Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to the right of the republican party?
Thanks, Mio, for raising these questions.
I do not see Ron Paul as a movement toward anything. He is, in my view, a good example of why discussions about ideology must focus on the cause and effect of each specific issue and not on meaningless broad labels.
Each identifiable segment of political philosophy along the infinite political spectrum has its own individual left, right, and center, it’s own version of liberals and conservatives, so to speak. Advocates of every political bent can usually be found in every political party and I find it useless to discuss how one group’s thinking is broadly and indisputably superior to every other. Ron Paul would probably be in the Libertarian Party if not for two factors: his position on abortion and the reality that the Republicans can raise more money to get him elected than the Libertarian Party.
The 2010 Libertarian Party position on abortion is to have no position: “we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” (1) Ron Paul, however, has a clear non-Libertarian position: “I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there.” (2) I happen to agree with Ron Paul on this issue. Therefore, if I use the lazy jargon of political labels, I might say we are both on the right of the right on this issue and on the right of the left on others, which could also be on the left of the right too, I guess. I love the way “left” and “right” makes everything so clear.
I do not understand what you mean by “pseudo independents.” Is that a new label? I find most so called “independents” are free thinking voters marching to the beat of their own drum and refusing to be tethered to any one party’s view of the world.
Thanks for considering my opinions. Enjoy the evening.
(this is basically what you said, but in different terms)
The issue with a "broad spectrum" with regards to the "left" and the "right" is that you're measuring something that has 100+ variables on a system than can only measure 1!
Left and right fall in one dimension, and thus can only truly measure one variable.
However, in politics, there are countless variables. Liberty, economics, values, religion, and the thousands of mini-variables found inside each one.
thank you for your comment it's obvious that you love politics and i really value your opinions very much.I guess i wasn't able to articulate what i meant by pseudo independents, what i was trying to say is that a lot of people claim to be independent but they are really not,they are just extremists within either the republican party or the democratic partyfor example Lou Dobbs claims to be an independent, he even calls himself Mr independent but come on,if you listen to him for 5 minutes he'll be defending anything republican and attacking anything democrat,there are people like that on the other side also.I am a Democrat, there are some issues where i agree with conservatives , others i agree with libertarians,anarquists, and socialists,I guess if i wanted to be cute about it I could call myself independent but i think a real independent is someone who considers mainly issues individually and has his own position on each issue regardless of which party has the same position or not.
Hello again, Mio.
Thank you for taking time to respond. I believe I understand your point. Some voters claim they are independents but they follow the marching orders of just one party. Conversely, some members of every party refuse to allow their party to think for them. This is the main reason why I encourage discussing the causes and effects of specific issues and despise the useless distractions that come from political labels.Your statement confuses me, however, because you seem to be making my point for me. Within these few sentences, you have labeled yourself a Democrat and a closet Conservative, Libertarian, anarchist, Socialist Independent. If you, like most intelligent voters, do not blindly follow the Democratic Party banner then why not dispense with that label and all the others altogether? Eliminate labels and political discussions become an analysis of the specific facts regarding the issues instead of lame replies like, “I’m right and you’re wrong because you’re just another _________ (fill in the political label of your choice).
Thanks, Mio, for contributing to the thread.
well, let me explain,I define myself as a democrat because since I have become a citizen some years ago I have always voted for a democratic candidate,I have volunteered several times to help democratic candidates,and because of the position taken by the republican party regarding illegal immigration which is a cause that almost makes me a one issue voter I couldn't even consider voting for a republican candidate.So as a practical matter, and because politics is the art of what's possible of the two parties that can be in government in this country I vote and support the party that I understand will be overall more in concordance with my ideals.on a number of issues I find myself in agreement with conservatives, socialists or what have you only because I am not a brainwashed democrat nor do I believe that everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong ,I may be wrong, they may be right,but the fact that i agree on punctual issues doesn't mean I'm a closet anything I make the conscious decision to only give my vote to empower those who will if not benefit at least not attack ,demonize and try to expel those who i believe to be the weakest link in our society , the powerless, and almost voiceless illegal aliens of whom I was one.by the way this dialogue with you is very enriching and appreciated.
Ron Paul has a movement that wants an electable candidate with libertarian views.
