Why Not Ron Paul?

I've previously voiced my view that Mitt Romney would be the Least Pernicious Republican President, but Kevin Drum's making me take a second look at Ron Paul: "Still, if I had to choose between Ron Paul and, say, Rudy Giuliani for president, would I vote for Paul? You bet. There are worse things than being a crank."

I guess that's right. On the subjects where Paul seems unusually wrong for a Republican, there's just no chance of Paul's policy preferences being enacted into law. On the issues where Paul's views are a lot closer to mine than they are to the average Republican, by contrast, the executive has a great deal of discretion. Paul's foreign policy ideas about the use of force are a good deal more dovish than mine, but I think at this point I'd rather see the country go too far in Paul's direction than too far in Giuliani's. So there you have it. Ron Paul: "Less Torture and His Domestic Policy's So Crazy Congress Will Be Able to Block It" it seems like a convincing least-pernicious Republican bid to me.

Comments

Yeah, this seems well thought through.

Ron Paul: What could happen?!

Posted by southpaw | November 13, 2007 10:00 AM

Why Not Ron Paul?

That's right. He's going to take that "There are worse things than being a crank" slogan all the way to a New Hampshire victory and on to the GOP nomination! After that, who knows? Sky's the limit.

Did you hear he raised more money in one day on the internet than any other Presidential candidate in history? It's true.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 10:09 AM

Thank goodness we can still cast token votes for Democrats. Offer void in Ohio and Florida.

Posted by MikeJ | November 13, 2007 10:11 AM

Except that for 7 years we've already seen the effects of a hostile executive branch to already existing federal institutions. Consumer protection, environmental protection, anti-discrimination efforts in housing and employment, workplace safety standards enforcement-- George Bush hasn't shuttered these offices. He's just made them utterly irrelevant through apathy and inattention. Ron Paul is precisely the kind of President who'd not only continue this practice, but would expand and deepen the problem. You don't have to sign legislation or issue executive orders to cause great damage to our country's federal institution.

You think Ron Paul is going to be particularly committed to, say, strengthening FEMA?

Me neither.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 10:13 AM

Being the least pernicious Republican candidate is like being the most comfortable deck chair on the Titanic. Who cares?

Posted by Ron | November 13, 2007 10:16 AM

I think Freddie's right. And the issue is not just that Congress can "block" Paul's domestic agenda -- true enough, I suppose, they just won't enact it -- but Paul, with his opposition to pretty much all federal power, will just veto everything and you'll have a de facto 2/3 requirement for legislation in the Congress. Think there's going to be universal health care in a Paul administration?

Of course, this discussion has a certain rotisserie league quality to it, given its purely fantastical nature.

Posted by Glenn | November 13, 2007 10:16 AM

Mmmmmmmmmm...the Land of Chocolate....

Posted by Bill | November 13, 2007 10:17 AM

The Feeblest Crazy Uncle theory of Republican concern trolling. It's creepily seductive! Ross Perot and Bob Dole were certainly Good for the Democrats.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 10:29 AM

What!!!!Matt you would vote for the ron paul that said this..."We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." That is just too crazy for me.

Posted by tin foil | November 13, 2007 10:33 AM

"Consumer protection, environmental protection, anti-discrimination efforts in housing and employment, workplace safety standards enforcement-- George Bush hasn't shuttered these offices."

This is so true. I remember breathing fresh air in New York when Clinton was president. Now, after 7 years of Bush, NYC has Cairo-like levels of smog. And clearly, there has been discrimination against minorities in housing. I think I saw this Bush lackey evicting a black family out of their apartment yesterday. George Bush hates black people and loves pollution.

Posted by Fred | November 13, 2007 10:39 AM

Except on the only issue on which every right-winger and the crankiest moderates agree: tax cuts. As bad as the Bush tax-cut orgy was, do you think the Republicans would be able to hold back implementing every disastrous idea? Flat tax, consumption taxes, abolishing the IRS?

We are precisely one tiny John Bircher away from becoming Chile.

