 |
What If Ron Paul’s Wrong? |
 |
Much is made of Ron Paul’s principles. This is the one thing his supporters continually point to when explaining his greatness. And indeed, they’re right. Ron Paul has principles and he stands up for them unfailingly. His nickname in the House of Representatives is Dr. No. He has never voted for one appropriations bill (though curiously, he does submit his own amendments to those bills). He lives and votes as he talks. He practices what he preaches.
But here’s the rub: Do we want an utterly uncompromising individual as President? George Bush is famously uncompromising too. In fact, one could argue that his biggest blunder as President has been holding onto obviously failed ideologies. While not his original sin, certainly his steadfastness - for which he was elected - has compounded the problem in Iraq and led to non-existent approval ratings, a humanitarian crisis, and a party in deep trouble. All caused by an unwillingness to compromise.
Certainly, we don’t want a President who changes his tune every time a new wind is blowing in America. One cannot predict what situations a President will encounter over the course of a term, and so we need to at least partially vote on principles. However, America may put too much faith in the uncompromising politician. The term “flip-flopper” is much more stinging than “stubborn” in the media echo chamber. If we elected Bush because he wasn’t a flip-flopper, where has that gotten us?
Ron Paul’s policies are not George Bush’s. That much is clear. However, what if Ron Paul gets elected? And then, what if he’s wrong?
Take, for example, Paul’s advocacy for the gold standard. His plan - as I heard him tell it at the Robert Taft Club a couple months ago - is to introduce a gold-backed currency to compete with the fiat dollar, confident that gold will out-compete paper. What if Paul is so good at selling this idea that it actually happens? What if America goes back to the gold standard under a Paul presidency, and then shit starts to hit the fan? As our economy sinks because Paul’s emphasis on gold sparks a modern day gold rush and deflates gold’s value, will he back down? Do you think Dr. No in this situation would compromise, come to the American people, and say, “I’m sorry. I was wrong. I’m backing down”?
I don’t. And that’s dangerous.
Paul has a stellar record of no compromises. That works great when you’re running for President, especially against a bunch of the bad kind of flip-floppers, but what happens if Paul is wrong? What if he eliminates the FDA and people start dying? What happens if he eliminates the IRS and our roads and bridges start crumbling? Any voter looking to cast his or her lot with Paul should ask themselves this question: If Paul is wrong, will he compromise?
Wouldn’t a rush on gold increase its value? Supply and demand, basic economic principle.
Perhaps more importantly: what if he is right?
Good article by the way. I disagree—but you made good points. Ron says, himself, that he is not running to be a dictator. He would have Congress to deal with and they would overturn lots of his vetos. And I’m okay with that. He is the only candidate that would seek to end the influence of the military industrial complex PERIOD. As regards gold standard, I’ve heard him say that he realizes that this would take about 15 years. Seems to me that Ron Paul would offer some sanity in the White House even if you don’t agree w/ everything. No doubt things would be different—but I’d say it’s better than Bush’s plan for WWIII!
I think the principle Ron Paul is standing up for is compromise itself. The constitution is a document about states making their own decisions and pursuing their own policies. Are they going to be some who do it better than others? Of course - but that just serves as an example to the ones who didn’t do so well.
In so far as the gold standard, providing an optional alternative is a little bit different than autocratically forcing new policy on everyone all of a sudden. Again, if people have a choice there will be winners and losers.
What he doesn’t compromise on is allowing states to have those sorts of choices. In many ways, Ron Paul is the exact opposite of these “all or nothing” politicians we’ve been cursed with for so many decades.
As another commentor mentioned, Dr Paul is quite aware he can’t make everything he wants to happen, happen. He, unlike Bush, realizes the American President is NOT a dictator. Do you think Hillary has that same assumption? *chuckles*
You’re asking the wrong question though. Actually, it’s your premise that is flawed. You’re under the assumption that we require the FEDERAL government to solve our woes.
If you look to the Constitution you see that our framers knew we were a diverse group of people. Why don’t we get back to that idea instead of grouping all of us as needing hand holding from the federal government.
