A General Point

It seems obvious enough to me that liberals have no real reason to feel warmly about either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. Neither man is someone who would make a good President of the United States and neither man is someone who shares my values in any serious way.

That said, I do think liberals have pretty good reason to at least cheer them on a bit from the sidelines as their success represents the flying apart of the conservative coalition that's been dominating American politics for decades. Ronald Reagan wielded a truly formidable political coalition that reached from the Deep South all across the West and into the suburbs of New Jersey and Illinois. George Bush has presided over a much-diminished version of that coalition -- a political bloc that left little margin for error. And then he proceeded to presided over a great deal of error -- massive, enormous errors -- that's left the Republican Party looking adrift and meandering and has evidently sent large segments of the conservative base to start taking a rose-colored view of these two kookie political figures and their fringy opinions.

The conservative establishment is now flailing wildly to regain control and I'm almost certain they'll ultimately succeed in delivering the nomination to an establishment-approved figure. But the movement as a whole is clearly sputtering and sick and the better the outsider candidates do the more it frays.

Comments

This may be tactically correct. It strikes me that Huckabee and Paul are, in their own ways, much more like George W. Bush than any of the other candidates. They are faith-based candidates who profess positions based upon their surface appeal and truthiness, and who generally dismiss both evidence and expertise as irrelevancies. (I'm thinking of Paul's views on monetary policy, Huckabee's tax plan, and Huck's behavior in the Dumond affair.)

So encouraging Huck and Paul may come at the price of losing more of the voting public to this weird concoction of equal parts mysticism and incompetence.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 1:23 PM

True enough, but I think the same is just as true for Giuliani and Romney. Only Thompson and McCain have any chance to hold most of the base together, and of course each has his own problems.

Posted by right | December 15, 2007 1:26 PM

liberals have no real reason to feel warmly about either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee...neither man is someone who shares my values in any serious way.

That just seems wrong. Ron Paul has been a more consistent and serious civil libertarian and a more consistent and serious anti-war voice than just about any liberal on the national scene.

It is true, though, that many beltway liberals do not seem to take these values very seriously.

I think you're more correct with Huckabee and the compassion/poverty agenda...he is significantly better than most Reps, and willing to take some risks, but he doesn't do his homework and hasn't laid out a serious agenda.

Posted by mq | December 15, 2007 1:35 PM

Liberals have much more pressing things to worry about than encouraging a Republican Presidential candidate who will show them a mirror.

For starters, even if the Dems are in power they can do absolutely nothing to advance the liberal cause or at least impede the march to the conservative dystopia envisioned by the torturers, the perpetual warmongers and the theocrats.

So even if the Republicans fall apart over Huckabee or Ron Paul or whosoever that the liberals cheer, liberals get nothing.

Posted by gregor | December 15, 2007 1:35 PM

How the heck can you compare Ron Paul to George Bush? Ron Paul wants to end our military intervention around the world, stop federal raids on medical marijuana patients, end income taxes, allow patients and doctors to manage their healthcare instead of letting big pharma/FDA/AMA run it... he's the total opposite! Huckabee wants to implement a "fair tax" -- which translates to 25-30% tax on everything we buy, and continue the war!

Posted by Jeff D | December 15, 2007 1:37 PM

Actually, Ron Paul offers a nice compromise for alot of independents - That believe in both economic and social freedom. Regan's coalition is clearly gone, but, if Paul were to run as an independent, and got fair treatment from the media, he would take alot of votes from the independents and even Reagan democrats, as well as libertarian republicans - I'd bet 25 - 30 %.

While classic democrats would never give up the philosophy that only big centralized government brings social justice, there are still many people that do not believe in the kind of entitlement society envisioned by the Clinton - obamam - Edwards Crowd.

Posted by John Galt | December 15, 2007 1:37 PM

I beg to differ on your view of Ron Paul. He would do more to return the federal government to a government respecting individual liberty than any Democrat running and he has the record to back it up.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against the online gambling prohibition snuck into a security bill.
He's against the unconstitutional war on drugs.
He is all for restoring checks and balances.

I think you are deluded to think that there are not great benefits to liberals if Ron Paul did well.

Posted by Victor | December 15, 2007 1:42 PM

I pretty much agree with what Matt's saying, but I'm a little worried about our Democratic coalition. Many of my independent and Democratic friends are getting less and less interested in keeping a Democratic Congress. I think a lot of this has to do with, well, basically the Democratic Congress. Maybe the Leadership's hands are tied on some issues, but ceding ground to the pretty obvious authoritarian streak in the Republican Party, as it did with passage of the warrantless wiretapping bill last summer, has really discouraged a lot of people who had high hopes in 2006.

Posted by KC | December 15, 2007 1:43 PM

Ah, the Ron-Paul bots are funny...I'm pretty sure when Matt mentions his 'values', he means some combination of universal health insurance, serious action on global warming, and a less militaristic foreign policy.
Ron Paul really only satisfies the last of those three, and he wouldn't really achieve the international cooperation that I assume Matt wants, since he would withdraw from the world as a whole.

Posted by jamie | December 15, 2007 1:46 PM

The Authoritarians have Giuliani, the Capitalists have Romney, the Evangelicals have Huckabee, the Libertarians have Paul, the Zombie-Reaganites have Thompson, the Militarists have McCain. And they all hate each other. Is good, is good.

Posted by MattF | December 15, 2007 1:47 PM

"Withdraw from the world as a whole"? You mean like the hermit kingdom of Switzerland?

Posted by Michael | December 15, 2007 1:53 PM

Well...Paul wants to get out of NATO, the WTO, the UN, all our military commitments abroad, all of the individual free trade agreements, just about any treaty possible. He also would build a fence and restrict immigration.
I suppose he would still support free trade of some kind, but if that isn't withdrawing from the world as a whole, I don't know what is.

Posted by jamie | December 15, 2007 1:59 PM

Paul is an anti-choice fanatic.

The notion of 'civil libertarian' is laughable in this case.

Posted by David | December 15, 2007 2:07 PM

Paul has been quite consistently free trade, including free trade with currently sanctioned countries. I think a situation where the U.S. was not militarily involved abroad and had greater civil liberties would translate to *more* involvement, not less with the rest of the world. But that involvement would take place at the private citizen and not the government level.

I'm not a bot, BTW, I'm a Democratic liberal who admires the guy for taking more consistently freedom-oriented positions than most liberals.

Posted by mq | December 15, 2007 2:13 PM

John Galt? You seriously sign your posts "John Galt"!? No wonder people question the credibility (and wisdom) of Paul supporters. A Ron Paul presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, and this comes from a self-described supporter of civil liberties. But, hey, it works in Atlas Shrugged, so how much more complex could reality possibly be?

