The Revenge of Ron Paul’s Army


Dana Goldstein has a nice piece in the Daily Beast today talking about the Ron Paul supporters and what a good many of them are up to now:

“Ever wonder what happened to Ron Paul’s grassroots supporters? They’re crashing town-hall meetings—often armed—and heating things up as Congress enters its last week of recess.”

It’s been a year-and-a-half since Ron Paul ended his fringe campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination, and of all the GOP candidates, including the eventual winner, Paul’s influence among his supporters seems to have grown.  Ron Paul supporters have been in the forefront of health care opposition, sometimes showing up at town hall meetings – armed.

“One of Paul’s main arguments from the campaign, that much social spending is unconstitutional, has become a rallying cry of the Republican base… In part, Paul’s anti-federal ideology has gained traction because conservatives are incensed by President Obama’s ambitious—and expensive—domestic agenda, from health reform to the federal stimulus to bank bailouts. And in part, it’s because libertarian thinking is easier for mainstream Republicans to embrace on healthcare than it is on doing away with the Federal Reserve or ending American imperialism.”

Neither Paul’s congressional office or his nonprofit, The Campaign for Liberty have any direct contact with the armed protesters, and they seem to have no organization behind them other then their own loose-knit network.

“Some of Paul’s grassroots supporters have protested, armed, at health-care town-hall meetings. They are connected in a loose-knit, nationwide network of activists who believe the current federal government is largely illegitimate and unconstitutional. Some have ties to the “birther” movement, which believes—disregarding all evidence—that President Obama is not a natural-born American citizen.”

That sounds just a touch fringie, especially part about the current federal government being unconstitutional.  I am also aware that many Ron Paul supporters claim to be atheists.  Personally, as a non-believer, I have a hard time understanding how a fellow non-believer could follow and/or support a candidate who is quoted as saying the following:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”

There are so many things factually wrong with that paragraph that it might merit it’s own post.  Suffice to say that there is very little difference between Ron Paul and other right-wing Christian Dominionists who would like to establish a Christian nation.  If Obama had ever said anything approaching Paul’s statement, I would not have supported him.  The only conclusion I can draw from my fellow atheists support of Ron Paul is that they think the system needs to be overthrown, and they aren’t particularly choosy about what replaces it, even if it’s Christian fascism.

To continue with the article:

“As he did on the campaign trail, Paul argues that inflation is the chief cause of rising health-care costs, and that the solution is tort reform and cutting taxes.”

What?  Inflation is the cause of rising costs?  With 50 million without health insurance, more being dropped every day, premiums increasing a four times the rate of inflation, how is tort reform and tax cuts going to help?  Those are Paul’s answers to the health care crisis, tort reform and tax cuts, one wonders if he or his supporters even think there is a problem at all.  That raises the question, why are they out there, and why are some of them armed?  If not health care reform, what is it that they are really after?

Personally, I think they have all watched Zeitgeist too many times!


4 responses to “The Revenge of Ron Paul’s Army

  1. Everything on the planet and in the universe evolves. It is a cause and effect process that is an objective manifestation that is independent of subjective notions of what should and shouldn’t be.
    Political and social change is not the result of secret conspiracies by large national and international organizations.
    All change is something that occurs because at a particular point in time, due to objective circumstances, situations and conditions, it becomes imperative and necesary that a particular change takes place, a change that is the only possible thing that can happen, because all other options had been exausted.
    The “Global Economy” and the “New World Order,” evolved, … and is something that was predictable and was not the result of a world wide secret conspiracy of international bankers and liberal politicians. It evolved because the capitalist system could evolve in no other way.
    “Capitalism” has outgrown Nationalism” and the only possible direction that the system of capitalism can move toward so that it could continue to grow, … is toward the system of “Globalism!”

  2. Don’t have much time right now but – Christian fascism? Like hyperbole much? Give me a break.
    Hey, don’t you have a problem with such extreme hyperbole being directed against your statist friends?
    I may not agree with Dr. Pauls religious views but to call a rather consistent libertarian like Paul a fascist is plain nuts. And I think ending the death and misery of US imperialism abroad, the terrible war against drugs, and state supported crony corporatism is much more important than an overly Borkian view on the original intent of the framers regarding the “wall of separation” (which, by the way, is NOT a phrase used in the Constitution).

  3. “Extremism” is looked upon as extreme only because it is not popular. What is regarded as “GOOO” or “BAD” is regarded so because of the specific conditions that exist at a particular point in time, and where your particular interests is in relation to the interest that you are competing against.
    Those that cannot see beyond our early beginnings and understand what progress has transpired through the continuous common struggle of opposing interests, are blind as to what is a forward movement and what is a backward movement in the history of struggle to make a more perfect union.

  4. Just one libertarian take on health care in the US.
    Despite the oh so clever jab about ‘Zeitgeist”, there is a rich body of classical liberal and libertarian thought on economics that relates directly or indirectly to the sorry state of health care, not the least of which can be found at the Ludwig von Mises institutes website,
    I also suggest the rather good journal “the Independent Review”, available at Books A Million.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s