Topic: Republican Convention Ron Paul Battle
Revolution Is Not Polite Dave Nalle has written a good article on Nolan Chart saying that Paul supporters scare party regulars. Good.by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Mr. Nalle has written before with criticism of the behavior of Paul supporters. To some extent I agree with him. It is self defeating to offend any voters in an election. But in the latest instance, Mr. Nalle is talking about the tactics used by the Paul supporters in caucuses and conventions, and I think he is wrong.
The purpose of Paul's campaign is to bring about radical change in the Republican Party and in the country. That calling for a return to the Constitution is regarded as a radical idea shows just how necessary the campaign is, and how important it is that his supporters use all legitimate means to move the campaign forward.
Mr. Nalle remarks that where the Paul supporters are not the majority of the convention they use Roberts Rules of Order to their advantage. That is what the rules of order are for--to protect the rights of the minority while allowing the majority to rule. Where the Paul supporters have been in the majority, as in Nevada, the party leadership has not hesitated to throw the rules of order out so that they can prevent the majority from winning.
Mr. Nalle says that this is causing a backlash against the Paul supporters and against the campaign, and driving the delegates to support fascism. It does not seem to occur to Mr. Nalle that by supporting John McCain and the neocons they are already supporting fascism. The reaction of the party leadership, especially where they are faced with a rebellious majority., serves to strip the smiling masks from their faces and reveal that behind the mask of Congenial Charlie, the party chairman is a fascist thug. In panic, the politicians are revealing their interest in control rather than an interest in the people. And they have been, and will be, making mistakes which, as in Texas, bring some of the party members who have not been paying attention to join with the Paul movement.
In fact, many of the people who participate in the party and attend the conventions, have little interest in or understanding of politics. Attending party functions, for them, is a social occasion. They are not really even interested in the outcome. Many of the delegates to the conventions who will go along with instructing the delegates to vote for McCain at the national convention voted against him in the primary or the caucus. But being a delegate means a chance to visit with rarely seen friends, and they DO resent what the Paul supporters are doing because it forces them to think and it delays the cocktail party. For those who believe that how our country is run is a serious business, it is not necessarily a loss if those people resolve never to attend another convention.
Politics is a serious business. Under the American constitution, it is the business of the people. The people, including convention delegates, who are willing to leave decisions to the leadership as long as they are left in peace are going to have decide if obeying party orders is worth fighting for. And the only way they will be forced to make that decision is if those who take the responsibility seriously bring the fight to them.
What was called a polical canvass in the Nineteenth Cenury was first called a campaign in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan. He deliberately chose this military term because he believed he was fighting a war to overthrow a corrupt and dictatorial regime.
Bryan, the Democratic nominee for President that year, was actually running as a leader of the Populist Movement, a political force in the western states formed around opposition to the control of the economy by the banks and the corporation and, when the question became a major one in the United States, opposition to imperialism. He was nominated for President three times, and lost all three elections. But he changed not only the way people talk about elections, but the way they think about them.
Politics is about the policies and structure of the government. The government's policy can affect your life, your liberty and your happiness. At this point in our political history, we are in real danger of having a regime of "fiendly fascim" imposed. As Ron Paul said, it is time to stand up and resist. The Paul supporters are resisting now in the state conventions. I hope they are able to do so in the national convention.
This is a revolution. You don't win a revolution by being polite
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 35 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan 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.
Posted By: Thomas from Texas
Date: 2008-06-05 16:11:43
"This is a revolution. You don't win a revolution by being polite"
Absolutely! I agree... I don't think the neocons are being polite... :)
This is beyond polite. The neocons have hijacked the ideology of the party. It has become the War Party. By stifling dissent within their own ranks, they are only showing their true colors (and it is not red, white, and blue... it is red as in blood red...). McCain should hold a true "Town Hall" style convention and do some real "straight talk" about the direction the party wants to go. He's supposed to be a deal maker that reaches across parties... How about reaching within his own party?
Mr. Nalle has written before with criticism of the behavior of Paul supporters. To some extent I agree with him. It is self defeating to offend any voters in an election.