I’d prefer not to have another Katrina-like failure, tyvm. If local governments were not lead to believe that the federal government would bail them out, perhaps we could have a decent safety net - a LOCAL one!
Doctor Paul is a published economist who believes in the emergent properties of competition in the marketplace to find economies of scale and weed out inefficient or insecure solutions.
It’s not that he necessarily advocates a single new gold-backed currency, but that he would eliminate the stranglehold federal reserve dollars (the only allowed legal tender) have on the economy and allow private industry to create and market new currencies. Think about a virtual economy based on Linden dollars from Second Life, or on gold, or on silver, or even on energy credits or carbon credits. Allowing different niche market places to use competing currencies makes for a more complicated system than we have one, but one that is not rife for abuse by a secretive federal reserve which has created the currently housing bust and dollar inflation that we see.
From what I have read, Paul’s goal isn’t to get rid of all taxation, his goal is to get rid of the federal income tax for non-corporations. As far as I know, the income tax paid to the IRS by you and I is not used for anything other than to pay back the interest on the debt we owe to the Federal Reserve. It does not build bridges, fund schools, or pay police and firemen.
Financial crashes have gotten worse since the introduction of fiat money. Contrary to popular belief the Federal Reserve has actually made the markets less stable. The gold standard would create greater stability and even allow people to “save” currency without being raped by inflation.
I think Paul is one of the few that WILL compromise.
I think Paul is one of the few that will admit mistakes and actually apologize for them and try to set things right again. Just look at what he wants to do with our failed foreign policy to understand that.
I really appreciate this article though. Even though I support Paul, I do question everything he says. You MUST do that to everyone.
What if he’s wrong? What if he’s wrong? If he’s wrong that Thomas Jefferson was wrong. Ron Paul is not advocating anything novel, he is advocating a RETURN to the principals of the constitution. I’m not afraid of what Ron Paul proposes because I’ve seen how great they made this country historically.
What if we don’t elect Dr. Paul?
What will my children do with a $15 trillion debt and $60 trillion in unfunded social programs?
What 3rd world country will my boys, who are 11 and 8 now, die in after being drafted?
What will the dollar be worth once Saudi Arabia stops making other countries convert to USD to pay them for oil?
What country will we have to travel to, to get medical treatment once national health care is forced on us? Where will the Canadians go for health care?
I’ll take my chances with Dr. Paul. I don’t think he is stubborn as you described. One of his motto’s is, ‘If I make the wrong diagnosis as a doctor, I have to change it or I can be sued’. He uses that in reference to our foreign policy and I feel he is humble enough to follow his own advice.
Luckily, it seems he has been right about a lot of issues.
The difference between Paul and every other candidate is that Paul is guided by the constitution whereas all the other candidates pull their positions out of poll numbers and pragmatism. If there is a need for war, Paul will ask congress to declare it. He will not abolish the FED, just legalize alternate currencies. He will not cut off social security, but allow young people to opt out. He advocates choices, not authoritarian rule.
Paul supports free markets. After reinstituting a gold currency private business would introduce silver coins, platinum ones, heck, anything. With computers we can trade and derive market value for each of these things. The problem is the Fed’s monopoly on money and money policy. Paul proposes making something money, the Fed would have money remain nothing but theoretical. Right now a dollar is the word for a relationship: the Fed note is a promise by the Fed to produce a US Treasury bond of equivalent face value, and the US Treasury bond is a promise by the Government to produce Fed notes of equivalent value at some point in the future. It’s a giant scam folks, and any level of honesty has to be better.
So what if he is wrong?
If he is right, then the country will be much better off..
If he’s wrong, then may mean that the Constitution needs a major revamp..
I don’t see how either one is a problem…
Ron Paul also has an amazing record of approval for legislation he’s introduced. Can anyone name a single bill that he’s introduced to the house that’s passed, and what it was? As president he’d be able to recommend legislation, but without the votes of his peers, which he traditionally hasn’t had, that’s worthless.