But whatever, any left-leaning person who's even contemplating supporting Paul is in for the surprise of their life once they do a bit of, you know, research.

Posted by Joe Lisboa | December 15, 2007 2:16 PM

For those of you who are partisans for Ron Paul:

Can you name a well respected economist--say, someone tenured at a major US university--who favors Paul's idea of returning to the gold standard? And if not, does that trouble you?

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 2:18 PM

John Galt? You seriously sign your posts "John Galt"!? No wonder people question the credibility (and wisdom) of Paul supporters. A Ron Paul presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, and this comes from a self-described supporter of civil liberties. But, hey, it works in Atlas Shrugged, so how much more complex could reality possibly be?

But whatever, any left-leaning person who's even contemplating supporting Paul is in for the surprise of their life once they do a bit of, you know, research.

Posted by Joe Lisboa | December 15, 2007 2:19 PM

Other than being two GOP candidates that have moved up in the polls at the expense of the early anointed candidates of MSM, there are almost no other similarities between the Huckster and Dr Paul.

One is pro-war (Huckster), one has been against it from the beginning (Paul).

One flaunts his religion as a campaign point (Huckster), the other suggests that candidates be judged on their record and character on not on their religious beliefs (Paul).

One wants to legislate morality and virtue (Huckster), the other wants to let you run your life instead of bureaucrats in Washington (Paul).

I could go on and on, but there is very little commonality between what a presidency would look like under the two.

Realistically, one really needs to ask themselves exactly what a president can accomplish on their own without the backing of Congress. Regardless of the campaign promises made by any presidential candidate, there is only so much they can do on their own. But two things they can do as Commander in Chief, is end the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and direct US foreign policy.

And frankly, the only presidential candidate from either of the two major parties that makes any sense in that regard is Ron Paul. So even if you disagree with him on every other single issue, that alone should be enough to lend him your support.

Posted by Rolland | December 15, 2007 2:26 PM

Ronald Reagan wielded a truly formidable political coalition that reached from the Deep South all across the West and into the suburbs of New Jersey and Illinois. George Bush has presided over a much-diminished version of that coalition -- a political bloc that left little margin for error.

I don't think that's quite right. From Reagan to GWB, the important thing is that the Southern Conservatives moved from being the junior partner in the coalition to the senior partner, and the West moved/is moving from the Republican coalition to the Democratic coalition. IIRC, the LAT ownership all-but-invented Nixon's career, and CA voted, from '68, Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, etc.

It's a different but related coalition. And the South wants to behave as senior partner.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 15, 2007 2:28 PM

There was a nice summary piece about Ron Paul and the gold standard on Marketplace by former Bushie David Frum all all people.

Posted by yep | December 15, 2007 2:28 PM

"all all people" = "of all people"

Posted by yep | December 15, 2007 2:30 PM

Liberals have no reason to cheer unless the Democratic candidate is a liberal or close to one. Huckabee and Paul notwithstanding, our top candidates are smack in the center if not to the right of it. None of the two leading Democratic candidates has any measurable vision and might improve on Bush constitutionally but not otherwise.

Posted by Koshembos | December 15, 2007 2:35 PM

@southpaw: what Paul is advocating isn't a return to the gold standard, but to legalize gold and silver as competing currencies to the existing paper dollar. As to any "well respected" economist who favors a gold standard, there's always that nutty Alan Greenspan:

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2007/10/alan-greenspan-and-gold-standard.html

Back to Matt's main point, I agree that dyed-in-the-wool liberals would have far more reason not to support Paul than to do so. That he is getting some support from progressives is, I think, more due to their dismay with the prospect of a Clinton Restoration. If Obama gets the nod instead, tho, I expect a lot will come back home.

Now, do Paul and Huckabee represent the crackup of the Great Conservative Coalition? That crackup has been predicted for a long time, and hasn't happened, so put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. One hitch in the theory is that Paul's support is relatively small; the "small government" wing of the GOP has been dead for some time. Theres just no market for it among the electorate, something that Huck's rise, while Paul hovers, illustrates. I'm not sure there's that much left to "crack" when it comes to the libertarian rump of the GOP.

Posted by DaveA | December 15, 2007 2:38 PM

I'm curious Koshembos, how do you define the center, right and left? Does the makeup of the electorate factor into your thinking, or do you just have a fixed idea of what the center should be, and make judgements based on that?

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 2:39 PM

The electorate is considerably less white than it was in 1980.

Crime levels are considerably lower as well.

Posted by David | December 15, 2007 2:58 PM

if you don't vote for Ron Paul you are just throwing your vote and the future of America away

Posted by boone lennon | December 15, 2007 3:00 PM

If Huckabee isn't attacked immediately, then he gets to set the narrative. I don't think it's smart to hold back, no matter what the consultants might think.

Posted by lambert strether | December 15, 2007 3:12 PM

MattF: "The Authoritarians have Giuliani, the Capitalists have Romney, the Evangelicals have Huckabee, the Libertarians have Paul, the Zombie-Reaganites have Thompson, the Militarists have McCain. And they all hate each other."

The Republican race in a nutshell. Best I've seen it characterized.

Posted by blah2 | December 15, 2007 3:13 PM

I have a feeling most Paul supporters are men, given his anti-choice position (some libertarian!). And he is a Randian, i.e., a disciple of a novelist. I think I'll become a Nabokovian--if I can figure out what that is.

Posted by Henderstock | December 15, 2007 3:27 PM

Hey, Paul-bots, how's that blimp thing going? Has it crashed yet?

I think Matt should follow Wonkette's lead and start banning these doofuses. They don't know anything about anything, they just recite the same few lines about how whatever they dislike is unconstitutional and whatever they like is. It's the same game everyone plays, and it makes me think that having no written constitution (like England does) might be better. Instead of haggling over language and originalism, it's just about what's popular and unpopular, right and wrong. And it would mean fewer lawyers to interpret it as well. But what do I know.

Posted by Lev | December 15, 2007 3:36 PM

Just for the record, it's not Ron Paul himself that annoys me. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he has at least a semi-coherent viewpoint and he's good on foriegn policy (though far more to the left of myself, I suppose). But the MoRons/Paultards/Paul bots are about the most annoying people in the world, even worse than the Randroids, in my opinion. They're so full of shit it puts professional marketers to shame.

Posted by Lev | December 15, 2007 3:40 PM

But the MoRons/Paultards/Paul bots are about the most annoying people in the world, even worse than the Randroids, in my opinion. They're so full of shit it puts professional marketers to shame.

You're funnnnny with your name calling.

Posted by Joe Strummer | December 15, 2007 3:43 PM

I think I'll become a Nabokovian--if I can figure out what that is.