The reason why he's such a phenomenon is that Americans haven't been given a real choice in politics for some hundred years or so. Now that an HONEST politician with INTEGRITY has held to his principles for SO long in this bloated and corrupt system; now that this honest politician has the cajones to get in front of the media and insult it; now that this honest politician has the gall to get up in front of his own party and call them dangerous...
it's REAL change that we can believe in.
He wouldn't launch a third party because his views are SO similar to Libertarianism. Many of his political views come from "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard.
Hi, Evan. Have you forgotten that Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 and lost, or are you just hoping everyone else has? So much for “Americans haven't been given a real choice in politics for some hundred years or so.”
What you admire are actually acts of political stupidity. A rational candidate with practical aspirations to lead his country does not trash the media or his party. Look at Richard Nixon. An individual who believes he can overcome the political forces that exist within and beyond our borders with just his honesty and integrity is doomed to loose his cajones in the process.
The whole thing reminds me of Eugene McCarthy. I'm sure you remember him
I fail to see how Nixon was a good metaphor for Ron Paul.
Nixon was corrupt.
In a way you are correct, Evan. Nixon was caught!
However, I can see now why my comparison of Ron Paul and Richard Nixon is unclear. I intended to imply both alienated the media and both acted in a manner contrary to the collective interests of their party. Perhaps I stretched too far by characterizing Nixon’s being caught burglarizing the offices of the Democratic Party as being similar to Paul’s having “the gall to get up in front of his own party and call them dangerous.” You may not agree both actions hurt their respective political careers but I see both acts as examples of political stupidity.
I think Ron Paul is an honest principled man,to reach the top in politics not always but most of the time you have to be the dirtiest player in the game( I MEAN THIS IN A GOOD WAY) and RP is not.
I agree that, in the current game of politics, what Ron Paul is doing is probably "stupid".
But look at what this "stupidity" has done:
It has awoken a fire that has laid dormant for decades in the minds of people. It has launched a revolution, millions of people who can quote the Constitution by heart. His "stupidity" has reminded us of SERIOUS flaws in our structure. He has become a lightning rod for a legion who won't take corruption as an option.
It might be politically stupid, but it's stupid like a fox.
What's the phrase? "As wise as an owl; as cunning as a snake."
Hi Evan. I hope you are doing well today.
Thank you for recognizing his stupidity. Apparently, you believe “his ‘stupidity’ has reminded us of SERIOUS flaws in our structure” is a good reason to elect him as the leader of the free world. However, I do not think his “stupidity” is more important that his inability to lead. However, I will pass on that one.
I could never advocate for a man who would allow businesses to have separate lunch counters and water fountains. In fact, I am very interested in reading how you would feel if you lived in a country with different rules for different races.
Have a good day, Evan, and enjoy it when you can. I hear the demand for a good day exceeds the supply.
This is a very interesting topic. I have never liked politics and have stayed clear for many years until the last few years when topics have been arising about more push into One World Order, the FEMA camps, and the chip. There is so much corruption and negitivity in our government that voting for a president is not an easy decision due to the choices made in our country after elected. And the question "Did I vote for the right person to run this country?". I have actually been paying alot more attention to politics even tho I still dont agree with them. These political topics are very interesting and helpful to know more about those running for office so I am informed more of what I have been avoiding for so long. Thank you.
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
I just had to share this WTF? Ron Paul supporter moment. I was in a store called Sacred Space in Durango, CO the other afternoon.The proprietress is a seer/healer. Does readings. Sells crystals and tinctures/herbs and...
by icountthetimes6 years ago
Do you think there's still a chance that someone other than Romney or Gingrich will emerge and become the Republican nominee. Both Romney and Gingrich both have good, but not spectacular levels of support, and there is...
by Mark Lees4 years ago
Do you feel current party political systems are truly democratic?Party political systems are dominant in nearly all western democracies but does the limit of choosing from a small selection of parties represent true...
by kirstenblog6 years ago
I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.htmlThe story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana,...
by ptosis19 months ago
If Trump & Clinton are so despised then why not vote third party?The Founding Fathers were vehemently against a national party (faction) system, especially a two-party model. 2016 3rd party Prez...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.