What did the Ron Paul Revolution really mean?

[RT Winger]

If any of you remember Ron Paul, as I'm sure most of you do, he made a pretty noticeable impact in the 2008 election. Running as the only anti-war Republican candidate, stressing small government and fiscal restraint, he quickly got a large following of supporters and raised a very hefty sum of money (mostly over the internet).

Unfortunately, things didn't go as planned for Dr. Paul, as he didn't manage to make a large enough impact to win a single primary and was never even considered as a top-tier candidate. Ironically enough, after it was obvious that Ron Paul was done, many of his supporters defected to Obama, not John McCain. In the Republican community, most people simply scoffed at his supporters, dubbing them Paultards, and going far as saying that his supporters were fake Republicans (Democrats, essentially, pretending to be Republicans). In the professional field of G.O.P. activists, no one really took him seriously or considered him a threat; the usual outcome when you're an outspoken critic of your party.

I never really took a good look at Ron Paul. Essentially, he had some good ideas. Small government, fiscal responsibility.. all good. Abolishing the IRS, withdrawing from the UN .. impractical. Spending a large chunk of his budget on a large blimp, saying the United States caused 9/11 .. is this guy crazy? However, his small scale success also got me thinking, can his supporters be tapped into for the future of the G.O.P?

The market for a small government, fiscally responsible party exists. Unfortunately, the perception right now is that such a party isn't one of the two viable choices. My hypothesis is that after Paul was nullified, his supporters jumped on the Obama bandwagon because they felt his image, his anti-war, and hope filled rhetoric appealed to them more; and McCain wasn't really running on a small government platform either.

However, can these voters be tapped into later, in a new, rebuilt, small-government focused Republican party? Did Ron Paul really sow the seeds for a new message for the G.O.P? And if that is so, would you support it?

Let me know.

-R. T. Winger

 

[illram]

Isn't small government what the Republicans are supposed to be about anyway? It wouldn't be anything "new." Rather it would be getting back to what the Republicans were supposed to be about. (But haven't actually been doing for a while.)

 

[Arwon]

It taught us that just because people in the internet think something, it doesn't mean everyone else does too.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The blimp may have been a bit out there, but there is nothing crazy about what he said about the U.S.'s role in causing 9/11. He never said that we bare anything close to all the blame, only that our policies have long been the kind of thing that annoys many people in Arab countries and can be used as an excuse to rile up hatred against us. He places the vast majority of the blame with the terrorists themselves and in no way condones their actions, but points out that the best way to prevent more such atrocities is to recognize and rectify what mistakes we have made so as to take away the tools which extremists use to recruit those against us.



The Repuclican Party has pretty much always been pro-business rather than pro-small government. Initially a large protectionist government was seen as the best means to this end, but once enough capital was in the hands of big businesses that government interference would hinder them more than help they switched to being more laissez-faire. This of course attracted the more principled, libertarian elements (including Paul and many before him) to the party, who earnestly believe what Republicans have typically just said to get elected. I'd say they are supposed to be about small government, fiscal responsibility, etc., because I think it would be better if they were and because people who believe their rhetoric do suppose that is their platform, but I don't see much historical fact indicating that there is really anything there to get "back" to. I'm not really sure whether we should try to rehabilitate the Republican party or give third parties a chance.

 

[Neomega]

If you go to the Ron Paul forums, you will find the polls asking if they had to choose.... (ronpaulforums.com)

(which many would not accept) but those that did accept, went about 2 to 1 to John McCain.

furthermore, if you go there now, you'll probably feel quite at home. Which is why I don't anymore. It is thick with haterade of the Obama flavor.

 

[amadeus]

Unfortunately, it was 20 years too late. The man was really in his prime during the '88 election, but was running on a third party ticket against the vice president of one of the most popular leaders of the 20th century.

 

[Perfection]

Pretty sure it was all about the Benjamins.

 

[potatokiosk]

Answer to the question in the title: nothing.

 

[Earthling]

Certainly made that essay on the US Government AP test hella easy.

 

[Abaddon]

Fizzle, nothing. zip

 

[Phlegmak]

Why anybody would want the Republican party to continue existing is beyond me.

 

[Cutlass]

Isn't small government what the Republicans are supposed to be about anyway? It wouldn't be anything "new." Rather it would be getting back to what the Republicans were supposed to be about. (But haven't actually been doing for a while.)

When were they about that for real as opposed to just in rhetoric?

Answer to the OP: Nothing. RP is an idiot. He will have no lasting impact.

 

[Phlegmak]

When were they about that for real as opposed to just in rhetoric?

They were never for in favor of small government.

 

[Bill3000]

Certainly made that essay on the US Government AP test hella easy.

...what was the essay?

The market for a small government, fiscally responsible party exists.

The market for a small government party doesn' really exist. 1/3rd of Republicans are in favor of welfare programs and other big government stuff. There isn't really much of a base for small government; that's merely rhetoric. People in the US want competence, they don't genuinely care about the size of the government. There is no real market for a small government, outside of pro-business proponents taking advantage of social conservative base to pursue their agenda while not fulfilling that of the social conservatives. But pro-business was never about being "small government" - it just so happens that deregulation (a "small government" principle) is in the interest of business.

 

[downtown]

The Ron Paul movement's real legacy will be internet fund raising, not anything ideological.

 

[Bill3000]

The Ron Paul movement's real legacy will be internet fund raising, not anything ideological.

Whose legacy is easily shadowed by Obama.

 

[.Shane.]

For one, the Libertarian mindset as "articulated" by Mr. Paul would make a lot of sense in 1790, but is a bit ****oo in the 21st Century.

That said, one thing you said sticks out, that his followers were "fake Republicans". One of the primary issues for the GOP (and I don't see how they fix this, it seems a part of their marrow) is a horrible intolerance for internal dissent. I'm not sure how they right the ship when they continue to drive out or marginalize the moderates and completely ignore the Libertarian fringe.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

However, his small scale success also got me thinking, can his supporters be tapped into for the future of the G.O.P?

Most of Ron Paul's supporters were, like, 8th graders on the internet who just supported him because it seemed like something cool and non-conformist and all that. They'd probably be made easy victims of your information war.

 

[GoodGame]

However, can these voters be tapped into later, in a new, rebuilt, small-government focused Republican party? Did Ron Paul really sow the seeds for a new message for the G.O.P? And if that is so, would you support it?

Let me know.

-R. T. Winger

If CFC repubs are a good representative sample, then I think, 'yes' relative fiscal conservativism was an issue. Ron Paul and internet libertarians I think spotlighted the issue by leaving the GOP, but I don't think Ron Paul really sowed the seeds of it. I don't think libertarian-style budgeting is really popular, just that the general population was against the major spending issues (e.g. Iraq).
The general vote is probably going to go with the party that is relatively better at manipulating the economy and relatively more fiscally conservative. Libertarianism won't become popular though, because it's just not mainstream culture.

 

[Bill3000]

The general vote is probably going to go with the party that is relatively better at manipulating the economy and relatively more fiscally conservative. Libertarianism won't become popular though, because it's just not mainstream culture.

The general vote is going to go with the party which they believe will aid them economically. This may or may not be fiscally conservativism, and often isn't, considering the populist appeal against corporations and for protectionism.