Your comment: “As our economy sinks because Paul%u2019s emphasis on gold sparks a modern day gold rush and deflates gold%u2019s value” INDICATES you don’t have an economic background. That comment doesn’t pass the sniff test. Nixon took us off the gold standard so the U.S. could continue spending, based simply upon the Goodwill our currency developed overseas. We don’t have much Goodwill anymore, and inflation has been an increasing problem ever since. I don’t remember our 3% borrowing interest rate being a concern in the late 60’s.
I’ve heard Ron Paul state that his first priority with the monetary system is not to switch to the gold standard, but simply to repeals laws that make it illegal to use any “currency” other than the U.S. dollar as a means of exchange. Private banks will make their own standard of exchange and at some point the U.S. dollar will become irrelevant.
Also keep in mind that freedom is the goal of Ron Paul’s ideology, not some utilitarian measure of success. Individuals will be the ultimate masters of their own destinies, and that does mean that some people will make “bad” choices. The fact that some people make “bad” choices is natural, and it will not be an indication of failure of Ron Paul’s policies thought some will try to paint it that way.
Ron Paul will the first to admits he isn’t perfect.
But his record of keeping his word and doing what he says he stands for is excellent, and far better than anyone else I know about.
I trust that if Ron Paul makes a mistake, he’ll correct it ASAP.
He has been my Congrtessional hero since 1984. I wish all politicians had his integrity.
Ron Paul is an advocate of the US Constitution, which is a document drafted on the assumption that men are not perfect and that power corrupts. Check-and-balances, and a limited federal government are the exact prescription to allay fears that those whom we put in charge may get it wrong.
Also, people die even when there is FDA. The last FDA commissioner is currently in jail for bribary. China has an FDA that has more than 10 times as many officials as our FDA, and their food and drugs are more dangerous than hours. For what it’s worth, their last FDA chief was shot (as in judicial execution) after being convicted of bribe-taking involving about 1/10 the amount of money that our guy has been put in jail for. So, as you can see, FDA officialdom doesn’t seem to be correlated to food/drug safety; nor is harshness of official corruption much of a cure in the real world.
As for road and bridges, IRS does not contribute to that. Road and bridges are paid by gasoline taxes. If you read the numbers carefully, you’d realize that the primary purpose of IRS is collecting interest payment on government debt. Total personal income tax collection very closely match interest payment on federal debt. It’s not exactly a co-incidence: both Internal Revenue Act and Federal Reserve Act were passed in 1913 to collaborate with each other. IRS acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes is what make the paper printed by the Federal Reserve “legal tender.”
I love the argument where you point to one corrupt government official and China and somehow conclude the FDA isn’t doing any good.
If you look at the back history on Aspartame, and look at it’s initial failures and subsequent influence and palm greasing by Rumsfeld that got the substance approved by the FDA you should come to the conclusion if anyone can influence the policy on such an organization even when the substance accounts for 80 % of all complaints in the food supply, that this would mean that the organization doesn’t have the people’s interest at heart.
Furthermore, you want to talk about the FDA not doing any good? Have you looked into genetically modified food much? There have been a great number of things that have been produced, placed on shelves, caused problems and been pulled. What has the FDA done about this? Nothing. The FDA DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY TESTING WHATSOEVER OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD. It’s also not a requirement to label the food as being GM. Thanks FDA! Way to look out for my health.
Things like soybeans and other crops are being genetically modified to be resistant to chemicals like round up for obvious farming reasons. The result is we get our food doused in chemicals regularly before it’s shipped to the store and to top it off this food has been modified with genes that are designed to infiltrate it’s target and take it over with this new genetic code. The scientists involved worked to their desired result, to get this food to the point where it would achieve the desired result… but what happens when you eat these genes? The genes that caused the modification in the first place were designed to be promiscuous. Do you honestly think that these genetic modifications somehow just stop after they achieved the initial result in the food and will not have an affect on the people? How do you know this? Blind trust? … That’s about all you have when the FDA doesn’t require testing and labeling of GM food.