I imagine its primary tenet would be disdain-verging-on-contempt for the present-day American political system. (I believe that the writer Matt Taibbi is a Nabokovian, although he's never said so.)

Posted by James Gary | December 15, 2007 3:46 PM

Yeah, who would support fringe-y positions like these that Ron Paul holds?

Bring the troops home from Iraq, now.

Stop spying on American citizens.

Stop illegal immigration.

Cut government spending.

Balance the budget, right away.

Oh wait -- the majority of the American people support all of those, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who agrees with them across the board.

Posted by Doug D | December 15, 2007 4:04 PM

For Southpaw,

You mean someone like Alan Greenspan?
Or maybe like the entire LIST or tenured academics that support Ron Paul?

Posted by Louis Nardozi | December 15, 2007 4:16 PM

I'm no fan of Gold and pretty hesitant on Paul, but a few of the comments on this thread are woefully ignorant. For instance:

Can you name a well respected economist--say, someone tenured at a major US university--who favors Paul's idea of returning to the gold standard?

Alann Greenspan well-enough respected? David D. Friedman? I personally had at least one economics professor who was, himself, a Goldbug. Why ask a question like that if you don't know any economists other than Krugman?

It strikes me that Huckabee and Paul are, in their own ways, much more like George W. Bush than any of the other candidates.

Paul and Bush are from diametrically opposing sides of the coalition. The most frequent liberal critique of Bush is that he's a pro-corporate Neocon. Paul's an isolationist (yes, he is, even though the Paullards will flame me) who doesn't believe "the corporation" should exist. Bush is a Trotskyist. Paul is a Jeffersonian. Bush is a "big government" conservative. Paul is a minarchist (at least on the national level). There is no overlap on any topic.

but I'm a little worried about our Democratic coalition.

Since ther is no Democratic coalition, you can stop worrying. The Democratic party is not a coalition party. The Democratic party includes moderates and extremes, who basically say the same things to different degrees. Contrast that with the Republican party where Paul, Hunter and, say, Santorum are all very far to the "right" but agree on next to nothing.

Paul is an anti-choice fanatic.
The notion of 'civil libertarian' is laughable in this case.

Passed on without comment.

our top candidates are smack in the center if not to the right of it.

Clinton's a socialist who believes there is "no such thing as 'other people's children.'" Edwards wants the state to beat people with a stick if they don't sign up for Health Care. If these candidates are "right of center," what could possibly put someone on the left? Lifetime psychiatric hospitalization for rudeness? Mandatory rehab for smoking a single cigarette or drinking a pint of beer?

A few smart critiques:

Paul wants to get out of NATO, the WTO, the UN, all our military commitments abroad, all of the individual free trade agreements, just about any treaty possible.

Indeed. Paul is so isolationist that he opposes treaties, not in particular, but in concept. That's just baffling to me. Notably, his position that he wants free-trade but doesn't like NAFTA, presumably for its "treatiness."

so put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. One hitch in the theory is that Paul's support is relatively small; the "small government" wing of the GOP has been dead for some time.

I disagree, but this is not an uninteresting point. I think part of the reason the small-government wing looks marginalized is that the small-government wing is no longer registered Republican, so as to not be tarred with disbelief in evolution or hostility to gays. I know I get sick of explaining that, even though I'm Republican, I'm totally ambivalent about the number of Mexicans who move to the US (though I do care about border security), and wouldn't care if two gay men decided to smoke dope during their wedding. In business (sales, consulting, entrepreneurial action, etc.), the registered-independant, irreligious, "small government conservative" seems nearly ubiquitous.

As far as the breakup of the coalition, if Giuliani wins the nomination, the evangelicals won't vote and he'll lose, but the breakup will be postponed. Ditto Romney. If Huckabee wins the nomination, the other three or four groups may be so upset/frightened that they abandon the party and ressurrect the Whig brand. I'll be right with them if they do.

If anyone else wins the nom (even Paul), the coalition will probably hold.

Posted by Shinyk | December 15, 2007 4:17 PM

"I have a feeling most Paul supporters are men, given his anti-choice position (some libertarian!). "

He's against Roe vs. Wade because he believes that the decision should have been left to the states, not the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with being "pro-life" and everything to do with not trusting the federal government.

BTW, I have seen a lot of personal attacks but I haven't seen reasonable discussions about Ron Paul. It's not that I'd vote for Ron Paul, I'd just rather see a reasonable debate about the merits of his positions.

Posted by JordanT | December 15, 2007 4:18 PM

"Oh wait -- the majority of the American people support all of those, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who agrees with them across the board."

Yes, which is why he's poised to win in a landslide, right? Actually most people don't agree with Paul on most of the issues you listed, which is why he'll go nowhere in the polls. I like Paul on the war and some civil liberties issues (he's against women having control over their own bodies) but most of his positions are horrible.

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 4:25 PM

"He's against Roe vs. Wade because he believes that the decision should have been left to the states, not the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with being "pro-life" and everything to do with not trusting the federal government."

This just isn't true. He's anti-abortion. If he was just against the idea of the federal government intruding in the debate, he would not have voted in favor of passing a ban on partial birth abortions in 2000, would he?

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 4:33 PM

Ron Paul brought forward a federal bill (HR 1094)that declared life to begin at conception. He also wrote two books dedicated to an attack on reproductive rights.

He is a fanatic prohibitionist of the worst sort.

Posted by David | December 15, 2007 4:40 PM

"I think part of the reason the small-government wing looks marginalized is that the small-government wing is no longer registered Republican."

I agree, and that's essentially the point I was reaching for. The small government types walked away from the GOP some time ago. Paul is, if anything, pulling some of them back in, at least temporarily. Which is why I disagree with Matt's initial point, that Paul represents a crack in the coalition -- a stronger case can be made, in fact, that he is a rebuilding force. And you can see the recognition of that in the fact that candidates like Huckabee, Romney and Thompson have all made at least rhetorical bows in the direction of his positions on subjects like eliminating the IRS and returning the abortion issue to the states.

"If Huckabee wins the nomination, the other three or four groups may be so upset/frightened that they abandon the party and ressurrect the Whig brand. I'll be right with them if they do."

I like it! Count me in.

Posted by DaveA | December 15, 2007 4:41 PM

Alan Greenspan was head of the Fed, not an academic economist. The government can appoint whoever it wants to be head of the Fed; there's no requirement to appoint an economist. It is well within the power of the Fed to put the US back on the gold standard -- they could announce that the money supply will be fixed to the price of gold. Greenspan didn't do it. He ran the Fed in a way completely contrary to the way that the gold standard would dictate, adjusting the money supply to affect short-term economic crises.

