'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

[MicroBalrog]

"And I'll put a big fence around the US, pull all of our forces home, and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist!"

If we forget the fact America NEEDS a fence on its borders (a physical and metaphorical fence), and if we forget the fact there are quite a few countries (starting with the one I live in) that need to have their aid cut off, Ron Paul was still right more often than he was wrong. I'm not sure whether doing away with the FBI entirely is something Ron Paul preached, I'd think America would be a better place without a BATFDEALPHASOUP.

I believe I explained my attitude towards this previously. Ron Paul was better than the guy who actually got nominated on taxes, spending, civil rights, the Constitution (the one, all-important issue), guns, etc. etc. and wrong only on currency (if I am to accept your economic views) and foreign policy (though not entirely).

I do not claim - nor did I ever - that Ron Paul was somehow special. The Constitution is special. Any candidate, no matter what fursuits his supporters wear, what they mint his face on, or whether he believes in conspiracy theories, could work marvels if he just had the fortitude to stick to the Constitution, veto everything that is not authorized by it, and use the power of executive orders and pardons to get the various agencies of the Federal Government to toe the line.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It is sad that the policies Ron Paul espouses are probably the only true chance to save the Republic as we know it, yet he is not electable because he won't blow the sunshine of Hope, Change, and Unity up the skirts of the masses.

It's not that he won't do the the HopeChangeUnity thing.  It's that he's utterly clueless about how the political process works.  All he's ever managed to do is register a few protest votes in the House and attract a few fanatical followers on the internet.  He is antagonistic to everyone else in the congress, to the point that he'll never be able to convince any other congressmen to go along with him on any proposal at all. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If adding Hitler to a thread is a "Godwin", what should we call it when folks interject Ron Paul as the Demi-god fix all of American politics?

We really do need a term for that, don't we?

Howsabout we call it "Paulwinning", as opposed to "Godwinning"?

[MicroBalrog]

It's not that he won't do the the HopeChangeUnity thing.  It's that he's utterly clueless about how the political process works.  All he's ever managed to do is register a few protest votes in the House and attract a few fanatical followers on the internet.  He is antagonistic to everyone else in the congress, to the point that he'll never be able to convince any other congressmen to go along with him on any proposal at all. 

Do you have anything to back up that statement? Like, memories of guys who've worked with him in Congress (and who are not Dondero)?

This is not an argument per se, I'm just genuinely curious.

A President can be an engine of change even while not working with Congress.

[ShortTimer]

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

Closer to reality day by day.  It'll be worth it to watch and see what happens with this miracle material.

---
Been lurking for a long time & couldn't pass this one up.

[BMacklem]

And yet Ron Paul seems to get re-elected.

And perhaps the fact that he manages to annoy all the other senators is a good thing, as the whole lot of them haven't seemed to do the country much good for the past 80+ years.
His ideas are a tad radical, and his followers are loons (not all of them mind you, as he's got enough clout to get re-elected), but there's enough good in his policies that we NEED in this country right now.

Granted it's all a moot point at the moment, as we have to put up with Obama, unless there's enough backlash from all the scandals to get him out of office (Hopefully before he can even take it), but this country needs to stop spending all the aid to other countries, and focus on getting our own house in order.
It's not a popular position with some here, but we need to stop sticking our noses into other countries affairs, get our economy in order (perhaps by getting the dollor worth something again with a gold standard), and get the government out of our lives.

THAT is why I like the man.
Are you calling me a loon because I like that about his plan?

Atlas Shugged is something I haven't finished reading yet, but what I have read of it so far, it's EXTREMELY scary how true things seem to have become reality at this point, and the only way we are going to prevent it from happening further is to get government out of our lives and start following the constitution again.
Ron Paul seems to be the only polititian who seems to understand that the founders wanted government to be kept in check. That is why I brought his name up.

[slugcatcher]

Do you have anything to back up that statement? Like, memories of guys who've worked with him in Congress (and who are not Dondero)?

This is not an argument per se, I'm just genuinely curious.

A President can be an engine of change even while not working with Congress.

Several local Congressmen were on local (Houston) talk radio during the election. None would speak ill of him "on the record". However I have spoken to and have had friends that have spoken to our local respective congressmen in the past and they have essentially said what HTG stated. He is also known by his fellow congressmen for adding pork to bills and voting against them when he knows they will pass just so he can say he voted against unconstitutional spending.