Also, I think the point here isn’t that the FDA isn’t doing any good, it’s just that the criteria used in their decision making processes (influence, money, and job opportunities) aren’t necessarily the criteria that should be taken into account when making decisions about the food supply.
What if you are wrong Jason? Will you change?
1) “We cannot predict what situations a President will encounter over the course of a term” so Jason we need to both know his principles and we need to know he always acts on them. Score one for Ron Paul.
2) “As our economy sinks because Paul%u2019s emphasis on gold sparks a modern day gold rush and deflates gold%u2019s value”… then in that case you and I are still free to hold green paper money if we wish. Freedom is a good thing, Score two for Paul.
3) “What if he eliminates the FDA and people start dying?”…You must mean, President Ron Paul, the House & the Senate amazingly (a miracle really) get this done, then learn that people are dying. Why not suppose another miracle? The FDA is privatized, the FDA’s Stamp is the only one trusted by 99.9% of Americans, thus company’s comply with FDA standards just to get the private stamp. The UL label has been this successful, why not one for drugs? Don’t you know a doctor’s insurance requires the private FDA stamp of approval before they insure? Yes, the its another miracle of the Free Market. Gee, I love miracles, don’t you?
4) “What happens if he eliminates the IRS and our roads and bridges start crumbling?” Wow, another miracle! The House, the Senate, and the President all together get rid of the IRS and the income tax. Wow! What a boon! Gee, I can see it now, all those firms in China coming back to America to produce again, and the jobs! Wow! Good jobs too! The Unions would be so pleased! Oh, you asked about the freeways and bridges didn’t you. First, find out how freeways and bridges are paid for, you will be very surprised I am sure. Take a guess! Your Income tax pays for the interest on the debt, thats it. Federal reserve bankers love you! Don’t you feel the love? Jason, you are a clever guy, do think there is another way to fund State and federal freeways and bridges? A State lottery? A federal lottery? How about privatization? wooooow, now that would be so coool. I can see it now, commercials saying, “Drive I-10 today, from the West Coast to the East Coast, just type in your destination in your on board navigation system, and our digitized networked high tech freeways will get you there FAST and SAFE! Leave the driving to us! Turn on the auto pilot and relax with your friends and family. Drive I-10 today! Rates begin at .75 cents per mile to $2.95 cents per mile during high peak hours of 4-6pm” So leave the driving to us, we want to get you there fast and safe! Our bottom-line depends on it! Drive I-10 today!”
I think you missed my point. It doesn’t matter what specific examples I choose, what if Paul’s wrong? Will he back down?
I mean, hey, if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But I’m just a blogger. If Paul’s wrong, he’s still the leader of the free world. He’s the one who would be President, and so I need to know he’ll compromise if he’s wrong. I just don’t think Dr. No will ever compromise.
How can you argue with someone like this? Clearly he has a set mind that Dr. No will not compromise, no matter how it is pointed out to him the things Dr. No has said. If Ron Paul himself said, “I will compromise, Jason” (actually he DID as another poster pointed out) Jason will just say “no… I think he’s lying. Dr. No will not compromise”
You are a waste of time, Jason. Why ask the question in the first place if you already know the answer? Just go vote for whatever socialist you want to vote for and shut up. Trying to attack Ron Paul on a series of stupid, inaccurate, and purely hypothetical scenarios (that you are absolutely convinced WILL happen) is just plain stupid.
I must have missed that comment, can you point me to a link with Ron Paul saying he’d compromise. Honestly, I’m not out to be “right” if the facts are against me. That said, I did my own research before writing this post and I couldn’t find an instance where Ron Paul said he would compromise. Please, by all means, give me a source to look into.
Check his evolving position on the death penalty, he actually changed his mind because of the rise in exonerations from DNA evidence. I got some finals though, do some source searching after the exams.