Posted by michael d | November 13, 2007 10:40 AM

Fred, this stuff has been exhaustively documented. Seriously. Come on. You're smarter than that comment.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 10:41 AM

Except that his appointees to the Fed would destroy our economy. He would direct federal spending towards stopping family planning, investigating the "truth" behind 9-11 and UFO's, and fortifying the borders so that he can pretend he's in a castle. And not much else.

Plus we would have to deal with an influx of minor demons searching for warmer climes.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | November 13, 2007 10:59 AM

Michael d,

do you think the republicans are somehow going to magically regain the house and senate? if not, then Ron Paul has to work with a Democrat Congress, and I can promise you that congress will absolutely keep things from getting out of hand... (of course, I say that knowing just how wonderful a job they've done not caving in like a house of cards every chance they've gotten this last year...)

Posted by Mark | November 13, 2007 11:02 AM

Re Matthew's comment "Ron Paul: "Less Torture and His Domestic Policy's So Crazy Congress Will Be Able to Block It" it seems like a convincing least-pernicious Republican bid to me. "
--------------
Now, if you could just make that fit on a bumper sticker, you might be on to something.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 11:13 AM

Mark: I think that the coalition of (Republicans + conservative Democrats + Democrats who are willing to pander to anti-tax loudmouths) is not only a majority, but a supermajority.

Being anti-tax-cut is probably the most difficult political position to take in this country. Having a crackpot pushing for the dismantlement of the federal government isn't going to make it any easier.

Posted by michael d | November 13, 2007 11:15 AM

The problem isn't that Paul's looniest ideas will be implemented while he is president, it's that they will now be regarded as serious. Then the Broders will adopt the sensible bi-partisan postition of only cutting consumer protection by half, instead of eliminating it entirely.

Posted by snoey | November 13, 2007 11:35 AM

"do you think the republicans are somehow going to magically regain the house and senate? if not, then Ron Paul has to work with a Democrat Congress, and I can promise you that congress will absolutely keep things from getting out of hand.."

Same thing would hold for Giuliani though.

Giuliani would be like more Bush except without the Godbothering, while Paul would be like Herbert Hoover. Tight money! Market discipline! Volunteeristic BS! Liquidate, Liquidate, Liquidate! ... meanwhile Paulvilles would spring up around the country.

Posted by Peter K. | November 13, 2007 11:40 AM

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would find a way to destroy the economy if he were President, but the real appeal of him as "least pernicious Republican" is that he'd be a sure loser.

Posted by right | November 13, 2007 11:43 AM

Giuliani is rather liberal for a Rep? He is pro-choice and pro-immigration and less religious? And he is not the only hawk out there.

Ron Paul wants to build a Mexican wall? But he is at least a Constitution man. In fact - I trust him most of all the candidates to honor the constitution? He is also against torture. In fact, if I recall correctly, he has been more open about torture than even Hillary in the beginning?

What left-liberals generally do not like about Ron P is that he means limited government when he says it? This is not the case with other Republicans who say one thing and do another?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 13, 2007 11:55 AM

Ron Paul's ideas are not that far-fetched if you're looking at a long-term picture of American history and admit the political fact that most social programs are truly supported at the state & local levels. The Department of Education was founded in 1980 and spends $70 billion that barely reaches the local schools.

In fact, ANY federal funding of education or medicine is only about 40 years old, and I challenge anyone to show me how we have "progressed" in terms of international relative quality since enacting these top-down institutions (here's a clue, we're being embarrassed by the E.U.'s state-by-state approach - where did they get a "nutjob" idea like that?)

Like Glenn said: "Think there's going to be universal health care in a Paul administration?"

Not at the federal level, but I think many of Dr. Paul's detractors fail to realize how many state coverage programs might pop up if the average tax payer stopped sending 30% of their income to Washington D.C. I think we would see a lot of state legislators raising taxes to claim that lost federal revenue. I think that would be a good thing for social services.

Posted by underground | November 13, 2007 12:24 PM

"You think Ron Paul is going to be particularly committed to, say, strengthening FEMA?"