Friedman is not a well-respected economist. He wrote a well-respected textbook, but the textbook is on microeconomics (the gold standard is macroeconomics), and his opinions carry zero weight in the field.

It's basically true that no well-respected economist thinks that a reversion to the gold standard is a good idea. I'm sure some economists think it, but the dominant opinion is that it's not a good idea.

Posted by Walt | December 15, 2007 4:59 PM

Given the mishegosh that Alan Greenspan managed to create with the subprime and real estate markets (no, we don't need any regulation of those CDOs, the market will do fine! And by the way, ARMs are much better than straight mortgages!), I'd be very careful of using Alan Greenspan's benediction to be a PLUS for any theory....

The guy knew how to create monetary bubbles. Dump enough cheap money on the market going after stuff very badly priced for the actual risk it carried, you get a bubble. Now it's crashing. Surprise, surprise.

I'd sort of like to see Ron Paul win the nomination if only to watch everyone else on the right tear their hair out. But he's not going to. He's considered far too much of a fruitcake.

Posted by grumpy realist | December 15, 2007 5:17 PM

I won't try to win over inflexible attitudes regarding Paul. It seems some have made up their mind no matter the evidence or purpose.

I will state this for those who truly wish to exchange ideas and look at things from many sides.

This blog is so full of erroneous data and misleading comments I almost don't know where to begin.

First let me say that I don't condone this concept of polarization and labeling. This guy isn't good for liberals, this guy isn't good for conservatives, this guy is white, this guy is black, that is a female running, blah, blah, blah. This is the same nonsense that has plagued politics for many years. Unfortunately it seems that this partisanship has become extremely acute just in the last 15 years. It is not about groups vs groups, the issues should be ideas and personal character.

Now, to Paul.

Shinyk makes good points but is woefully amiss regarding Paul being an isolationist. Isolationists dont want to trade and they desire large tariffs. Paul doesn't support this idea. In addition Shinyk needs to look at what Paul finds disagreeable with NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO. He is for US sovereignty and those organizations begin to undermine our ability to enforce our own laws. For example the WTO threatens international sanctions if a country does not abide by it's decrees and congress has for some reason followed suit on many items that the WTO wishes to enforce. NAFTA is not about opening dialogue or free market trade. NAFTA is about ENFORCING economic partnerships even against market desires.

Free trade by definition works on its own and does not need dicatates to enforce it. The only thing that would prevent free trade is manipulation or monopolizing and there was no evidence of that going on between countries prior to those agreements being put in place.

It is a sales job which says "free trade" but really means "enforced contracts".

We ALL need to take a serious look around.

We are in a world of hurt financially.
We are facing record debt, record foreclosures, recent record inflation hikes (i.e. the wholesale inflation rate just went through the roof), and record lows in the dollar.

This in addition to large chunks of US commerce being sold off to foreign interests. Saudis had to bail out Citibank a few weeks ago and the wonderful communistic govt. of China bought a chunk of the ever capitalist Bear Stearns.

If we don't make changes and I mean BIG ones. All this bantering back and forth about who is more liberal etc. is going to be done in the bread line.

Posted by bgodley | December 15, 2007 5:20 PM

I don't know how many economists support returning to the traditional gold standard, but a lot of economists support ending restrictions on competing currencies. For example, Nobel prize winning economists Eugene Fama, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman.

If a fiat dollar is so great, then you have nothing to fear from competing currencies, as no one will use them. If the fiat dollar isn't so great, then at least people will have the opportunity to shift their savings to something with a bit more holding power.

With respect to Paul's views on abortion, I find it puzzling that liberal concern for "choice" is so narrowly focused on the uterus. What about the rest of our bodies? What about our right decide which medicines we ingest? What of our choice to sell our organs? What of our choice to take recreational drugs? I don't see many liberals objecting to federal restrictions on our liberty to make those decisions.

Remember RU-486? How many women were deprived of that medication because the FDA prevented its approval? Yet Paul voted against banning RU-486, and would advocate abolishing the FDA altogether.

If you don't limit your conception of "choice" to the uterus alone, then I think that Ron Paul is a far more pro-choice candidate than any other candidate running.

I would also point out that while I think abortion should be legal, history has not looked kindly on those who have argued against the recognition of others was fully human. Think of the debates over whether blacks, women, and Jews were deserving of full human rights, with the legal protections that implies.

That said, I agree that Paul won't appeal to a lot of Democrats. That's because, in principle, most Democrats differ little from most Republicans. They both want large, massive nanny-state governments. They only disagree on what big government program they want to support.

Posted by Christopher Rasch | December 15, 2007 5:20 PM

"It's basically true that no well-respected economist thinks that a reversion to the gold standard is a good idea. I'm sure some economists think it, but the dominant opinion is that it's not a good idea."

Well, darn good that Ron Paul doesn't want to do that then, eh?

Some guys who get it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNH5Xy8_0NM

Posted by DaveA | December 15, 2007 5:21 PM

As others have pointed out, Greenspan was extremely well placed (for a very long time) to implement or advocate for the gold standard--or some sort of multi-currency competitive system. He didn't.

The linked remarks have Greenspan saying that the international gold standard worked fairly well during its time; I have yet to see that he's suggested it can or should be readopted.

The larger point is that society has come to take the view that the money supply should be determined not by the fortunes of miners, but by central bankers responsible to the people.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 5:32 PM

Christopher, I can't talk for anyone but myself, but I support decriminalizing most drugs, amd as for selling organs, right now at least you can sell blood plasma, sperm, and eggs. I'm not sure what else you want people to be able to sell. As for abolishing the FDA, do you seriously think that would be a good idea?

Let me ask you this though, you say you support the right to an abortion, but you then go on to compare fetuses and blastocysts to Jews and black people. Why do you support it if you think they actually are comparable?

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 5:33 PM

I take issue with comparing Huckabee to Paul.

Huckabee is a straight out snake oil salesman that raises taxes while saying he won't, uses public funds for personal purposes, releases convicted rapists free to repeat the crimes they were imprisoned for and puts forth his religious background as some measure of morals which panders to a particular base.

Anybody that does the research on Huckabee and goes by his record and history-- and not his campaign materials-- will know he is nothing but a political hack.

Paul on the other hand is nothing but truthful in his views and the presentation of them. You may disagree with him, but you can't knock his integrity. I think Paul would make a great president.

Also, I must comment on a previous poster's reference to Switzerland, as if being more like that country was/is a bad thing.

Switzerland does not repeatedly get involved in stupid wars for stupid reasons. There were no Korean, Vietnam, or Iraq wars. There was no Cuban missile crisis for them. Terrorists don't think to themselves, "I wish the Swiss would stop interfering in our lands."