[MicroBalrog]

He is also known by his fellow congressmen for adding pork to bills and voting against them when he knows they will pass just so he can say he voted against unconstitutional spending.

That I know of.

That, however, doesn't seem like the mark of a man who doesn't know how the process works.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you want a one sentence explanation, it'd go something like this:  Ron Paul seems pathologically unable to work well with others, so he never ever gets anything accomplished.

For more thorough explanation, you need to watch politics play out here for a while.  There's no simple explanation, but let's just say that how you vote in congress is the least of what you do as a congressman.  A single vote doesn't pass a law.  Unless a particular bill comes down to a tie, your own personal vote doesn't mean squat.  The real meat of the job lies in influencing the political process, getting lots of other people to join your side so that everyone else in congress votes the way you want them to.

There's a huge difference between voting on a bill and making a bill pass (or fail).  Ron Paul does the former, serious heavyweight politicians (Bush, Obama, McCain, Reid, Feinstein, etc) do the latter.

Edit:  When I speak of the "political process", I don't mean the parliamentary process, the rules and procedures by which the congress operates on a day-to-day basis.  I mean politics, how the various political forces move and change and interact, and how politicians maneuver within that dynamic and attempt to influence it.

[MicroBalrog]

...wait, you really thought I didn't know these things?

I know - I think everybody knows - that the process isn't just about voting.
You tell me Ron Paul doesn't know that, despite being a Congressman for 20 years.

Can you show me some eyewitness account, some article, something to actually back that up?

P.S.  That is now academic, but, again, even without knowing any of these things, a theoretical President Paul (or any person with vaguely the same views, I'm not too hung up on RP as a person) could work as an agent of change even without the cooperation of Congress.

As I said before:

If someone like that ever becomes the Presidential candidate of a major party (speak not of being ELECTED), it's going to be like hitting 88 miles per hour.

You're gonna see some serious *expletive deleted*it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I dunno.  I don't look to articles or other people's accounts to form my own opinions.  I look to my own observations and opinions.  I think there's some publication that ranks politicians according to their effectiveness.  I'll have to try to remember what it is.

My own observation is that Ron Paul can't get any of his policy viewpoints made into law.  He can't even get other people's views to start leaning towards his own.  I can't recall ever seeing an instance when he was able to make a difference, however slight, in how any particular bill turned out. 

My impression of him is that he sits in the corner and let's it all pass him by, content to issue his impotent little protest votes and get lauded on the internet.

Can you show me some eyewitness account, some article, something to actually back that up?

P.S.  That is now academic, but, again, even without knowing any of these things, a theoretical President Paul (or any person with vaguely the same views, I'm not too hung up on RP as a person) could work as an agent of change even without the cooperation of Congress.

As I said before:

If someone like that ever becomes the Presidential candidate of a major party (speak not of being ELECTED), it's going to be like hitting 88 miles per hour.

You're gonna see some serious *expletive deleted*it.

We'll never know.  Policy views aside, people who can't play the game of politics don't get elected President.

[MicroBalrog]

In my view, RP can't get any of his viewpoints made into law simply because the other few hundred guys simply aren't as much into freedom and individual rights as he is.  But, again, you're making what I think is a very outlandish claim - that a man who's been hanging out with Presidents and Senators for decades has no clue about the political process.

Regardless, as I've pointed out three times already, it's not very relevant to my main claim.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

In my view, RP can't get any of his viewpoints made into law simply because the other few hundred guys simply aren't as much into freedom and individual rights as he is.  But, again, you're making what I think is a very outlandish claim - that a man who's been hanging out with Presidents and Senators for decades has no clue about the political process.

Ok, then let me adjust my earlier statement.  Perhaps Ron Paul knows how the political process works.  But for whatever reason, he doesn't act on that knowledge.

Regardless, as I've pointed out three times already, it's not very relevant to my main claim.

I've no idea what you main claim was.  You asked me why I thought Ron Paul was bad at politics.  I've explained why.

[jackdanson]

Ok, then let me adjust my earlier statement.  Perhaps Ron Paul knows how the political process works.  But for whatever reason, he doesn't act on that knowledge.

What specifically do you mean by this statement?  His views are not popular with other lawmakers because they LIMIT said lawmakers power.

I'm no huge paul fan, but I probably agreed with him on more issues than any other candidate.  I'm not sure what you mean by "how the political process works".