Except that FEMA actually got in the way of efforts to help Katrina victims. If it were not for FEMA some victims would be better off.
One of the underreported stories of Katrina was the non-governmental aid that helped the victims. But this is not what liberals want to hear.

Posted by who needs fema | November 13, 2007 12:27 PM

"Except that FEMA actually got in the way of efforts to help Katrina victims. If it were not for FEMA some victims would be better off.
One of the underreported stories of Katrina was the non-governmental aid that helped the victims. But this is not what liberals want to hear."

Liberals do want to hear this, in fact they said it at the time. FEMA's failure was not because FEMA was a bad idea -- in fact it was a wonderful agency under Clinton, who staffed it with competent people who believed that government should be run to help citizens. Bush, however, just believes that government is a patronage dump for radical conservatives, and ruined FEMA and many other federal agencies by appointing people based on cronyism rather than competence. "Heckuva job, Brownie" had no qualifications, except a college friendship with the former director, to run FEMA. None. Thus, disaster.

Posted by David in NY | November 13, 2007 12:34 PM

snoey made the comment earlier that electing a president with loony ideas gives their ideas a level of seriousness that they do not deserve. I tend to agree with the sentiment, which is why I oppose the candidacy of Clinton and Obama and Edwards and . . . well, you get the point.

Posted by Thomas | November 13, 2007 12:40 PM

I see the some commenters here making suggestions like, the real problem with Social Problem or Institution X is that the Federal Government gives a lot of money to solve this Problem/Help this Institution. Take a lot of money away from this stuff, and it will get better! And/or, take a lot of money away from this stuff, and it will reappear from somewhere else !and work better!

You must think we're fools.

Are the states going to be allowed to print money to replace the massive holes in their budgets and the massive social cutbacks, or shall they just raise their own taxes by a factor of four? Will those taxes be progressive, given that state election turnout is massively lower than federal? Who knows, right? And who cares! As Atrios would say, "WHEEEEEEEEEEEE".

Posted by glasnost | November 13, 2007 12:53 PM

I see the some commenters here making suggestions like, the real problem with Social Problem or Institution X is that the Federal Government gives a lot of money to solve this Problem/Help this Institution. Take a lot of money away from this stuff, and it will get better! And/or, take a lot of money away from this stuff, and it will reappear from somewhere else !and work better!

You must think we're fools.

Are the states going to be allowed to print money to replace the massive holes in their budgets and the massive social cutbacks, or shall they just raise their own taxes by a factor of four? Will those taxes be progressive, given that state election turnout is massively lower than federal? Who knows, right? And who cares! As Atrios would say, "WHEEEEEEEEEEEE".

Posted by glasnost | November 13, 2007 12:54 PM

take a lot of money away from this stuff, and it will reappear from somewhere else !and work better!

Basically, yes. You gain efficiency and responsiveness by moving things to the local level. Of course, you lose some equality (Mississippi won't be able to spend as much per capita as Massachusetts). And the mobility of people and capital means that state taxes would not be able to go up (in aggregate) as much as federal taxes would go down. But for some programs, like the Department of Education, the efficiency of the federal arm is so low (perhaps even zero) that the fact that the states would only be able to spend half as much addressing the problem doesn't look bad at all.

Posted by bbartlog | November 13, 2007 1:02 PM

Don't forget the supreme Court nominations that Paul might make, or the possibility of a serious budget fight. After all, president Paul might well decide that he is unwilling to sign a federal budget that includes funding for the Department of education. It's not like he needs a majority in congress to destroy federal programs; he only needs 1/3 + 1 and no desire to be reelected.

Posted by Don Zeko | November 13, 2007 1:02 PM

So, let's see now, if this country was run by the Oligarchy Formerly Known as Venezuelan, and your only choices on the ballot were Giuliani and Paul, you would still vote?

I understand we're talking about 30 commenters here out of a nation of 300 million, but really, this has to be one of the least comprehensible fantasy politics leagues I've ever seen.