They don't have a military empire of over 700 bases in 140 countries across the world. They don't have a Pentagon bureaucracy that almost looks for ways to have wars.

They don't impose harsh trade sanctions because the disagree with somebody. They don't give billions of money and military aid to dictatorships (Pakistan, Egypt) while acting aggressively towards countries that they disagree with (Iran, Venezuela.) They don't interfere in other countries' sovereign affairs. They have peaceful trade and travel with everyone and don't play favorites with anyone.

They haven't been in a war since 1815 and by being neutral, easily survived two gigantic, never forgotten, cursed wars that wasted many lives. Why not act more like them in this respect? It's a great policy that's worked for them.

Posted by B Reyes | December 15, 2007 5:54 PM

Yeah, I suspect Switzerland in many respects is what the US was supposed to be: a republic with highly autonomous cantons and weak federal government, minutemen-style military, highly democratic. Not at all perfect, of course, but perhaps something to learn from.

Posted by abb1 | December 15, 2007 6:16 PM

"The larger point is that society has come to take the view that the money supply should be determined not by the fortunes of miners, but by central bankers responsible to the people."

Even allowing for the sake of argument that that's true -- how, exactly, is the Fed "responsible to the people"?

To me it seems the Fed is very responsible to the wishes of Wall Street...but to the people? How does its current rate cutting and liquidity injection benefit the Average Joe? Versus, for example, banks and funds that hold huge, and essentially worthless, pieces of what Duncan Black over at Eschaton calls "the big s--tpile"? There's a reason even he refers to Bernake as "Helicopter Ben."

Posted by DaveA | December 15, 2007 6:21 PM

In addition Shinyk needs to look at what Paul finds disagreeable with NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO.

I didn't mention the WTO. I don't think its strange to support free trade while hating the WTO. NAFTA is more or less an agreement between NAFTA countries to not place tariffs on the other NAFTA country's goods--to trade freely. Without NAFTA, there would be nothing to stop Mexico from tariffing US goods regardless of whether Paul would respond in kind. I've seen interviews where Paul talks about NAFTA. He doesn't like it because it's a treaty. I find that bizarre.

As far as isolationism is concerned, when a close ally like Britain begs for help in necessary situation X, and Paul responds "sorry, we don't intervene," as he would, what are we doing if not isolating ourselves?

Alan Greenspan was head of the Fed, not an academic economist.

While I agree that tying finances to Gold doesn't seem to make any more sense than tying finances to Hydrogen, I'm not sure I understand your point. The opinion of an "academic" economist would seem to have less clout than someone who ran the federal reserve and did so(relatively) well.

Regarding Friedman, the question asked was to "name one well-respected economist who supports gold standard" (not one macroeconomist). If Friedman's microeconomic anarcho-capitalist theories (and supposed lack of macroeconomic writing) are disqualifiers, then I'll just cite Rothbard and the Austrians. If that's too ancient, wikipedia tells me Robert Barro of Harvard is a Gold bug.

Posted by Shinyk | December 15, 2007 7:04 PM

About gold standard: it is like a driver concluding, after several accidents, that the chief error was in keeping hands on the steering wheel.

The world econonomy and the supply of gold are both expanding but in a very uncoordinated fashion. The good old days of gold standard had economic depressions on regular basis. Now, the control of the currency in USA could probably be better, but I do not see grave errors, as opposed to regulatory errors that facilitated issuing trillions of dollars of shoddy mortgage-backed securities peddled as AAA bonds. And there is no single rule for good regulations, like there is no single rule for correct oontrol of a car by its driver.

Ron Paul is a hybrid, part orthodox Libertarian, which means, truly insane but in a principled way, part a homophobic anti-choice racist which makes him electable for a Congress seat in a conservative constituency.

Like Marxists, Libertarians make some valid points (although hardly ever the same as Marxists). Thus, intelectually, it is worthwhile to be familiar with their views and arguments. But to elect one for President? I mean, a Marxist or a Libertarian?

Posted by piotr | December 15, 2007 7:34 PM

Christopher, I can't talk for anyone but myself, but I support decriminalizing most drugs,

Most drugs? So you support limiting my choice to ingest some drugs? Why do you respect a woman's right to choose what she does with her uterus, but don't respect my right to choose what I do with my mouth and the rest of my body?

amd as for selling organs, right now at least you can sell blood plasma, sperm, and eggs. I'm not sure what else you want people to be able to sell.

Their hearts, livers, kidneys, whatever they choose. Right now, you can't sell them, you can only donate them. Note that, in most cases, if organ selling were legal, what you would be selling is the right to your organ after your death. (Although kidneys and portions of the liver can also be transplanted from living donors.)

According to Becker

"There were about 50,000 persons on the waiting list for kidney transplants in the United States in the year 2000, but only about 15,000 kidney transplant operations were performed. This implies an average wait of almost four years before a person on the waiting list could receive a kidney transplant. The cumulative gap between demand and supply for livers was over 10,000, which implies an average wait for a liver transplant of a couple of years.

In 2000, almost 3000 persons died while waiting for a kidney transplant, and half that number died while waiting for a liver transplant."

If people were allowed to sell their organs, I believe the supply of organ donors would increase dramatically, and many those people who died would've had much longer lives.

As for abolishing the FDA, do you seriously think that would be a good idea?

Yes, of course. See the this page for the theory of harm.

Here's the bottom line:

"The delay and large reduction in the total number of new drugs has had terrible consequences. It is difficult to estimate how many lives the post-1962 FDA controls have cost, but the number is likely to be substantial; Gieringer (1985) estimates the loss of life from delay alone to be in the hundreds of thousands (not to mention millions of patients who endured unnecessary morbidity). "

But even if the FDA saved more net lives than it cost, it's _my body_. If I want to take some quack medicine, it's no business of yours, just as it's no business of yours if a woman decides to have an abortion.

Let me ask you this though, you say you support the right to an abortion, but you then go on to compare fetuses and blastocysts to Jews and black people. Why do you support it if you think they actually are comparable?

Because I _don't_ think they're comparable. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy, I think the fetus has an undeveloped brain, and therefore, has no more moral value than any piece of tissue.

However, I also don't think that a woman should have the right to kill her baby immediately after it's born either. Do you? What about 5 minutes before birth? If yes, what's the moral difference?

So where do we draw the line? I can see how people of good will could make the case for anywhere between conception and birth. Since there's no national consensus on the issue, I think that the issue should be left up to the individual states to decide, which is what Paul believes as well.

My point in making the comparison between fetuses and Jews/women/blacks is that we should be humble. I think abortion should be legal, but I could be wrong. So rather than impose my own preferences on everyone nationwide, I would like to see a variety of legal regimes on this issue. If I'm wrong, then at least in some states, the fetuses would survive.