Here is the ultimate issue regarding Freedom as a policy versus anything else. If Ron Paul is wrong, your free to do something else. Take the Gold standard for instance. Ron Paul wants to allow for competing currencies, so that means you can chose to accept money that is backed by gold or your can choose and alternative. If the Gold money proves too unstable or undesirable for some other reason, your free to trade it in for something else. You don’t have to hope and pray the Government is wise enough to make the correct decision for you, you can make it whenever you feel like it. Worst case scenario, we have a small recession just before everyone wises up. Considering actual history though, Gold standards tend to be perfectly stable so long as there are no fixed exchange rates, which really defeat the point of the gold standard any way.
Honestly, Ron Paul is more sensitive to your concerns then any other candidate, and actually to me as well. This is evident it his support of states rights. Right now we have a system of “one size fits all” in regards to most issues. having states make thier own choices on things such as rights will mean less fear of getting it wrong for the whole country.
I’m not sure you’ve completely thought through your critique. For example, what if he’s wrong about the IRS. What if he abolishes it and then we figure out, well, wow, the IRS actually does perform a great function. Perhaps we’ll discover that as Americans, we actually want the federal government to provide the services that it does with the money it collects with the IRS. If Paul is wrong (and please don’t debate the merits of my example, that’s not the point), would he back down and re-set up the IRS? I don’t think he would.
Surely you don’t think that Paul would amass so much power in 4 (or
years that he’ll be able to unilaterally dismantle the federal public sector? Despite his position, I doubt Paul will be able to do any more than balance the budget via expenditure cuts - which is no mean feat. I mean, it comes down to idealism vs realpolitiks. The public sector employs a LOT of people - the IRS alone almost 90000. And unlike Bush’s encroachment of civil liberties, people will react to being out of work. Even if he doesn’t back down, he’ll be out-vetoed by a hostile congress, or voted out, or overthrown in a socialist revolution (god help us…).
The thing about this is that Ron Paul doesn’t have absolute power as President. The Congress would have to pass legislation enacting a competing gold-backed currency. The Congress would have to pass Legislation abolishing the FDA. Ron Paul couldn’t do any of this hisself.
Ron Paul would have the veto pen so it is possible that if for example the FDA was shut down with Congress’s approval and then it turned out that most agreed it was a bad idea to do this, Congress would then have to pass legislation permitting some new federal department regulating food and drugs. Then Dr. No might veto it. Then it would go back to the house and senate and they would need 2/3 of either house to override the veto. So if there was a serious issue that was clear cut enough that everyone in Congress was right and Dr. Paul was wrong, then we would get another FDA.
I think Ron Paul is right but the changes he proposes would need to exist for awhile before we could do a good job judging their effectiveness. Ron Paul would probably cease to be President by that point. (Because you know it’s going to take a least a couple years to get rid of the FDA! ;))
The thing that I realize is that it is not simply his beliefs and principles that are being talked about. It is the founding fathers as well as most any “loved figure” in American history. Read some of the quotes of the most respected men and Ron Paul is pretty much dead on with their opinions. that is why he is amazing.
So…
You’re saying that you would like to elect to the Presidency in 2008 a politician circa 1780? Or conversely, you really think our founding fathers would be saying the exact same things that they said if they lived today? Times don’t change?
I think that ron pauls’ medical oath of, first do no harm would carry over into his political carrier. I also think he would weigh the values of his decisions with others to achieve the best outcome for everyone concerned.
You suggest the gold value is a federal responsibility. It’s not, it’s free market pricing. You suggest that FDA or a national safety committee is required to protect our health. It’s not, it can easily be replaced with either privatized consumer groups or state and local run safety groups (both of which would be closer to voter influence and more efficient). You suggest that road and bridges would crumble without a national department for transportation. The national government has only been paying for federal freeway for approx 50 years, and they are now drastically reducing their roll in the maintenance of those freeways, leaving them to be paid by the state and local governments. Before that time states easily paid for their own transportation systems. If cities and counties can come up with 10 billion dollars to put in light rail systems, then it can easily maintain a 10 million dollar freeway system. Believe it or not, the national government doesn’t have to do everything for us. We have states, counties/burroughs, cities, districts and even neighborhoods who are plenty able to deal with almost every issue themselves.