Posted by serial catowner | November 13, 2007 1:20 PM

A good question is which Republican will appoint the worst hacks to the federal bureaucracy. I just don't know the answer.

Romney definitely had some hacks in Massachusetts, but he had some folks who were qualified, so it depends how many favors he would feel it was necessary to repay with plum administration jobs. What about Huckabee? What was his administration in Arkansas like?

I would imagine Paul would have a ton of foxes guarding henhouses (i.e. anti-enviro types at Interior or just people who want gov't to be incompetent so they can get rid of massive chunks of it), as would Giuliani, a la Bernie Kerik, although again, I don't really know what it was like in New York beyond Kerik.

Huckabee also seems like he would be better at working with a Democratic Congress. Romney and Giuliani are demagogues, so it would be nearly impossible to work with them on items of any import. Paul strikes me as someone who would probably be pretty ineffectual, so that would be a good thing.

For instance, Paul's New Hampshire ads go well beyond quirky to just very, very poorly done, feeling not just incredibly (and obviously somewhat unnecessarily) low budget, but also amateurish and very stilted. I can imagine other things going that way in a Paul Administration.

Posted by bob | November 13, 2007 1:51 PM

Some commenters here are forgetting that we're comparing Paul to Giuliani.

In the worst case Ron Paul is able to get legislation through Congress that is so disastrous it destroys our economy. But he'll only have four years to do this and these things take time to play out.

In the case of Giuliani I can see him trying to bully the wrong foreign government and before Congress is even consulted the situation has escalated to nuclear holocaust.

At least with the first case we'd have the option of moving to Europe.

Posted by mpowell | November 13, 2007 2:08 PM

(here's a clue, we're being embarrassed by the E.U.'s state-by-state approach

Um, in every E.U. country I am aware of, a large amount of education administration is done at th federal/national level. Ever E.U. country has a Ministry of Education equivalent to our DOE.

Posted by Andrew Levine | November 13, 2007 2:10 PM

So there you have it. Ron Paul: "Less Torture and His Domestic Policy's So Crazy Congress Will Be Able to Block It" it seems like a convincing least-pernicious Republican bid to me.

That's my take too. I never understood the argument that Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney was the least dangerous Republican. He's embraced the idea of the absolute executive whole heartedly, applauded Bush's attempts to strip civil liberties protections, warns us about the dangers of our legal system, wants to put monitoring devices in every Mosque in America and hopes to expand the war into Iran.

That puts him just a smidge to the left of Rudy and Tancredo.

Posted by Jinchi | November 13, 2007 2:20 PM

You think Ron Paul is going to be particularly committed to, say, strengthening FEMA?

Again, we're comparing Republicans to Republicans here. Virtually all of them are running against federal involvement in things like FEMA. Complaining about Ron Paul's position on this is the same as complaining about the Republican position. Romney even has a talking point about how FEMA proved the federal government is incapable of dealing with disaster management.

If a Republican gets elected in 2008 you can expect lots more foxes in the henhouses, lots more attempts to strip agencies of regulatory authority, and lots more judges hostile to progressive causes.

The distinction between the rest of the field and Ron Paul are:

(1.) He'd end the rush to WWIII
(2.) He'd end attempts to trash the rule of law
(3.) He'd end massive deficit spending.

That makes him the least offensive Republican by a long shot.

Posted by Jinchi | November 13, 2007 2:30 PM

This thread is like asking whether shit tastes better served in a sandwich, soup, or casserole.

Posted by blah | November 13, 2007 2:44 PM

Following up on Jinchi's point:

Isn't it the case that with a Democratic Congress any Republican President would have a limited amount of political capital to pass a domestic agenday? If any of those candidates would tap the limit of this capital slashing taxes and federal programs, does that imply Paul couldn't be worse on this score?

As an aside, has Paul talked about reducing defense spending? Of all the myths about government spending, that's one huge big ticket item that we could cut substantially.

Posted by mpowell | November 13, 2007 3:17 PM

Once again, the liberals demonstrate that all they care about is big government - as long as it's THEIR big government.