[Strings]

The problem isn't with any particular politician, or party, or the media. Honestly, the problem is with the average voter.

 Think of politicians (and the media, for that matter) as a typical teenager. They're gonna push their limits, testing the boundries of what they can get away with. So long as the voting public (their "parents") don't put their foot down and say "ENOUGH!", they (the politicians) will keep pushing.

 In the case of the US, the "parents" have pretty much stopped coming home at night, preferring instead to sit at the bar with their friends. And when someone DOES point out what the "kids" are up to, our general response is to shrug and order another beer (nevermind the house is burning down).

 Election cycle before last, there were two referendums on the ballot here in WI: a vote to bring back the death penalty, and a resolution against gay marriage. Both went overwhelmingly conservative ("yes" to the death penalty, "no" to gay marriage). However, the majority of the elections (including the governor's) went liberal. Basically, the voters said they want conservative policies, but want liberals to enact them. Pointing this out, to MANY people, was a waste of breath.

 And it's only going to get worse...

[Monkeyleg]

Strings, you're talking about the 2006 elections, and I think your analysis is a little bit off.

The Republicans put the the death penalty and gay marriage referendums on the ballot thinking that it would bring out more conservatives in an off-year election. I guess these guys didn't pay attention in their Poli Sci classes, because the goal in any election for conservatives is to suppress turnout.

The referendums had the effect of getting people to the polls who opposed gay marriage and supported the death penalty. The problem is that a lot of these voters were conservative Democrats who otherwise would have stayed home.

That's why Proposition 8 in California benefited from high Obama turnout, especially amongst blacks. Contrary to popular perception, blacks tend to be socially conservative, and the high black turnout helped Proposition 8 pass.

[Balog]

The problem isn't with any particular politician, or party, or the media. Honestly, the problem is with the average voter.

 Think of politicians (and the media, for that matter) as a typical teenager. They're gonna push their limits, testing the boundries of what they can get away with. So long as the voting public (their "parents") don't put their foot down and say "ENOUGH!", they (the politicians) will keep pushing.

 In the case of the US, the "parents" have pretty much stopped coming home at night, preferring instead to sit at the bar with their friends. And when someone DOES point out what the "kids" are up to, our general response is to shrug and order another beer (nevermind the house is burning down).

That is an amazing analogy. I've never heard it quite like that, but I think it's a damn near perfect description.

[MicroBalrog]

I've no idea what you main claim was.  You asked me why I thought Ron Paul was bad at politics.  I've explained why.

My general claim is threefold:

1.Ron Paul isn't magical. He's not The Man Who Can Save Us, because anybody like that who became President could 'save us'.
2.Ron Paul is a bit weird. Which is completely immaterial, because anybody who's willing to try and go into mainstream politics to promote ideas as radical (and RP is a radical) has to have a tinge of wacky going.
3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.

[Tallpine]

We're about to hit 88 mph all right - right off the end of the tracks and into a deep canyon 

[Scout26]

Ron Paul, right ideas, wrong package..... This is America, it's all about marketing and product presentation.

His supporters are more of a liability then an asset.   

[Balog]

My general claim is threefold:

1.Ron Paul isn't magical. He's not The Man Who Can Save Us, because anybody like that who became President could 'save us'.
2.Ron Paul is a bit weird. Which is completely immaterial, because anybody who's willing to try and go into mainstream politics to promote ideas as radical (and RP is a radical) has to have a tinge of wacky going.
3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.

Yeah, and if I had 10 million dollars I could just stick it in a money market and live off the interest!

[MicroBalrog]

It's a matter of effort.

[Balog]

It's a matter of effort.

Which no one on the fringe seems to want to make.

I wish I could see the Libertarians or a similar party field viable candidates. But they refuse to start at the bottom and work their way up. People on the fringe are often their because they refuse to acknowledge the reality of the process and try to use it to their advantage.

[MicroBalrog]

This is very simple.

The point I'm trying to make to conservatives is that a candidate like Ron is what benefits THEM, too.

Even if he's only nominated and doesn't win. The benefits would be worth losing one election.

[slugcatcher]

RP knows the political process. He chooses to not take part in it. That would take effort on his part. He cannot and will not work with anyone in Congress even members that are very conservative. He's happy to collect his check and not do a damn thing that matters to try to save this country unless it fits his very narrow view of libertarianism. This never seems to happen.