask her to urge her husband to run and be on the ballot in the Fall 2008. Call Ron Paul and tell him that the Founding Fathers are urging him to run. Hold press conferences in your city and town. Now is the time to press for Paul to get back in the game in an important way. Call the Paul's today or prepare for your FEMA Camp stay. You choose.
The Horace Greeley letter reflects Lincoln's desire to avoid the war started by the South's rebellion. His backhanded endorsement of the profoundly evil Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural is obviously a position that he subsequently and wisely changed.
It is funny - you rail against Lincoln for violating the Constitution yet them ask why he refused to free slaves under Northern control. The answer is obvious. He had no Constitutional authority to do so. The Constitution, a still deeply flawed and racist document in 1860, clearly considered slavery legal. It would take the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to fully abolish slavery. Despite hysterical revisionist claims to the contrary, Lincoln respected the limits laid down by the Constitution.
I note your repeated claim that you make no defense of slavery yet in making a defense of secession to preserve slavery, it becomes a distinction without a difference. A defense of Southern secession is a defense of slavery, whether you care to admit it or not.
To return to the topic at hand - it is stupid little aluminum foil hat issues like attempting to rewrite history to justify Southern secession that helped keep Ron Paul a fringe character. I know, having grown up in the segregated South, that those who twisted history to defend past injustice were often supporters of current racism and bigotry. The newsletters which bore Ron Paul's name did nothing to dispel that impression.
RickSp....That is one of the more ridiculous explanations I have read of late. As I said, you are straining at gnats while completely swallowing massive camels.
As stated, if the South wanted to preserve slavery then all they had to do was stay in the Union, and according to Lincoln's own words, if they did then slavery would have been protected by Constitutional Amendment forever.
Your logic is extremely flawed and your must avoid the obvious in order to hold such a position. The South, by the Act of Secession did just the opposite, they endangered their entire way of life, including slavery when, if the real cause of secession was slavery, they could have easily protected it by simply remaining in the Union.
Indeed, if you read the huge amount of documentation, especially from those who volunteered to fight against the Union, you will rapidly see that over 95% of those Confederate volunteers were not fighting for slavery since the number of slaver owners in the South was only about 6% of the population. Actually, only 3% were what was considered large slave owners. So, the vast majority of Southern Confederate Soldiers had absolutely no vested interests whatsoever in fighting for the preservation of slavery. Indeed, most of the upper officers in the Confederate Army were not slave owners nor did most of them leave the federal army to serve in the Confederate Army to preserve slavery.
I realize that you must take such a stance, because one you begin to look at the actual reasons for the secession, without the stain of slavery, then you must totally remove yourself from your emotionally comfortable position. Your history is full of holes, you have proven that fact time and time again, ignoring vast amounts of historical fact.
You say Lincoln respected the limits laid down by the Constitution, then please give me some examples. Did he respect the limits when he invaded Maryland, threaten their legislature with imprisonment?
Did he respect the Constitution when he closed numerous Northern Newspapers who simply voiced their opinions about the war, or did he respect the Constitution when he had thousands of people, in the North, arrested without the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Lincoln even signed an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Justice Taney expressed in a legal opinion that Lincoln had violated the Constitution. Yeah, right, Lincoln respected the limits of the Constitution.
Once again, your argument is not only flawed, but it must totally and blindly ignore history. It appears, from what you have said, that the facts of history actually threaten you in some way, threaten your comfort levels...that's a good thing, since truth will always place pressure on each of us to reach beyond ourselves, accept facts that are hard to accept and to confront the unfamiliar with intellectual flexibility and a willingness to actually learn something.
Once again, I will reiterate...
If the South's sole reason for Secession was to protect slavery then they took the wrong direction...they simply had to remain in the Union, accepting Lincoln's deal to preserve slavery forever and it would have been protected, the South could have remained in the Union and kept slavery. The reasons for Secession had little to do with slavery, slavery was an ancillary issue to the real reasons behind the Secession.
The defense of Secession as a Constitutional Right is not a defense of slavery since Secession was not necessary to preserve slavery, remaining in the Union would have.
Once again, you got a big hat, but no cattle in your argument.
Lincoln was once my political hero until I actually began to delve into the facts of history and then I had to decide what was more important, a mere image based on a revised history or face the facts as they began to come to light. I happen to have chose the truth and decided to face it.
As I stated on another post, my wife happens to be of African American descent, her GGGrandmother was a slave, my GGGrandfather fought with the Confederate army, was captured in the fall of Vicksburg, spent two year in federal prison. My wife, and many of our friends, who happen to be descended from slaves, are also very interested in the truth. Recently, several of our friends purchased the book by Black Historian Lerone Bennett Jr which is about the Lincoln Myth. I have not read the book, but here is an excerpt from it:
"Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him."
Oh, one other thing before I go Rick. The true history about Lincoln the man, about the War and the events of that period is far more compelling than the sterilized, stagnate version that has been taught. In the version you promote all the facts are know in your world, there are no need for questions or the inquisitive mind. The real history is intriguing, challenging and forces the mind to think instead of accept a history so revised that it is simply swallowed because it is a closed book, no need to look further.
Two very good books, which by your position, I can be assured that you have not read are The View of the Constitution written by William Rawle in 1825, the other has rarely been mentioned anywhere, but it is by President Franklin Pierce, written in 1908 entitled Federal Usurpation which, is a scathing expose of the un-Constitutional actions of Lincoln during the War and the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Lojiko, all rights reserved.