Let somebody suggest that none of these asshole programs work worth a shit, and they go ballistic.

Big surprise. Chimpanzee politics.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 13, 2007 3:31 PM

I think Glen Greenwald made the point pretty well here:

A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

Posted by Jinchi | November 13, 2007 5:20 PM

Andrew Levine: Um, in every E.U. country I am aware of, a large amount of education administration is done at th federal/national level. Ever E.U. country has a Ministry of Education equivalent to our DOE.

Exactly. Each "state" inside the European Union functions as a sovereign political unit: They don't send 30% of their GDP to Brussels in the hopes that they'll have good schools and hospitals locally.

We've only taken these issues to the "super-national" level (D.C.) in recent generations, and I don't see proof that this has improved our relative international standing in education or medicine (I see proof in the papers every day that we are falling, instead). Europe remains a set of strong & independent states co-operating in a free trade federation, and its working...

Posted by underground | November 13, 2007 5:58 PM

This comparison of the United States to the EU is either disingenuous or moronic. France, Britain, Spain, etc., are sovereign nations equivalent to the US. The nearest equivalent to the EU is maybe, but there's really not another transnational equivalent to the EU out there. The equivalent of a US state would be a French department, and each French department certainly does not have its own healthcare system.

This bizarre libertarian fantasy of breaking up the US into a loose confederation of states borders on lunacy. The US tried something like that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It lasted about 12 years because it was such a tremendous failure. The Constitution was created in its wake and serves us much better.

Also, the most telling comparison in areas like environmental well-being, education, healthcare, and so on is between the US pre-New Deal (because that's what you guys are going on about) and the US now. Comparing the US to the rest of the world pre-New Deal and then doing the same now really doesn't tell you anything about the success of the New Deal.

I sympathize with you libertarians, though. As ideologues it is very difficult to make fact-based arguments.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 13, 2007 7:51 PM

Well based on your insults and hyperbole, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time (for some reason, I find people would rather spout talking points and insults than talk policy. This is troubling to me as someone who is passionate about civics and liberty in America.)

1) Your analogy comparing France to the United States conveniently ignores Brussels. It doesn't work if you include all the capital cities. The E.U. is currently dealing with many of the same political/structural issues that American history is full of, but there are things we can each learn from this if we are willing to compare the efficacy of state and federal roles in a union system. I don't think there's one right answer to health-care, do you? Is France better than Germany? Is Ireland better than England? Why should America expect to get it right the first time, and based on our reluctance to abandon failed departments, why should we ever expect positive reform once its enacted? America has seriously failed in social welfare in the recent decades, and I fear that we will drift further and further behind until the real structural reasons are even addressed. The answer can't just be more money, we're already spending a ton per person. The money needs to be spent better, and no one is coming up with plans to make D.C. more efficient or accountable.

2) You don't have to go back to the Articles of Confederation or even the New Deal to find state-based approaches to social issues. To this day the states and cities provide the VAST majority of financial backing to the schools and the each school board faces different challenges. The Department of Education is still only 27 years old... and no matter what laws you pass and no matter what funding you provide, education in Mississippi is never going to be "equal" to California - nor should it be, to do so would be to lose some of the regional multi-culturalism that could contribute to this nation if it were allowed to (again).

3) If you think the constitution is too ideological, you can amend it. There's a process for that, but if you expect the Bill of Rights to protect you, you can't just ignore the 10th amendment. If the government can amend it by vote or by court ruling, then you cannot really expect the other parts to come to your rescue on free speech, gun rights, warrant rights, or whatever right you may value.

I hope you find something in the constitution worth saving, and if not, I hope you find the popular support and the personal honesty to realize this and work toward changing it.

Posted by underground | November 13, 2007 9:41 PM

This argument holds less water if you're someone who could someday have an unwanted pregnancy. Then, Paul doesn't look so good.

Posted by Persia | November 14, 2007 10:15 AM

Underground is making some good points.

Posted by mq | November 14, 2007 7:13 PM