Note too that I think that Roe v. Wade was very harmful to civil liberties in the U.S. for two reasons. First, it spurred many evangelicals to get into national politics. After all, if state abortion laws can be overridden by the Feds, then the only way they could ban abortion was to get Supreme Court justices appointed who are sympathetic to them. That means they had to control the Presidency and Congress.

Therefore, evangelicals were instrumental in electing social conservatives to both Congress and the presidency. Would Bush have been elected without their help? I don't think so. And I think Bush has been terrible for civil liberties in the U.S.

Second, Roe further strengthened the Fed's power to override state law. That's great when you're in power (as the liberals were at the time of Roe v. Wade), but what happens when you're not? Had Bush not fucked up the Iraq war so bad, and had Congress been as fiscally responsible as they had promised, a pro-life Republican might well have followed Bush, and appointed more pro-life justices. Consequently, we're in very real danger of losing abortion rights altogether at some point.

If abortion law were decided at the state level, at least you could get one relatively easily by going to another state.

But when it's decided at the national level, where are you gonna go when it's banned?

Posted by Christopher Rasch | December 15, 2007 7:37 PM

Socialism Sucks !!!

Power Given Away Expecting Righteousness Never Serves Its Purpose. To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish. Government Does Nothing Well. Unintended Consequences Abound When Morals Are Forced And The Detriments Are Exponential. Consolidation Of Power Allows For Powerful Corruption.

The American Experiment Is Not Intended To Be Socialist.

Ron Paul is the only candidate I would trust with my money and my family's safety. Core Character Counts.

Those who rely on others opinions for their judgment are easily led.

America Will Not Survive Its Current Warfare/Welfare Path. All Historical Empires Have Ceased To Be By The Same Collapse.

When We Are Sold To Our Enemies, Where Is The Safety Net Then.

Do Not Use Only Emotion For Your Decision Making.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

Posted by Brad | December 15, 2007 7:47 PM

Rothbard is not well-respected. The Austrians are respected as historical figures, but not as contemporaries. Barro _is_ well-respected, and a macroeconomist to boot, so he's your man. I'd look for a more authoritative source than Wikipedia, though.

Posted by Walt | December 15, 2007 7:56 PM

Ah, Brad, such a short post, such rich pickings.

To be brief, I put together these two:

"Unintended Consequences Abound When Morals Are Forced..." "I Vote For Virtue"

For a more extensive discussion, I select this one:

"All Historical Emprires Have Ceased To Be By The Same Collapse".

So what is the "The Same Collapse" that affected Hittites, Mitanni, Egypt, Angkor and Teotihuacan?

Posted by piotr | December 15, 2007 7:59 PM

Ron Paul died for your sins

Posted by Ron Paul | December 15, 2007 8:04 PM

This is directed to the comments suggesting that Dr. Paul is anti-choice ... this could not be further from the truth. He is all about upholding the freedom of choice (the good, the bad, and the ugly) for individual Americans. Even with regards to his pro-life stance - his constitutional loyalty causes him to push for this matter to be decided at the state level. The harsh rhetoric from the pro-choice spokesperson(s) on this site is a complete turnoff ... you belittle someone who disagrees with your stance. Dr. Paul happens to be in favor of upholding the rights of the unborn ... you don't agree with that - but to place the mother's rights above the child's and then to sit self-righteously call names to someone who doesn't agree speaks very poorly for your cause. If abortion is your do-or-die issue, that is your right... but consider tolerating different viewpoints and looking beyone this one issue. Does integrity in a politician matter? Does plain-speak matter? Those are things to be admired and in a free country like ours, lets be civil with our disagreements.

Posted by shannon | December 15, 2007 8:13 PM

George Bush has presided over a much-diminished version of that coalition -- a political bloc that left little margin for error. And then he proceeded to presided over a great deal of error -- massive, enormous errors --

one of the better sentences on this blog

Posted by yoyo | December 15, 2007 8:29 PM

Just a comment on the Ron Paul versus Mike Huckabee argument. I have totally different reactions to the two of them, mainly because of their attitudes towards party politics.

Whatever his religious affiliation, Huckabee is nothing more than a partisan hack. His release of Dumond was proof of that. "Democrats is evil, therefore Dumond is innocent." Paul may be a curmudgeon, but no other candidate in either field has articulated his concerns so consistently and articulately. Even his opposition to abortion seems honest to me, while most of his fellow Republicans hardly seem to know what abortion is and are simply pandering to their base.

If people think that they can dismiss Paul simply because he advocates a return to the gold standard, keep in mind that Hilary Clinton is in favour of nuking Iran and John Edwards supports garnishing your wages for mandatory insurance policies. Neither of those policies is any less insane than what Paul has proposed.

Of all of the candidates, Paul comes across as immensely more likeable (to me) simply because he seems to realize that being President wouldn't mean he'd get everything he wants. The President is Constitutionally required to accept Congressional oversight and Paul seems resigned to the fact that many of his ideas would never pass Congress. After years of watching the White House try to get everything it wants by hook or by crook, this is a refreshing change of pace. It's also not something I see in Huckabee.

Posted by Splitting Image | December 15, 2007 8:57 PM

Christopher:

"If abortion law were decided at the state level, at least you could get one relatively easily by going to another state."

Does your worldview account foor the very poor, who don't find it easy to travel to another state?

Personally I'm against late term abortions unless the health of the mother is seriously threatened, but my position isn't at issue here. We were talking about Ron Paul's position, which a supporter of his claimed was that he didn't want the federal government getting involved in the debate. That's not true, he is against abortion and is willing to use the federal government to curb its use.

You say the FDA is responsible for thousands of lives lost because of delays in approval for drugs, but instead of arguing for a better, more efficient way to make sure what the drug companies are selling us are safe, you just want it abolished altogether. You think the market will just magically keep the drug and food supply safe? Before the FDA existed there were all kinds of downright dangerous drugs on the market, with inaccurate ingredients labels and extremely toxicchemicals used. There's a very good reason it was implemented in the first place.

I say I'd be for decriminalizing most rather than all drugs because there are some drugs out there that can cause dangerous psychosis in the person taking them, making it a more public concern.

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 9:12 PM

"NAFTA is more or less an agreement between NAFTA countries to not place tariffs on the other NAFTA country's goods--to trade freely. Without NAFTA, there would be nothing to stop Mexico from tariffing US goods regardless of whether Paul would respond in kind."

This is not wholly accurate. The agreement has provisions for selective tariffs. In addition the agreement allows for collection of information from competitive businesses and other suspect statements to a free market ideology.