If this were just a case of offending some random voters I'd be with you here. But the problem is that the Paul folks are alienating people withing the GOP who might otherwise be sympathetic to them and support them. They're driving moderates and even fellow libertarians into the arms of the religious right and the party hacks, and that's very bad for the party and for the 'revolution'.
The purpose of Paul's campaign is to bring about radical change in the Republican Party and in the country. That calling for a return to the Constitution is regarded as a radical idea shows just how necessary the campaign is, and how important it is that his supporters use all legitimate means to move the campaign forward.
You're making a great example of the insular mentality of the Paul supporters. Going back to the constitution is NOT what is regarded as a radical idea. The radical idea is the suggestion that true Republicans don't already adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution. This is what offends people - when you tell them that although they view themselves as strict constructionists who believe in the constitution, they're actually not supporting the constitution at all. And it becomes worse when you trot out your version of the constitution and it is clearly no more strict an interpretation than anyone else is using, it just chooses to focus on different cherrypicked parts of the consituttion.
Mr. Nalle says that this is causing a backlash against the Paul supporters and against the campaign, and driving the delegates to support fascism.
Interestingly the perjorative term heard most often applied by mainstream Republicans to the Paul supporters is 'fascist'.
It does not seem to occur to Mr. Nalle that by supporting John McCain and the neocons they are already supporting fascism.
Gah, I'm so tired of people misusing the term neocon. Paul supporters throw it around as ignorantly and haphazardly as the leftists do. There is no great 'neocon' conspiracy. The party has not been infiltrated by them. They don't even make up a political faction of any signfiicance. The neocons are a handful of conservative think tank nerds who are quasi-stalinists plus some fellow travellers. They have no power base and they have no real clout. The sole reason why they are influential is that they offer foreign policy expertise and an ideological rationale for an expansionist foreign policy - resources which an inexperienced president like Bush felt he needed to draw on.
Even most supporters of the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not neocons. They are traditional Republican warhawks, the guys who have been an element of the party since the beginning, who are gung ho on defense spending and believe that we need to keep our military in good shape by using it. They have a cold war mentality, and just to keep you libertarians focused, Barry Goldwater was their leader and is still their icon.
And John McCain is not a neocon either. He's a Goldwater-style warhawk. He's more moderate than Golwater, but he remains basically in the GOP tradition of being fiscally conservative, socially moderate or liberal and strong on defense. It's actually a political philosophy which is very compatible with libertarianism, except when it comes to the new crop of pseudolibertarians who place opposition to war above every other consideration, totally unbalancing their political perspective.
And they have been, and will be, making mistakes which, as in Texas, bring some of the party members who have not been paying attention to join with the Paul movement.
What yu're talking about here is a backlash to the backlash, and it's definitely a factor. But I think the infighting is just driving more reasonable people away altogether. I know several former delegates who just chose not to be delegates this year because they didn't want to be involved in the hostile environment.
being a delegate means a chance to visit with rarely seen friends, and they DO resent what the Paul supporters are doing because it forces them to think and it delays the cocktail party.
Dead wrong. The cocktail parties are mostly scheduled before the floor sessions of the convention begin.
Politics is a serious business. Under the American constitution, it is the business of the people.
Not really. The idea of a republic is to let elected representatives do most of the business for the people.
What was called a polical canvass in the Nineteenth Cenury was first called a campaign in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan. He deliberately chose this military term because he believed he was fighting a war to overthrow a corrupt and dictatorial regime.
If you're holding Bryan up as an example there's no hope for you. Bryan was a raving idiot who had no idea how government or politics worked and who advocated policies so stupid and backwards that he became a national laughing stock. His populist politics led to the emergence of Wilson who was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.
At this point in our political history, we are in real danger of having a regime of "fiendly fascim" imposed.
This is just scaremongering as manipulative and unfounded as anything in the War on Terror.
As Ron Paul said, it is time to stand up and resist. The Paul supporters are resisting now in the state conventions. I hope they are able to do so in the national convention.
But the problem is that you're resisting the people who should be your allies and weakening us all when it comes to facing the real enemy.
"And John McCain is not a neocon either. He's a Goldwater-style warhawk. He's more moderate than Golwater, but he remains basically in the GOP tradition of being fiscally conservative, socially moderate or liberal and strong on defense. It's actually a political philosophy which is very compatible with libertarianism, except when it comes to the new crop of pseudolibertarians who place opposition to war above every other consideration, totally unbalancing their political perspective."
