What should be his next move. Rumor has him weighing a third party bid. Should Paul run as a third party candidate? Alternatively, should he resume his seat in the house and continue the fight for there? Or should he try something else.
I'll go first since I asked the question. I think it would be a major boo-boo to run as a third party. He will expend lots of money in the quest of a goal which he could not exploit even if he was successful. As a candidate he would draw increasing fire from his opponents. Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. I'm surprised that kind of bilge came out so late. I would expect it to come out much earlier. My point is as a third party candidate he can look forward to unending waves of attempts to discredit him and his philosophy.
Instead I think Paul would be well advised to retain his seat in congress to keep the fight going on in congress. Simultaneously I think he would be well advised to set up a foundation for the purpose of retailing the concept of a constitutionally constrained republic. He could convert some or all of his war chest for the foundation's use. He has a huge contact list which could be tapped for further contributions. His foundation could then set about locating and arming like minded people who in turn become candidates for national and state office. There exist a number of "libertarian" oriented foundations but they are not in the retail business. Cato Institute is a high browed group that does good work which is mainly invisible to the great unwashed masses. Mises Institute is the same. Lots of good stuff but certainly no retail emphasis. The Paul Institute would be oriented toward the popularization of the principals of constitutional government and libertarian philosophy.
Paul's quest for the white house is a fool's quest. That said, he has conclusively shown there exists a retail interest in constitutional government. Setting up of an institute would hopefully increasing the supply of presentable candidate. Paul has shown constitutional libertarians don't have to have beards and dress in flannel. Thanks to his work we all now have a base from which to start building a movement.
Yes, because Ron Paul dropped out and the election is over.
Oh wait...
The people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance are generally the same ones who have the least understanding about libertarianism, capitalism, foreign policy, the Constitution, and the history of this country. They're the ones who can't tell you who people like Marcos P?rez Jim?nez and Suharto are, and have little understand of US foreign policy, let alone for the last 60 years. The only reason Osama Bin Laden, Iran, and Saddam Hussein are names that are familiar to them is because of the media, not because they understand the history of the Middle East and our involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders for despots that didn't support Communism (or human rights, for that matter) They can't tell you the difference between capitalism and corporatism and libertarianism and anarchism. They talk about islamofacism and asymmetric warfare or all the other junk while never asking anyone, "why do we even have these problems in the first place"?
No doubt it has already been answered with, "it's because of religion, or economics, or culture," which is why of course, all Christian, capitalist, nations are facing the same threat that the United States faces today. They reject the notion that if I were to go into your house without your permission, assassinate you, have my way with your wife, beat your kids, and spend your money lavishly while letting your family live in poverty, you would be angry.
No, they say. You would angry at me not because I did that, but because I'm a Christian, or a Muslim. They say that islamofacists who want to rule the world are a big threat, but never ask how that came to be the case. They say, "we're the good guys here." Which is why of course, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone living in the Middle East, they'll foolishly believe that you would side with the US.
AQ: "The United States seeks to rule the world, destroy Islam, seize our wealth, land, and oil, and indeed, destroy Muslims." :Points to the 700 military bases in dozens of countries all over the world, the permanent bases being established in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of troops in the region, the aircraft carriers and battle groups stationed off their coasts, the numerous dictators that came into power after the democratically elected leaders who didn't serve US interests were overthrown by the CIA, the Muslims killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts (among others), and the torture that we perform on prisoners in the name of democracy and liberty, the democratically elected groups that have been declared "terrorist organizations" by the US, and unilateral military actions in the Middle East:
US: "We come to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East!" :Points to the above:
Oh yeah, it takes a real genius to see why the hundreds of "islamofacists" who do want to take over the world (like a few neo cons) have become a huge threat. It's so hard to imagine why it's easy for them to get hundreds of recruits, thousands of dollars in donations, the support of many states (implicitly), and a wide base of followers and believers who are pissed off at us. I mean gosh, why on Earth would anyone believe AQ and be more than happy to fight the infidels in their homeland and abroad? Why on Earth would anyone hate democracy ? The answer, of course, is because theyve seen what democracy brings, no thanks to the United States.
And then, when a man of honor and integrity tries to stand up to that and follow the oath that all of those others guys only paid lip service to, he is "discredited." They call his ideas radical and crazy. They make up rumors and ridiculous statements that anyone who knows Ron Paul worth a damn knows isn't true. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, but he actually believes in following the Constitution despite his views (like his views on abortion). Good lord, that's insane! Following the oath you promised to follow, even if it means not letting your personal feelings about an issue get in the way? Not enforcing a federal pro life law even if you're pro life? CRAZY! And of course, Ron Paul has the voting record to back it up. No matter how many times the allegation has been discredited, it'll keep coming up, just like that famous, "43 times more likely" or "23 times more likely" "statistic" that the Brady Bunch keeps spewing.
But I'll tell you what- his ideas ARE radical and crazy. I mean after all, we haven't followed the Constitution for a very long time. For someone to suggest that and by god, actually put his vote where is mouth is consistently, is crazy. For someone to believe that he can make a difference and restore liberty to the American people, and strength to the dollar, while fighting an establishment that wants to maintain corporatism and government power over the people, you HAVE to be crazy. I mean, when on Earth has an individual ever made a difference in the world?
Whether Ron Paul wins or not, I will support him. And among the many reasons, Ill do it because its right, not because its easy, or because he has no chance.
It's disconcerting, for example, to see him advocating for smaller government, and doing it so badly that he makes it sounds like a bad idea.
Well it certainly is a bad idea to follow the Constitution. It doesn't allow for corporations to use the government to profit at the expense of the people. It doesn't allow for you, me, or anyone else, to enforce our beliefs on everyone else (at least, from a federal standpoint). It limits the power of individuals to control other individuals through force. It sure as hell sounds like a bad idea for most people, because most people love to control other people and force everyone to follow their opinions.