The agreement enforces that businesses surrender certain protections by nature of sovereignty. Under this agreement the roads MUST be opened to foreign transporters. It is one small step towards losing control of American protection for American interests i.e. sovereignty under the guise of "well we are just trying to be fair".

Under this idea would it not also be unfair to forward benefits to non-citizens or open business schools and other american universities to non citizens to promote a leveler playing field?

In a truly free market open trade policy as Paul champions there is no need for these agreements, it renders them utterly useless anyway. Paul would not use tariffs no matter what the other guy was doing because he understands that is not what drives trade imbalances. What this type of policy wouldn't do is provide enforcements that can lead to an undermining of US sovereignty which NAFTA does do. THAT is what Paul is concerned about my dear friend.

You have to read between the lines.

In response to another comment.

Can you name a well respected economist--say, someone tenured at a major US university--who favors Paul's idea of returning to the gold standard?

Just go to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and it is chock full of economists who propose a gold standard. They all have a ton of degrees and published articles which doesn't really mean much anyways. You can find historical examples to see the workability of a standard. Guess what? we used to have hard currency. Guess why we were taken off the standard? We were taken off the standard to print money to finance wars. This started during the Civil War but we were put back on a standard afterwards. We were completely taken off the standard around the time of the genesis of the central bank. Hmmm.... maybe a littly fishy.

You also have to understand what fiat money does in the banking industry. Banks operate on a fractional lending practice. That means they can lend ten times what they have in deposits. When you have a fiat money system that is not backed by anything it creates this banking-credit monster. That benefits banks but pushes debt to the American public. It is by no mistake that we are in such debt now.

By the way Paul doesn't promote a gold standard. He proposes competing currencies.

Posted by bgodley | December 15, 2007 9:40 PM

On thing I also forgot to mention is that NAFTA requires that the US citizens and the judiciary acknowledge the legal practice of foreign lawyers. Just another point of NAFTA which doesn't have anything to do with tariffs or trade. It is a first step in meshing our legal systems.

Posted by bgodley | December 15, 2007 10:17 PM

As an Martian who stumbled onto this site knowing nothing of Earth Politics, I note that the Paul-supporters are arguing for his candidacy based on the merits of his positions (and character) while the Paul-opponents are doing precisely the opposite; resorting to name-calling, appeals to authority, and so on.

What this means I do not know, I am only here to mine your precious tungsten.

Posted by Klaatu | December 15, 2007 11:01 PM

What do you call the repeated invocations of Greenspan as holding views similar to Paul, Klaatu?

Posted by Walt | December 15, 2007 11:34 PM

@Klatuu: Ixnay on the ungstenay plotnay! You want to give the whole thing away!?!?

Posted by DaveA | December 15, 2007 11:38 PM

"What do you call the repeated invocations of Greenspan as holding views similar to Paul"

Posters here wanted an example of a "respected" economist who didn't go apesh*t at the mention of the gold standard. Example provided.

Frankly, why this is such a crazy concept eludes me. There was a recent kerfuffle abut Middle Eastern counties, including our best buddy, Saudi Arabia, considering pegging the dinar against a basket of commodities instead of the dollar. Which only points out that the dollar effectively acts a "gold" for the rest of the world, ie a reserve currency. Which in turn is why we are up crap creek right now.

Posted by DaveA | December 16, 2007 12:36 AM

Matt: "...and neither man is someone who shares my values in any serious way."

Well, I guess that boosts Paul's validity, if not Huckabee's.

Klaatu's got it right.

Like Matt has any clue what would make a good President (if there could even be such a thing, which is doubtful.) Matt probably thinks Clinton (the original,not the cross-gender clone) qualifies...Sheesh.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 16, 2007 2:54 AM

Nobody cares about the gold standard. Ron Paul is popular because of his anti-war (and anti-WOT in general) rhetoric. Nobody cares about the rest of his views.

Yeah, and as the war issue is beginning to fade, he'll be getting less and less traction. Unless, of course, something happens - a bunch of US soldiers are killed, another war started.

Posted by abb1 | December 16, 2007 4:58 AM

a couple of things i'd like to clear up.

regarding the choice issue.

Paul voted to ban partial birth abortion because(in his view) once it's out of the womb and viable, killing it is murder. Agree or disagree that's his position.

He voted the "life starts at conception" not to outlaw abortion, but to make it a state issue. Roe v Wade is based on a "right to privacy" ruling, if life starts at conception it is a state crime(as all forms of manslaughter are), the state then can decide if its punishable, and what the punishable terms are.

So it's an end-around to Roe v Wade, not a federal ban on abortion. States rule on murder and manslaughter, not the fed.

Posted by chris matthews | December 16, 2007 6:10 AM

as to "Nobody cares about the rest of his views", if he were pro-war, he'd have a lot easier time getting votes. He's the only unblemished classical conservative in the race. Don't kid yourself.

Posted by chris matthews | December 16, 2007 6:12 AM

Speaking as a left-liberal who would never vote for a Republican, I do think there is a positive effect the Ron Paul candidacy, which is that it can create a Republican constiuency for non-interventionism & civil liberties. I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul, but I will cheer him on.

Posted by Peter H | December 16, 2007 8:36 AM

" . . . starts at conception it is a state crime(as all forms of manslaughter are), the state then can decide if its punishable, and what the punishable terms are."

I see. So Ron Paul believes all abortion should be criminalized, but the punishment should be left to the states. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Joel | December 16, 2007 8:38 AM

A couple of quotes kind of sum up my feelings about this thread:

Gandhi (paraphrased): "I do not like your Christians, but I like your Christ."
Bumper sticker: "Jesus, save me from your followers!"

The reason for the anti-Paul namecalling is that the Paul-bots are so fucking annoying that they make supporting Ron Paul a less attractive idea. They spout libertarian theory that has never been tried and statist theory that has been tried unsuccessfully (gold standard) as fact. It's not much different than arguing with someone who believes that dinosaur bones are god testing our faith.

Posted by Reality Man | December 16, 2007 8:59 AM

This may be tactically correct. It strikes me that Huckabee and Paul are, in their own ways, much more like George W. Bush than any of the other candidates. They are faith-based candidates who profess positions based upon their surface appeal and truthiness, and who generally dismiss both evidence and expertise as irrelevancies.

Like or dislike Paul's positions, he can argue articulately for why he thinks they are correct. He responds to arguments rather than just dismissing them, so I have no idea why you would think he dismisses evidence. As for truthiness, Paul passionately believes that his positions are the correct ones. He may be wrong, but he is not arguing disingenuously (which is what "truthiness" implies).

Moreover, he is one of the few candidates who distinguishes between "the policies I would like" and "what I actually think I can implement." His position about not trying to dismantle the welfare state until he has dismantled the empire shows a willingness to acknowledge reality that George W. Bush sorely lacks.

