sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue

December 31, 2011

Saving Libertarianism from Ron Paul

I know there are people out there, decent people, who really, really want to like the Texan OB Gyn because he made a name for himself championing libertarian economic ideas.  They want to like him to the point of denying his racism.  But come on.

Steve Horwitz who was around when Paul devised his “paleolibertarian” strategy in the 80s, thinks that Paul was pandering to the Neo-Nazis (via Dan Mitchell).  You see, he didn’t want hippies in his movement, so he went for the white supremacist demographic.  Which makes total sense, of course.  I mean, Neo-Nazis are vastly more admirable, and the choice between the two is not a false dilemma.  Certainly in the 80s when greed was good and Ronald Reagan was the President the American mainstream was not primed for Libertarian ideas.  And in the 1980 the Libertarian Clark/Koch ticket didn’t get over 1% of the popular vote, best performance by Libertarians in a presidential race ever.

And in any case, if Paul didn’t like hippies then, he certainly likes them now, parsing #Occupy and pledging to unite them with the Tea Party.

Ron Paul Neo-Nazi

Your Congressional creep from TX with Stormfront founder and Stormfront founder's son

Longtime Paul adviser Eric Dondredo contends that Paul is not anti-Semitic, merely anti-Israel.  How do you figure?  Consider that Paul invents all sorts of imaginable unimaginable excuses for Iranian nukes and HAMAS.  And oh, he also claimed that Israel was behind the World Trade Center bombing.  For an alleged not anti-Semite, Paul acts and sounds an awful lot like one.

Still, Paul tells Haaretz that he feels “a bit surpris[ed] and disappoint[ed]” at being left out of Republican Jewish coalition Presidential debate.  The Congressman’s innocence is truly disarming.  Or not.

As is usually the case with the “anti-Israel” types, Paul is anti-American.  Take a look at his campaign commercial:

Yep.  Terrorists shooting at our men are freedom fighters.  US is the source of evil.  That this kind of rhetoric is coming from a Texas Republican should give every Berkeley professor pause.

In September 19 issue of National Review, Kevin D. Williamson, who writes terrific libertarianish essays on economics and politics, did a delightful expose of Ron Paul.  In it, Paul is quoted saying that there is no way a libertarian could possibly be a racist because libertarians just don’t have it in them.  Williamson commented that somebody put racist crap in Ron Paul’s newsletter, and it was a libertarian.

What’s “paleolibertairan” anyway, and how does he forge an alliance with the Nazis?  Libertarians are supposed to be live-and-let-live kind of people — small government, personal freedom and all.  Nazis took “live and let live” literally and turned it on its head.  They built a big government killing machine that successfully exterminated the Jewish population of Western and central Europe — along with Poles, Gypsies, Belorussians and others.  Ron Paul is supposed to be the principled candidate but his pandering to the neo-Nazis doesn’t sound too awfully principled to me.

Neither does his asking for earmarks and then voting against the bill that contains them.  The supposed principled libertarian got to bring the pork home and claim to be a principled libertarian on the national stage.  His supporters don’t like hearing about it.  Speaking of which, I fail to see how Paul’s personality cult positively reflects on libertarian movement.

Even if, as Horwitz suggests, Paul’s alliance with white supremacists was a matter of strategy, not conviction, Paul should recognize that he outlived his usefulness (granted, if libertarian ideas are currently popular, it is despite and not because of Ron Paul and his “paleolibertarian” strategy), step aside and allow a new generation of Libertarian Republicans (preferably not related to the Congressman by blood) rise to prominence.  A decent libertarian-leaning Republican candidate should be able to gather momentum, if only Paul wasn’t sucking all the air out of the room.

So far the MSM has largely given Ron Paul a pass.  A few weeks ago Rush Limbaugh explained that the Republican establishment wants a large group of non-Romneys to split the vote, so they left the OB alone (just realized, Barack Obama is BO, and Ron Paul is an OB, which is kind of amusing, admit it).  Democrats for their part would love Ron Paul to prevail because he’s the only Republican in the race who can’t defeat Obama.  The media that went berserk on the occasion of Sarah Palin’s target signs and turned stones on Rick Perry’s property is, curiously enough, not too terribly interested in Ron Paul’s racism.  At least not yet.  They know they have him by the balls, so they can ignore him for the time being.

I don’t believe the creep will get the nomination, but if he does well in Iowa, he will generate enough attention to damage the Republican party and libertarian ideas that he’s supposed to champion.  We will be associated with his racism and put on the defensive on the subject of race:

“What do you mean the Tea Party is not racist?  Isn’t Ron Paul a Tea party darling?”

“Libertarian economics?  But you are Jewish!”

I can hear it in my ears.

Take heart, though, the Republican and Libertarian blogs and magazines that are doing the vetting of Ron Paul.  The push back is a grass roots phenomena.

Happy New Year and cheers!



  1. Thanks for the link and insightful info. I’ve linked back. I’m ready to leave 2011 beind and looking forward to 2012. (I don’t think Paul will win in Iowa) Happy New Year to you!

    Comment by Maggie@MaggiesNotebook — December 31, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

  2. […] Sitting on the Edge of the Sandbox has a new article up questioning Paul’s policies. […]

    Pingback by Ron Paul a No Vote on Afghanistan Invasion? Ron Paul Against Israel – Not Anti-Semitic | Maggie's Notebook — December 31, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

  3. Is that an official Ron Paul ad? Atrocious!

    Comment by Maggie@MaggiesNotebook — December 31, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  4. Ron Paul is really unfit to be president. I would choose Obama over Paul and that is saying something!