And by how many percentage points would McCain increase the already monstrous federal budget his first year as president? Your disgusting definition of libertarianism is literally causing tonight’s dinner to proceed out the wrong hole.
Time spent convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for or even warm up to McCain would be more practically used eating glass.
I don't think I actually tried to define libertarianism there, Russell. I just said that traditional republicans who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative could potentially work well with libertarians, and they absolutely can. There's a great deal of common ground.
Your attack on this article was so much more like a backlash than a rebuttle, that I couldn't even finish it. You are wrong about the NeoCons, and I believe you are fooled by McCain. He is a Democrat, you cannot change the definition of a party name just beacause there seem to be more people using a term that doesn't apply to them.
There are traditional views the Republicans by definition should adhere to. McCain falls short on many of these issues. Other than the fact that he is ProLife, I cannot see any other reason he prefers to call himself a Republican.
Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters, are among the most informed and hardest working supporters out there today. Unfortunately for you that you have missed the bus. I agree with the article above, we need to keep with the message, even if our man doesn't make office. That will not stop us from trying.
The probelm with our system here is this two party thing. Yeah sure, we have Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, gimme a break. They don't really do all they can. If they truly wanted to win this or make any significant showing, they would have done it from the start. The thing is, Ron Paul truly is the only Republican out there, and when you look at this, not from a party stance, but from a definition of what it means to be a true Republican, he is.
Republicans stand for low taxes, safe borders, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, most importantly our Freedom of Speech. McCain yells at people when they dissagree publically, he tries to embarrass them and it often works in shutting them up. He doesn't believe in closing the border, in fact meanwhile is making friends with illegals. He has a traditional stance on abortion, which I value, but from a governmental stand point, I aggree with Dr. Paul, that it should be decided upon per state-NOT per FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
McCain doesn't (like many politicians) see anything wrong with our system-money as debt, and furthermore has nothing to say about striking out the Federal Reserve and the IRS. He promotes lies and propaganda and is a double talker when it comes to many issues.
I hope that since you were so defensive, that would not be a sign that you support this senial dictator-like individual. He is in bed with the Democrats and they will likely all share the office with each other come elections if we don't unanamously Vote for Ron Paul. No more of this fence jumpin. Voting should not be based on how we can sway the tables away from who we DON'T want for president, but about trying our damndest to get the one we do.
There is very little Mr. Nall is right about. I particularly take offense to his comments about "your version" of the Constitution. We do NOT attempt to interpret every nuance at ALL. It is so obvious that this country has strayed far from MANY of its very clear directives, whether he likes it or not. For the Republicans who THINK they support the Constitution then they MUST support the Gold standard, NO UN membership, NO preemptive wars, NO patriot act and NO HUGE list of Federal departments, the worst of which being Education (in no way should the Feds be mandating what our children learn--that is Communist). These things are all stated plainly in the Constitution. They need no interpretation. If The People want to change it, than it needs to be amended, not ignored. The problem IS, Mr. Nall, they do not support the Constitution, and neither do you. You may not have read it recently. Just for a quick overview, why not simply read the first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. It is easy to see that NINE of them are no longer existing in this country. Very easy. Try it.
Also, Mr. Nall, it would be very nice if the representatives we elected were exactly who our votes went for--there is little eveidence that the Diebold voting machines are fair and are not skewing votes. We want our votes counted! In Public. This is not happening.
I am sorry if you believe the status quo is great for this country. We see what is happening and are scared to death that , through our Leaders who do not support the Constitution, our great US sovereignty is being attacked my the NAU and SPP which wants nothing more than to merge OUR county with others that do NOT have the same Constitution nor the Freedoms it offers--nay, demands of--us. With this sort of merger, we will have NO more Constitution of the US. Think about it Sir, and at least and at the very least, look at what we are losing as we speak of it.
There are no "versions" of the Constitution. There is only one very easy to read and understand document. If anyone is confused about anything in it, there are the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to explain things in detail.
Crickett, which one of the10 amendments in the Bill of Right is still in place? I thought they were all eliminated.
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.