Posted by Glaivester | December 16, 2007 8:59 AM

Paul's isolationism, if you think about it, is any many ways accepts the framework of the Kagans. The Kagans see engaging the world as constant neo-Trotskyite warfare. Paul accepts the framework as rejecting engaging the world as equal to engaging in empire.

Posted by Reality Man | December 16, 2007 9:08 AM

Ron Paul, February 15, 2006:

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

This is, by my lights, tinfoil hat territory. Here's one rebuttal:

What is gold, after all? Strictly speaking, it’s a commodity, like oil, steel, or lead, albeit not an especially useful one. There’s a steady but small demand for gold as an industrial product—for consumer electronics, computers, and dental work—and as jewelry, particularly in India, which now buys twenty per cent of the world’s annual gold output. And there’s a steady supply. Since 1970, world production has nearly doubled, thanks to mining companies that tear up mountainsides every year in search of it.

Yet the price of gold has little to do with these two variables. To true believers—known as “gold bugs”—the idea that gold is a commodity is rank heresy. They prefer to think of gold as the planet’s most reliable currency, a stable, ineradicable source of wealth, whose value will endure no matter what comes to pass.

It’s hard to square this faith with what has happened to the price of gold in the past two decades. It has been a terrible investment. Even with the recent surge, it’s up zero per cent since 1988, while the S. & P. 500 has almost quadrupled. Gold’s buying power has plummeted, too. In 1980, ten ounces of gold would have bought you a nice car. Today, it would get you a nice bike.
[ . . .]
The idea of gold as a platonic currency, universally valuable across time and space, reflects a basic distrust of markets, a fear that in a world of paper money wealth is just an illusion. For gold bugs, paper money turns us all into Wile E. Coyote—we’re running on air, and we’ll plummet once we look down and realize there’s nothing holding us up. The gold bug’s apocalyptic mentality maintains that someday the global economy will look down and the result will be chaos. Gold is the only thing that will still be valuable after the bottom drops out.

Yet gold is valuable only as long as we collectively agree that it is. It may be soft, shiny, durable, and rare, but it has no more intrinsic value than feldspar or quartz. Just because it has a long history of being used as money doesn’t mean that it has a future. In the end, our trust in gold is no different from our trust in a piece of paper with “one dollar” written on it. The value of a currency is, ultimately, what someone will give you for it—whether in food, fuel, assets, or labor. And that’s always and everywhere a subjective decision. Gold or not, we’re always just running on air. You can’t be rich unless everyone else agrees that you’re rich.

Posted by southpaw | December 16, 2007 9:33 AM

So Ron Paul believes all abortion should be criminalized, but the punishment should be left to the states.

But so does every Republican president starting with Reagan and every Republican presidential candidate now - or so they say. This is nothing extraordinary.

Posted by abb1 | December 16, 2007 10:06 AM

"This is nothing extraordinary."

Exactly my point. Paul is basically a Republican on drugs.

Posted by Joel | December 16, 2007 10:39 AM

But so does every Republican president starting with Reagan and every Republican presidential candidate now - or so they say.

And the correct term for these people is anti-choice.

Posted by David | December 16, 2007 1:38 PM

Nobody believes in the choice to commit murder, the distinction here is whether you believe the unborn are people with moral rights, and at what point.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 16, 2007 2:07 PM

Well, wasn't Joe Lieberman one of those 100% NARAL-types?

Given how overwhelmingly important the abortion issue seems to several of the commenters on this thread, I assume we must have a lot of really enthusiastic Lieberman supporters here...

Posted by RKU | December 16, 2007 2:15 PM

"Given how overwhelmingly important the abortion issue seems to several of the commenters on this thread, I assume we must have a lot of really enthusiastic Lieberman supporters here..."

Don't confuse discussion of a subject with it being overwhelmingly important.

Posted by mad6798j | December 16, 2007 10:41 PM

The Ron Paul Brigade is out in force.

Even overlooking the whole abortion issue, if you're interested at all in, say, environmental protection or consumer protection, Ron Paul would be a nightmare as President. That he's not a neocon is nice but is hardly itself a sufficient basis for support amongst liberal/progressive voters given everything else.

Posted by Answer Guy | December 17, 2007 10:55 AM

Comparing Ron Paul to other Republican candidates is absurd. Paul is running on the most far-reaching peace and civil liberties ideas of any major party candidate since WWII. He has had more success in mainstreaming this message than any political figure for decades.

Either you think peace and civil liberties are central, important issues or you don't. If you do, then you will cheer Dr. Paul on and agree to disagree on other issues. If you don't, then you will shrug him off as another right-wing nut.

Apparently a lot of liberals really don't care too much about peace and civil liberties, and would prefer to focus on, ummm, consumer protection regulation or some such. I'm in favor of consumer regulation too, but come on.

Posted by mq | December 17, 2007 2:13 PM

Huckabee's surge is promising because it suggests that the God wing of the God and Mammon coalition is entertaining a less plutocratic vision of America's future. They've been so absorbed in voting against "baby-killer" Democrats that they haven't stopped to consider how the Mammon wing of the Republican party has been robbing them.

It will be especially interesting to watch the dynamic between R-money and the Huckster. Perfect exemplars of the Mammon and God wings respectively.

Posted by STS | December 17, 2007 2:17 PM

The agreement enforces that businesses surrender certain protections by nature of sovereignty. Under this agreement the roads MUST be opened to foreign transporters. It is one small step towards losing control of American protection for American interests i.e. sovereignty under the guise of "well we are just trying to be fair".

All treaties involve the ceding of national sovereignty while the State in question abides by them. As I said, Paul opposes NAFTA because it's a treaty. Look, I'm not even certain I want a CDC, DHS or even a Postal Service, but opposing all treaties in concept is way too far out there for me.

I'm an undecided, registered-Republican primary voter that leans very libertarian (i.e. a potential Paul voter), but bullshitting me about Paul's opposition to NAFTA isn't going to help your man's case.

In a truly free market open trade policy as Paul champions there is no need for these agreements, it renders them utterly useless anyway.

I hope this is your belief and not Paul's, because that position is in utopian territory. There is nothing worse for the US than a utopian President (see Bush, George W and Wilson, Woodrow).

Posted by Shinyk | December 17, 2007 5:36 PM

How many Dem liberals have you supported? I mean really supported? It's amusing to read the anti-Paul posts here. These same individuals have sat on their ass typing instead of doing anything for a liberal. How much money have you given? Handed out lit? Created a meetup group? Anything? Pathetic. Ron Paul 2008

Posted by Dave | December 18, 2007 7:43 AM