    I wonder if he knew who those Neo Nazis were when he had his photo taken with them.

    Comment by Harrison — December 31, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

    • I agree. I will not vote if Paul is nominated. He will not be nominated, of course, but he will do damage to the Republican party and the libertarian cause. I’m sure he knew they were Stormfront. He refused to return their donations.

      Comment by edge of the sandbox — December 31, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

  5. […] Saving Libertarianism from Ron Paul […]

    Pingback by New Years Rockin’ Linkage: Now With More Ozzy » Conservative Hideout 2.0 — December 31, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

  6. The one in the black hat is a dude? I thought it was a girl!
    I’m surprised the paulbots haven’t swarmed your post yet, they’ve got like a bat signal that goes out over the interloobs and the spam the hell outta people who post stuff like this, you know, the truth, that makes their idol look bad. They’ve been swarming on me for a few weeks now at a page I run at facebook, they said they want to get it shut down and then sudden;y I get all these messages from facebook that there are complaints filed against me.
    I’d like to hear some sensible libertarians’ ideas, but most I come across are on the RP koolaid.
    I’m a Republican, I am not opposed to blowing up the bad guys if it means the bad guys become less able to blow us up, so I guess the libertarians will never like me.

    Comment by zillaoftheresistance — December 31, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

    • I hope your facebook page doesn’t get shut down. I’m not surprised that they are doing it. Paulistas are a nasty bunch. I’m surprised they are not here yet. I suspect search engines haven’t picked up the post yet. Or yet it’s New Year’s Day and they are nursing hangovers.
      I’m very much open to Libertarian economic ideas, I like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman, but that Paul creep just needs to go. All he’s doing is discrediting Libertarianism.
      I don’t think there is a consensus on what a Libertarian foreign policy should be like. I think Rand pretty much thought that it’s right for the US to invade any country that is unfree.

      Comment by edge of the sandbox — January 1, 2012 @ 10:17 am

  7. IMO, Paul won’t get the GOP nomination.

    But he may well do something that will indeed put BHO back into the Oval Office: start a third political party and run on that ticket. In fact, I think that’s exactly what Ron Paul is planning to do.

    Edge, you mentioned that the msm are giving Paul a pass. I think that they will continue to do so because doing so will guarantee Obama’s re-election with the third party in the ring.

    Comment by Always On Watch — January 2, 2012 @ 6:01 am

  8. Thanks for this post, it is very helpful. I’ve had a problem with Ron Paul’s foreign policy statements, especially when he gives Palestine and Iran respect they don’t deserve. On the other hand, I’ve had problems with the progressive crap in Gingrich’s past, and Romney’s waffling and overall demeanor, and Ron Paul sounds so good on economic policy and pro life issues, so I’ve been looking for ways to excuse his flaws.

    But that campaign ad you posted. It’s terribly offensive. As though we are no different from China, Russia. I’ll not be turning a blind eye again.



    Comment by nooneofanyimport — January 2, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

    • AOW,
      I doubt he’ll run as an independent. He knows he won’t win, and quite possibly he is not even going to get that many votes in the general election. In the meantime, he has to mind his son’s political career. I’m sure he’ll stay in the primaries up until the end and his fans will turn out once the election is already decided.

      I don’t trust Paul to be a reliable fiscal conservative because I don’t believe he’s a principled person. I’ll compromise and vote for Romney, and I think Romney will be OK so long as he has Republican-controlled House and Senate, but I will never vote for Paul.
      I hope Santorum gets the nomination.

      Comment by edge of the sandbox — January 4, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

  9. It is great that we have free speech and one can write what he wishes. I will do the same as I am a Ron Paul supporter. At my age of 77 I study politics and have for years. Ron Paul is a strict constitutional conservative — please read and listen to his exact words and not how others parse them for him.

    How many on here understand “states rights”? Please read the 10th Ammendment. Who of the republicans running abide by the Constitution and want smaller limited government? You decide.

    I had lunch with a Jewish Doctor friend of over 50 years and he agrees with Paul. Leve Israel alone and they will defend and take care of their country. Art LeBeau, Villa Ridge, MO

    Comment by Art LeBeau — January 24, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

    • Thanks goodness! What was I, chopped liver, I posted something negative about Ron Paul and no Paulista came over to argue.
      According to Mark Levine Paul doesn’t believe in Constitution, he believes in Articles of Confederation.
      That Jewish friend of yours is most definitely an outlier.

      Comment by edge of the sandbox — January 24, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

  10. […] also watching what Ron Paul says and does.  Having established a reputation for pandering to the Neo-Nazis, Paul is wasting no time forging alliances with Arab Jew-haters: Ron Paul, who has consistently […]

    Pingback by A Warning from Hillary? « sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue — February 29, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

  11. […] It’s naive to think that the world will be a better place if the US would pursue a policy of non-intervention.  We are a force of good in the world full of genocidal tyrants.  It’s short-sighted to expect that if we don’t engage our enemies at an opportune moment, they will not attack us when convenient to them.  We all but ignored Al Qaeda when it was at war with us in the last decade of the 20th century — until the country woke up on 9/11.  If we recall, Paul spent that last decade of 20th century courting Neo-Nazis.  His campaign video smearing our armed service members is pure bigotry. […]

    Pingback by Vote for a Non-Paul « sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue — March 22, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: